ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PILOT PROJECT

FOR

STREAMS AND RIPARIAN AREAS IN GRAZED WATERSHEDS

REGION 4 – USDA FOREST SERVICE

PREPARED BY: NATIONAL FISH ECOLOGY UNIT STAFF

Richard C. Henderson

Eric K. Archer

Christopher J. Abbruzzese

Jeffrey L. Kershner

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the large number of people who supported us throughout this project. First, we would like to thank Bill Burbridge, Lynn Decker, Bob Hamner, Jack Troyer from the USDA Forest Service for funding the project. Discussions with Ree Brannon, Lynn Decker, Kim Kratz, Kerry Overton, Bob Ries, and Kimberley Johnson resulted in the study question and approach. A special thanks to Alma Winward for his time in developing sampling protocols and analysis techniques. In particular, we would like to thank the summer crew of Mike Benson, Hans Berge, Boyd Bouwes, Marc Coles-Ritchie, Rob Curtis, Dave Galbraith, John McKenzie, Brian Nickelson, Dirk Richardson, Mike Roberts, Joey Rouwein, Brent Stroud, and Rebecca Young. We received support from a variety of Forest Service and BLM personnel at the forest and district offices in the Salmon River basin. They include the following: BLM Salmon District – Kate Forester Boise National Forest – Tim Burton, Doug Brown, Harlan Doty, Suzanne Gebhards, Terry Hardy, Justin Jimenez, Monte Miller, Don Newberry, Dave Olsen, and Warren Ririe Payette National Forest – Leigh Bailey, Dave Burns, Silvia Clark, Pete Grinde, Alma Hanson, Dave Hogan, Tom Kelly, Coleen LeClair, Chance O’Brien, and Kate Walker-Smith Salmon-Challis National Forest – Fields Bender, Dave Booth, Russ Camper, Patty Courtney, Bart Gammit, Dan Garcia, Ben Garechana, Chance Gowan, Barbara Machado, Rich Madrill, Tom Montoya, Dean Morgan, Ken Rodgers, Kathy Seaberg, Bruce Smith, Don Smith Sawtooth National Forest- Seth Fallon and Mark Moulton In addition, Linda Baer, Michelle Bills, and Julie Rowberry did duty above and beyond to provide logistic and administrative support to keep the project running smoothly. We thank Dave Turner for directing our statistical analyses. Sherri Wolraub granted us access to the Natural Condition Data Base. Personnel from the National Aquatic Ecosystem Buglab at USU were responsible for identifying and reporting the invertebrate identifications and a special thanks goes to Mark Vinson and Chuck Hawkins for their timely analyses of the invertebrate diversity data. We apologize if we’ve missed anyone.

3

ABSTRACT

The primary objective of this pilot effort was to develop an effectiveness

monitoring project to answer the question “Are key biological and physical

components of aquatic and riparian communities improved, degraded, or

restored in the range of the steelhead and bull trout where grazing activities

occur”. We conclude that the approach was logistically feasible, successfully

measured site conditions, and provided an effective foundation to guide future

sampling efforts.

We