Dual-camera, high-resolution aerial assessment of pipeline revegetation

Abstract

Energy-extraction results in significant disturbance to rangelands in Wyoming and other western US states. Although reclamation is required by law, US General Accounting Office reports from 1999 and 2005 are clear that affected government agencies have--over much of the past decade--had difficulty accomplishing mandated environmental monitoring of extraction-related disturbance. We evaluated two pipeline rights of way (ROW) using nested images (1- or 2- with 13- or 20-mm ground sample distance (GSD)) acquired during Very-Large Scale Aerial (VLSA) surveys. Aerial monitoring allowed for the collection of large numbers of geocoded samples, and for subsequent cover measurements using methods with demonstrated accuracy equal to that of conventional ground-based methods. Both pipelines had vegetative-cover deficiencies relative to their Plan of Development (POD) requirements. Using bare ground and ground-cover measurements from the higher-resolution imagery, we present a spatial representation of each pipeline ROW that allows quick identification of sections of the ROW that may need further reclamation action to meet POD standards. We also present aerial monitoring costs. We recommend VLSA pipeline surveys as a means for facilitating required environmental monitoring and for addressing the monitoring backlog that has developed with increased energy-extraction activity.

Full text

Environ Monit Assess
DOI 10.1007/s10661-008-0562-5
Dual-camera, high-resolution aerial assessment
of pipeline revegetation
D. Terrance Booth ·Samuel E. Cox
Received: 23 April 2008 / Accepted: 11 September 2008
© US Government 2008
Abstract Energy-extraction results in significant
disturbance to rangelands in Wyoming and other
western US states. Although reclamation is re-
quired by law, US General Accounting Office
reports from 1999 and 2005 are clear that affected
government agencies have—over much of the
past decade—had difficulty accomplishing man-
dated environmental monitoring of extraction-
related disturbance. We evaluated two pipeline
rights of way (ROW) using nested images (1-
or 2- with 13- or 20-mm ground sample distance
(GSD)) acquired during Very-Large Scale Aer-
ial (VLSA) surveys. Aerial monitoring allowed
for the collection of large numbers of geocoded
samples, and for subsequent cover measurements
using methods with demonstrated accuracy equal
to that of conventional ground-based methods.
Both pipelines had vegetative-cover deficiencies
relative to their Plan of Development (POD) re-
quirements. Using bare ground and ground-cover
measurements from the higher-resolution im-
agery, we present a spatial representation of each
pipeline ROW that allows quick identification of
sections of the ROW that may need further recla-
mation action to meet POD standards. We also
D. T. Booth (B)·S. E. Cox
USDA-ARS, High Plains Grasslands Research
Station, 8408 Hildreth Road, Cheyenne,
WY 82009, USA
e-mail: terry.booth@ars.usda.gov
present aerial monitoring costs. We recommend
VLSA pipeline surveys as a means for facilitating
required environmental monitoring and for ad-
dressing the monitoring backlog that has devel-
oped with increased energy-extraction activity.
Keywords Aerial photography ·Aerial
monitoring costs ·Environmental monitoring ·
Ground-cover measurements ·Point sampling ·
Spatial data
Introduction
Energy extraction is a prominent use of public
lands in Wyoming and many western U.S. states.
In 2006, oil and gas operations on US Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) administered pub-
lic lands and federal mineral estate in Wyoming
produced 28.5 million barrels of oil and 525.4
trillion cubic feet of gas, generating $1 billion
in federal oil and gas royalties (BLM 2007). Ex-
traction and associated activities result in signif-
icant disturbance to the soil and vegetation of
affected lands. Although interim reclamation is
required in some instances and monitoring of dis-
turbances and land use was mandated by the 1968
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
other laws, there is evidence that manpower and
conventional monitoring technology have been in-
sufficient to allow effective ecological monitoring

Environ Monit Assess
of disturbances (GAO 1999,2005; Bisson 2007).
In 1999, a US General Accounting Office (GAO)
report noted that the Department of the Interior
(DOI) has the challenge of “. . . striking a balance
between its two basic mandates—accommodating
the demands for greater use and more consump-
tion of resources with the demands to protect and
conserve resources for the benefit of future gen-
erations.” The report observed that DOI agencies
often cannot identify the environmental impacts
of energy extraction; instead of fact-based deci-
sions, subjective judgments are used in assess-
ing how limited budgetary resources should be
spent protecting and preserving environmental
resources.
Between 1999 and 2004, drilling permits issued
by the BLM more than tripled. A 2005 GAO
report described BLM’s ability to meet its en-
vironmental mitigation responsibilities as being
substantially lessened as a result of increases in
drilling-permit workloads. Oil and gas-related re-
vegetation monitoring has followed conventional
ground-based methods (Alberta Environment
2004; Interagency Technical Team (ITT) 1996;
Vogel 1987), but these methods have a low data-
yield-to-cost ratio relative to remote sensing me-
thods (Um and Wright 1998). Satellite imagery is
available from a variety of sources, but is often
much more costly than aerial photography and
maximum resolution at present is 60 cm ground
sample distance (GSD) (Quickbird1), a resolution
too low to monitor anything but gross changes in
vegetative cover.
The need for cost-effective, statistically-
adequate monitoring allowing unbiased mea-
surements of key environmental indicators has
motivated more than 40 years of research in
high-resolution aerial monitoring. Aldrich et al.
(1959) introduced the Hulcher 70 mm camera
for monitoring natural resources. The Hulcher
allowed shutter speeds of 1/2,000 s and was the
preferred aerial camera for large-scale (1:600 to
1Throughout this paper the mention of trade names or
commercial products is for information only and does
not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
1:10,000) natural-resource assessments for more
than two decades. Booth (1974) introduced inter-
mittent aerial sampling while using the Hulcher
to obtain photographs at scales near 1:1,000 for
evaluating soil erosion in Nevada rangelands.
Abel and Stocking (1987)alsousedintermittent
aerial sampling (scale = 1:2,500, 35 mm camera)
from which they estimated sediment yield from
Botswana rangelands. The equipment and
methods for obtaining high-resolution aerial
photography from fixed-wing aircraft remained
more or less static from 1959 until Booth and Cox
(2006) used a Sport airplane (FAA 2004)anda
modified Hulcher 70 mm film camera to acquire
aerial photography with minimal motion blur at
scales near 1:200, with subsequent resolutions of
1-mm GSD using a digital camera equipped with
an image-stabilized telephoto lens (Booth and
Cox 2008).
Advances in digital photography have over-
come many of film’s shortcomings and allow
high-resolution aerial imaging to be a viable, eco-
nomical monitoring tool for pipeline-reclamation
and other natural-resource monitoring. Develop-
ment of methods for acquiring and analyzing dig-
ital aerial imagery with resolutions comparable to
what can be obtained on the ground offers the
potential for substantial increases in monitoring
efficacy, the creation of a permanent record of
conditions at a specified time and place, and re-
ductions in costs (Booth et al. 2005a,b,2006a,b,c;
Luscier et al. 2006). Here we assessed reclamation
success relative to right-of-way (ROW) permitting
requirements to evaluate the utility of reclamation
monitoring using very-large scale aerial (VLSA)
imagery (1 to 20-mm ground sample distance
(GSD)).
Methods
Image acquisition
VLSA surveys are designed to systematically
sample an area of interest by acquiring numer-
ous images at regular intervals over the sur-
vey area (Booth and Cox 2006). VLSA is a
sampling tool, not a mapping tool. We used

Environ Monit Assess
an externally-mounted dual-camera equipment
module consisting of two digital SLR cameras
(1Ds 11.1 megapixel with a 100 mm, f/2.8 lens;
1DsMarkII 16.7 megapixel with an 840 mm, image
stabilized, f/5.6 lens; Canon USA, Lake Success,
NY) set for 1/4,000 s shutter speed, a Trackair
navigation system (Trackair, Oldenzaal, Nether-
lands), an LD90-3100VHS-FLP laser rangefinder
used as an altimeter (Riegl, Orlando, FL), a
401036 light meter (Extech, Waltham, MA) and
a GPS16 WAAS-enabled GPS receiver (Garmin,
Olathe, KS). During the first year of the study
(2006), three laptop computers (Dell, Round
Rock, TX) were on board the aircraft to run the
navigation system and collect images sent over
firewire from the cameras. The following year
(2007) images were all saved to 16 GB compact
flash cards (SanDisk, Milpitas, CA), so only one
laptop was required on board to handle naviga-
tion. A 10-cm LCD screen located near the pi-
lot provided a graphic display of the flightlines
and targets, as planned using ArcGIS 9.0 (ESRI,
Redlands, CA). The cameras were automatically
fired by the navigation system and images and
location data were captured concurrently. Alti-
tude above ground level (AGL) and light intensity
values were collected by a custom logger that
simultaneously displayed the information for the
pilot on the LCD monitor (Robert Berryman
Consulting, Boulder, CO). Because of its capa-
bility for safe, slow flight (65–95 kph), we used a
Moyes–Bailey Dragonfly powered by a Rotax 4-
stroke, 115-horsepower turbocharged engine. The
two-seat aircraft has a 10.5-m wing span and a
US Federal Aviation Agency “Sport Airplane”
designation (FAA 2004). Images were saved as
RAW files on both cameras, later converted to
Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) images using
Canon Digital Photo Professional 2.0. Both cam-
eras were time-synchronized with the laptop prior
to every flight, such that all images and metadata
could be linked precisely by time. We used Merge
software (Robert Berryman Consulting) to match
images with GPS coordinates, altitude AGL, light
intensity and ground speed, the latter two being
predictors of image quality. We then used ArcGIS
9.0 (ESRI) to derive slope, aspect and elevation
for each image location.
Study sites
The Lost Creek pipeline
The Lost Creek pipeline is a 61-cm natural gas
header that runs 193 km across the Red Desert
in southern Wyoming (Fig. 1), mostly on public
land administered by the BLM, Lander and
Rawlins Field Offices. The pipeline was laid and
the 25-m wide ROW reseeded with 17 kg/ha
native grass/shrub seed mix in 2000. This study
focused specifically on a 32-km ROW segment
crossing the Arapahoe Use Area in the Green Mt
Common Allotment, south of Jeffrey City, WY
(42◦14N, 107◦54W). Most of the ROW falls
inside the 25–30 cm precipitation zone dominated
by Wyoming big sagebrush (Asteraceae Artemisia
tridentata Nutt. var. wyomingensis (Beetle and
A.L. Young) S.L. Welsh), with elevation of
2,020–2,190 m and average slope of 2.3◦.Anaerial
survey along the ROW was completed in June
2006, by acquiring 258 pairs of images from an av-
erage AGL of 150 m using the dual-camera VLSA
Fig. 1 Location of study sites relative to the rest of
Wyoming and the US

Environ Monit Assess
system. Each image pair consisted of one 13-mm
GSD image (36 ×54-m field of view (FOV)), and
a nested 1.3-mm GSD image (4 ×6-m FOV). Dis-
tances between aerial sample locations along the
Lost Creek pipeline ranged between 54 and 917 m
with an average separation of 140 m (±76 SD).
The survey was part of a larger aerial survey of
the area, and some images from the larger survey
were used as part of this study. Ferry distance
from landing strip to pipeline was ∼30 km.
The Howell pipeline
The Howell pipeline is a 41-cm CO2trunkline that
runs 188 km across central Wyoming, mostly on
public land administered by the Bureau of Land
Management Casper Field Office. The pipeline
was laid in 2003 and the 25-m wide ROW re-
seeded with 15 kg/ha native grass/shrub seed mix
in late 2004. This study focused specifically on a
35-km ROW segment crossing the Salt Creek wa-
tershed, north of Casper, WY (43◦23N, 106◦26
W). Most of the ROW falls inside the 30–36 cm
precipitation zone dominated by Wyoming Big
sagebrush, with elevation of 1,450–1,700 m and
average slope of 3.2◦. An aerial survey along the
ROW was completed in June 2007, by acquiring
152 pairs of images from an average AGL of 240 m
using the dual-camera VLSA system. This survey
was flown at 240-m AGL, rather than the 150-m
AGL altitude of the Lost Creek pipeline survey,
to increase the FOV of the images so that more
lower-resolution images would span the full width
of the disturbed area. Each image pair consisted
of one 21-mm GSD image (57 ×86-m FOV), and
one 2.1-mm GSD image (7 ×10-m FOV). Sample
separation distance ranged from 90 to 1,500 m and
averaged 293 m (±175 SD).The survey was part of
a larger aerial survey of the area, and some images
from the larger survey were used as part of this
study. Ferry distance from landing strip to pipeline
was ∼50 km.
Image analysis
For both pipelines, reclamation success is defined
in submitted Plans of Development (POD) by (1)
vegetative cover of at least 75% of adjacent land,
(2) species composition to include a high percent-
age of seeded species with natural invasion, (3)
the ability to withstand established grazing, (4)
the reproduction of reseeded plants is evident,
(5) planted woody species have >50% survival,
(6) noxious weeds are controlled and (7) vege-
tative cover mitigates visual impacts (Lost Creek
Gathering Company 2000; Howell Petroleum
Corporation 2003). No time limit exists to meet
reclamation goals.
We assessed reclamation success by measur-
ing vegetation cover by life form using Sample-
Point, a manual photo-interpretation software
program that facilitates point classification of im-
agery and has a demonstrated ground-cover mea-
surement accuracy of >90% using 1-mm GSD
imagery (Booth et al. 2006b). (Comparison mea-
surements of bare ground from 1 and 2-mm
GSD imagery suggest measurements from the
latter will be within ∼85% of those from the
1-mm GSD imagery (unpublished data).) For
each image, 100 points arranged in a systematic
grid were classified into one of the following
life form and ground-cover categories: INgrass,
INforb, INshrub, INlitter, INsoil, INrock, INun-
known, OUTgrass, OUTforb, OUTshrub, OUT-
litter, OUTsoil, OUTrock and OUTunknown,
where IN refers to the area inside the ROW
and OUT refers to undisturbed areas adjacent to
ROW. Wide field of view images (36 ×54 m)
covered both the ROW and adjacent areas, but
were discarded if less than 25 sample points fell in
either of these areas. Vegetation cover within and
adjacent to the ROW were thus simultaneously
measured from each image. Small field of view im-
ages (4 ×6and7×10 m) typically covered either
the ROW or adjacent area, but rarely both. Thus,
the small FOV images were divided into two
groups, such that vegetation cover was measured
within and adjacent to the ROW from sepa-
rate image sets, which were also thinned where
less than 25 sample points fell within the in-
tended sampling area. Since most small FOV im-
ages taken over the ROW hit only the ROW,
additional images from the larger aerial survey
that were adjacent to, but within 300 m of, the
ROW, were used for comparison. In images taken
over the ROW that also included areas outside
the ROW, classification points falling outside the

Environ Monit Assess
ROW were not utilized in ROW cover means (i.e.,
OUT points were not counted), and vice versa.
Since every large FOV image used for analy-
sis contained both IN and OUT ROW portions,
paired T-tests were used to compare every cover
class. Since small FOV images from IN and OUT
of the ROW were not aligned, standard T-tests
were used to compare cover means for the
Howell pipeline. Welch’s T-tests were used for
the Lost Creek pipeline IN and OUT compar-
isons because F-tests showed differences in sam-
ple variance for most cover categories. Where the
F-test was not significant, use of Welch’s T-test
did not change the reported P-value, so we used
Welch’s for consistency. All statistical results were
generated using Excel 2003 (Microsoft, Redmond,
WA) and Prism 3.0 (Graph Pad Software, San
Diego, CA). Comparing vegetative cover inside
to outside the ROW is a measure of reclama-
tion success defined by indicator 1 of the PODs.
Measurements of vegetation cover also addressed
indicators 3–7 since adequate cover is a measure
of the revegetation survival—and over the long
term, of reproduction—in the face of grazing and
other environmental stressors. Each image was
examined for weedy species (indicator 6) and
if detected, the cover measured. The ease with
which the ROW can be distinguished from adja-
cent land addresses visual impacts (indicator 7).
Evaluation of the utility of VLSA monitoring
for pipeline ROW monitoring
We compared cover measurements made from
the two image resolutions used for each pipeline
to each other (within pipelines) to determine
whether the measurements for that pipeline would
give the same result. Since sample sizes were un-
equal between small and large FOV data sets for
both study sites (Table 1), Welch’s T-tests, which
do not assume equal sample variance, were used
for comparisons. Costs for the aerial assessment
were tabulated and are reported.
Results and discussion
Image analysis
Lost Creek pipeline
Measured from the small FOV imagery, shrub
and forb cover were lower inside the Lost Creek
pipeline right-of-way (ROW) relative to the un-
disturbed, adjacent land (P<0.001), while grass
and litter cover were higher (P<0.001, Table 1).
Total vegetation cover was 22% inside the ROW
compared to 40% outside, or 55% of the adjacent
undisturbed land. Bare ground was 57% within
Table 1 SamplePoint vegetation cover measurement
means±standard deviation inside and adjacent to (within
300 m) the Lost Creek pipeline ROW, from both small
FOV imagery (4 ×6 m, 1.3-mm GSD) and large FOV
imagery (36 ×54 m, 13-mm GSD)
Small FOV T-test IN Large FOV (n= 219) T-test IN T-test FOV T-test FOV
Inside ROW Outside ROW vs OUTaInside ROW Outside ROW vs OUT comparison comparison
(n=213)(n=85)INaOUTa
Grass 17.3 ±14.2 7.8 ±10.2 <0.001 12.6 ±13.9 4.9 ±10.9 <0.001 <0.001 0.03
Forb 2.4 ±4.6 5.0 ±4.9 <0.001 0.2 ±1.2 0.3 ±3.5 0.17 <0.001 <0.0001
Shrub 1.8 ±4.6 26.8 ±11.7 <0.001 2.8 ±3.8 40.0 ±14.3 <0.001 0.01 <0.0001
Litter 21.2 ±9.8 16.7 ±7.5 <0.001 24.5 ±11.2 14.4 ±6.2 <0.001 0.001 0.01
BG 56.5 ±17.4 37.9 ±13.3 <0.001 59.5 ±17.7 36.3 ±14.0 <0.001 0.08 0.4
Rock 0.9 ±1.9 2.2 ±6.3 0.07 0.7 ±1.4 4.2 ±6.2 <0.001 0.2 0.01
P-values are given for cover comparisons between areas inside and adjacent to the ROW for each image set. Paired T-tests
were used to compare cover values from the large FOV image set. P-values are also given for comparisons of cover measured
from small and large FOV images, both inside and outside the ROW
BG bare ground
aWelch’s correction was used due to unequal sample variance

Environ Monit Assess

Environ Monit Assess
the ROW—1.5 times that of the adjacent refer-
ence area (Table 1). The low vegetative cover
(7 years from seeding) raises the question of
whether the new plant community is sufficiently
resistant to grazing, drought and other environ-
mental stresses and whether it is reproducing at
sustainable levels. Clearly, visual impacts are still
present (Fig. 2). Weeds were not detected in the
images or by on-the-ground surveys (John Likens,
BLM, Lander; personal communication, October
2007) suggesting that weeds are not currently a
threat to successful reclamation although the large
amount of bare ground relative to the undisturbed
vegetation suggests the ROW is at risk for inva-
sion by weedy species.
Howell pipeline
Total vegetation cover (grass, forb and shrub),
as measured from the small FOV imagery, was
38% inside, and 51% adjacent to, the ROW (P<
0.05, Table 2), giving the Howell pipeline ROW
an overall mean vegetation cover that is 74% of
the undisturbed adjacent land after three grow-
ing seasons. A later assessment may be needed
to determine if reproduction of reseeded plants
is adequate. Visual impacts are present (Fig. 2),
and will likely remain until shrubs mature. Weeds
were not detected in the images, suggesting that
they are not currently a threat. Shrub establish-
ment on the Howell pipeline ROW, at 74% of
the undisturbed adjacent cover, has been much
more successful than on the Lost Creek ROW, at
only 7%.
Measuring reclamation success
Several sections of the Lost Creek ROW have
low bare ground (Fig. 3). We examined slope,
aspect, vegetation community and proximity to
drainages as possible factors influencing low bare
ground, but determined that none of these fac-
Fig. 2 VLSA survey images from aLost Creek pipeline
ROW and bHowell pipeline ROW. Both panels show the
full view from the wide FOV image, the outline of the
nested small FOV image (yellow) and an enlarged portion
of the small FOV image (red)
tors were common to all points in the sections.
Nevertheless, the ability to ask and answer such
questions is important and data displays like Fig. 3
are useful because they allow land managers to
readily assess land conditions at specific locations.
Single values, like the mean for vegetation cover
along the whole extent of a ROW, are an inad-
equate measure of reclamation success, and can
be misleading since much of a pipeline ROW may
fail to meet plan of development (POD) require-
ments. On a sample by sample basis, only 14%
of the sampled area in the Lost Creek pipeline
ROW, and only 28% of the sampled area in the
Howell pipeline ROW have bare ground values
equal to or less than values for the adjacent
land. Similarly, only 20% of the Lost Creek sam-
pled area, and only 40% of the Howell sam-
pled area has total vegetation cover equal to or
greater than 75% of the vegetation cover of the
adjacent land. Sample images are a permanent
record of conditions at a specific time and place.
When compared with succeeding assessments,
they allow for a robust determination of vegeta-
tion trend and on-the-ground success or the lack
thereof.
The importance of image resolution
and the utility of VLSA imagery for spatial
monitoring of ROW revegetation
Point sampling is based on the assumption that
a point is infinitely small—without area (Cook
and Stubbendieck 1986, page 59)—and we have
previously discussed the importance of image
resolution in obtaining accurate ground-cover
measurements from images (Booth et al. 2005b,
2006b). Regardless of this theoretical basis, we are
often asked if 1-mm GSD imagery is necessary
for accurate ground-cover measurements. If 1-mm
GSD imagery is not needed, then we would ex-
pect no differences between paired ground-cover
measurements from 1- and 2-mm (small FOV)
versus 13- and 20-mm GSD (large FOV) imagery.
For the Lost Creek pipeline, bare ground values
from small and large FOV images were not dif-
ferent, for both inside and outside the ROW (P>
0.05). Rock cover values from both large and small
FOV images from inside the ROW also were not
different (P= 0.2), although rock values from

Environ Monit Assess
Table 2 SamplePoint vegetation cover measurement
means±standard deviation inside and adjacent to (within
300 m) the Howell pipeline ROW, from both small FOV
imagery (7 ×10 m, 2.1-mm GSD) and large FOV imagery
(57 ×86 m, 21-mm GSD)
Small FOV (n= 67) T-test IN Large FOV (n= 131) T-test IN T-test FOV T-test FOV
Inside Outside vs OUT Inside Outside vs OUT comparison comparison
ROW ROW ROW ROW INaOUTa
Grass 17.7 ±20.6 21.0 ±18.2 0.3 43.0 ±26.1 28.7 ±17.4 <0.001 <0.001 0.005
Forb 8.04 ±8.59 13.9 ±10.3 <0.001 1.4 ±3.2 2.7 ±4.7 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001
Shrub 12.1 ±12.2 16.4 ±12.0 0.04 10.0 ±10.1 25.1 ±12.7 <0.001 0.2 <0.001
Litter 8.9 ±8.2 6.4 ±6.2 0.04 2.4 ±4.2 2.9 ±4.7 0.2 <0.001
BG 53.1 ±23.8 40.9 ±24.9 0.004 43.2 ±21.8 40.0 ±20.3 0.05 0.005 0.8
Rock 0.2 ±0.5 0.2 ±0.6 0.79 0.1 ±0.4 0.4 ±0.9 <0.001 0.2 0.06
P-values are given for cover comparisons between areas inside and adjacent to the ROW for each image set. Paired T-tests
were used to compare cover values from the large FOV image set. P-values are also given for comparisons of cover measured
from small and large FOV images, both inside and outside the ROW
BG bare ground
aWelch’s correction was used due to unequal sample variance
both image resolutions outside the ROW were
different (P= 0.01). All other cover classes—that
is all vegetation classes—were different between
small versus large FOV images, both inside and
outside the ROW (P<0.03, Table 1).
For the Howell pipeline, bare ground was not
different between large and small FOV images
outside the ROW (P>0.05, Table 2), but was
different between large and small FOV images in-
side the ROW by about 10% (P<0.01, Table 2).
Rock cover means were not different between res-
olutions, either inside or outside the ROW (P>
0.05). Shrub cover measurements were not differ-
ent between image resolutions inside the ROW
(P= 0.2), but were different by 9% outside the
ROW (P<0.01). All other cover classes were
different between small versus large FOV images,
both inside and outside the ROW (P<0.01).
Taken together, the data show that there can be
significant disagreement between measurements
made from large FOV images (13 and 21-mm
GSD) and small FOV images (1 and 2-mm GSD).
Cover differences between the two image reso-
lutions were not consistent for any cover class,
and do not seem subject to a standard offset pre-
diction. For example, grass measurements from
large FOV compared to small FOV differed by
+25,+8, −3and −5. Such variance hinders accu-
rate compensation for inherent errors in cover
measurements made from lower resolution im-
agery. Given the significant differences in mea-
surement outcomes between the two FOVs, we
reject the null hypothesis and recommend the use
of small FOV, high resolution imagery (1 and 2-
mm GSD) for measuring vegetative cover. But,
we emphasize the value of the large FOV, lower
resolution imagery (13 and 21-mm GSD) in mea-
suring such things as disturbance width and area,
occurrence of invasive species, and for providing
an overview of the area to help put small FOV
images into context with their surroundings, or
to determine whether the small FOV image falls
inside the ROW.
Satellite images, small-scale aerial imagery and
videography, while useful to some extent for mon-
itoring, cannot provide the high resolution re-
quired to identify species (including weeds) or
allow accurate ground cover measurements. How-
ever, this shortcoming must be balanced against
the inability of VLSA imagery to acquire an un-
interrupted image of the ROW, such as is avail-
able with satellite and most small-scale imagery.
Data needs will determine the appropriate moni-
toring tool. To assure valid statistical comparison
of small FOV images IN and OUT of the ROW,
we recommend aerial acquisition directly over the
ROW, and a second acquisition flight targeted for
30 m adjacent to the ROW. We found no partic-

Environ Monit Assess
Fig. 3 Cover values for bare ground, shrub, grass, forb,
litter, rock and total vegetation (shrub, forb and grass) as
a percentage of adjacent, undisturbed land cover values,
measured from small field of view (∼5×8 m) aerial images
and plotted to scale, provide a quick and comprehensive
view of reclamation progress along two ∼35 km stretches
of pipeline rights of way in central Wyoming. Cover breaks
indicate areas that meet or do not meet the vegetative
cover requirements established by the Plans of Develop-
ment. Skips in the Howell pipeline sequence are the result
of technical problems encountered during that survey
ular advantage to acquiring more images that in-
cluded the full width of the Howell pipeline ROW
and recommend the lower flight altitude for future
surveys.
Costs
Although the total in Table 3suggests a survey
cost of $67 to $73/km of pipeline, these surveys
Table 3 Costs of
monitoring each pipeline
ROW using VLSA
imagery
Task Time (h) Cost/h ($) Cost ($)
Flight planning 4 40 160
Flight time 1 150 150
Pilot ground time 2 50 100
Technician support 3 40 120
Data compilation 3 40 120
Image analysis 100 12 1,200
Data analysis 12 40 480
Total for each ROW 2,330

Environ Monit Assess
were conducted as part of larger projects. There
are additional costs associated with the larger
projects that might inflate the cost/km. Mobiliza-
tion costs include time spent preparing the air-
plane for trailering, and re-assembly at the job
site. Travel costs include time spent en route,
lodging, and per diem [14 h mobilization + 12 h
travel = 26 h at $90/h (pilot+ground support) =
$2.340; lodging and per diem = $200/day)]. A
$6,000 annual start up cost for insurance results in
a $1,000 charge to each major project during the
field season. If completed as stand-alone projects,
the total cost for each pipeline survey, including
image analysis and data summary, would have
been about $5,700. It is also important to note
that weather delays (high wind, precipitation etc.)
will increase costs. On the other hand, the pipeline
segments surveyed in this study were both ∼35 km
portions of pipelines totaling hundreds of kilo-
meters in length. Surveying longer portions of
pipelines would spread the mobilization and travel
costs out, reducing the cost per kilometer.
Conclusions
The demand for energy resources has put un-
precedented pressure on public land management
agencies and on the surface resources they man-
age. This pressure has highlighted the inadequacy
of conventional ground-based ecological moni-
toring for identifying revegetation insufficiencies
of pipeline ROWs. Because conventional meth-
ods have a low data-yield-to-cost ratio, they are
not practical for obtaining the high sample num-
bers and the sample distribution needed to fully
represent and describe the condition of ROW
surface resources. If problems in ROW revege-
tation are not identified, they will not be recti-
fied. The work reported here has demonstrated
that VLSA surveys provide representative knowl-
edge through systematic, sufficient, and afford-
able sampling along the length of the ROW
disturbance. Intensive VLSA sampling docu-
mented that 7 years from seeding <1/4 of the Lost
Creek pipeline ROW meets POD requirements.
This finding should raise an alarm with the respon-
sible companies and land managers. Similarly, the
Howell pipeline, 3 years from seeding, has less
than 50% of the disturbed ROW in an agreed-to
condition.
We conclude that the lower resolution imagery
acquired for the Howell pipeline (2 vs 1, and
20 vs 13 mm GSD) provided no benefit and we
recommend acquisition of the higher resolutions
as was acquired for the Lost Creek pipeline. We
also recommend a survey flight line be directly
over the ROW with a second flight line targeted
for ∼30 m adjacent to the ROW.
Using VLSA surveys to conduct multi-
resolution sampling along pipeline ROWs is re-
commended for obtaining the large sample
numbers and accurate ground-cover measure-
ments needed to accomplish actionable environ-
mental monitoring. The image-based data sets
created by the surveys are a permanent record,
and provide spatial evidence identifying unmi-
tigated environmental problems for each pipeline
segment, thus allowing fact-based decisions by
responsible companies and agencies for allocating
budget to protecting or rehabilitating affected
ROW surface resources.
Acknowledgements The research was funded in part by
the US Department of Interior, Wyoming State Office,
Lander Field Office and Casper Field Office of the Bureau
of Land Management. John Likins and Charlie Fifield, of
the Lander and Casper BLM Field Offices, respectively,
greatly facilitated data collection and analysis and have
provided helpful comments on the paper. The authors
thank Adele Legerski, who performed much of the image
analysis; Joe Nance of Cloud Street Flying Services, who
piloted the aircraft for data collection; Carmen Kennedy
for editorial assistance; and Mike Burns, Daniel Gredvig
and Drs. Larry Chandler, David Groeneveld, Paul
Meiman, and Mark West for reviewing the manuscript.
References
Abel, N., & Stocking, M. (1987). A rapid method for assess-
ing rates of soil erosion from rangeland: An example
from Botswana. Journal of Range Management,40,
460–466. doi:10.2307/3899612.
Alberta Environment (2004). Reclamation criteria for
wellsites, batteries and associated facilities: Draft.
Assessment protocol, (Vol. II) Retrieved from http://
www.nicholsenvironmental.com/_doclibrary/upstream_
criteria_vol_2_criteria.pdf.
Aldrich, R. C., Bailey, W. F., & Heller, R. C. (1959).
Large scale 70 mm color photography techniques
and equipment and their application to a forest

Environ Monit Assess
sampling problem. Photogrammetric Engineering,25,
747–754.
Bisson, H. (2007). Statement of Henri Bisson, Bureau of
Land Management Committee on House Natural Re-
sources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Re-
sources and the Subcommittee on Parks, Forests and
Public Lands Oversight hearing on Oil and Gas Im-
pacts on Public Lands. BLM.
Booth, D. T. (1974). Photographic remote sensing tech-
niques for erosion evaluations. M.S. Thesis, University
of Nevada–Reno, Reno, NV.
Booth, D. T., & Cox, S. E. (2006). Very large scale aer-
ial photography for rangeland monitoring. Geocarto,
21(3), 27–34. doi:10.1080/10106040608542390.
Booth, D. T., & Cox, S. E. (2008). Image-based mon-
itoring to measure ecological change. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment,6, 185–190. doi:10.
1890/070095.
Booth, D. T., Cox, S. E., & Berryman, R. D. (2006a).
Precision measurements from very large scale aer-
ial digital imagery using ImageMeasurement, Laser-
log, and Merge software applications. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment,112, 293–307. doi:10.
1007/s10661-006-1070-0.
Booth, D. T., Cox, S. E., & Berryman, R. D. (2006b).
Point sampling digital imagery using ‘SamplePoint’.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,123, 97–
108. doi:10.1007/s10661-005-9164-7.
Booth, D. T., Cox, S. E., Fifield, C., Phillips, M., &
Williamson, N. (2005b). Image analysis compared
with other methods for measuring ground cover.
Arid Land Research and Management,19, 91–100.
doi:10.1080/15324980590916486.
Booth, D. T., Cox, S. E., & Johnson, D. E. (2005a).
Detection-threshold calibration and other factors
influencing digital measurements of bare ground.
Rangeland Ecology and Management,58, 598–604.
doi:10.2111/05-060R1.1.
Booth, D. T., Cox, S. E., & Simonds, G. E. (2006c). Ri-
parian monitoring using 2-cm GSD aerial photog-
raphy. Journal of Ecological Indicators,7, 636–648.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.07.005.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (US Department
of the Interior) (2007). BLM oil and gas lease sale
nets nearly $14.2 million, State of Wyoming to get
half. News releases: June. Retrieved from http://www.
blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/news_room/2007/06/06ogsale.
html.
Cook, C. W., & Stubbendieck, J. (1986). Range research:
Basic problems and techniques. Denver, CO: Society
for Range Management.
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) (2004). Airwor-
thiness certification of aircraft and related products.
Order 8130.2F.
General Accounting Office (GAO) (1999). Major man-
agement challenges and program risks: Depart-
ment of Interior. GAO/OCG-99-9. Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/pas/cg99009.pdf.
General Accounting Office (GAO) (2005). Oil and gas
development: Increased permitting activity has less-
ened BLM’s ability to meet its environmental pro-
tection responsibilities. GAO-05-418. Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05418.pdf.
Howell Petroleum Corporation (2003). Plan of develop-
ment. WYW148827 (p. 47). Casper, WY: Casper Field
Office, Bureau of Land Management.
Interagency Technical Team (ITT) (1996). Sampling veg-
etation attributes, interagency technical reference, re-
port no. BLM/RS/ST-96/002+1730 (p. 163). U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Man-
agement, National Applied Resources Science Center,
Denver, CO.
Lost Creek Gathering Company (2000). Plan of develop-
ment. WYW147148 (p. 41). Lander, WY: Lander Field
Office, Bureau of Land Management.
Luscier, J. D., Thompson, W. L., Wilson, J. M., Gorham, B.
E., & Dragut, L. D. (2006). Using digital photographs
and object-based image analysis to estimate
percent ground cover in vegetation plots. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment,4, 408–413.
doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[408:UDPAOI]2.0.CO;2.
Um, J. S., & Wright, R. (1998). A comparative evalu-
ation of video remote sensing and field survey for
revegetation monitoring of a pipeline route. The
Science of the Total Environment,215, 189–207.
doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(97)00340-9.
Vogel, W. G. (1987). Evaluating revegetation success. In
W. G. Vogel (Ed.), A manual for training reclamation
inspectors in the fundamentals of soils and revegetation
(chapter 7, pp. 48–63). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service and the Soil and
Water Conservation Society.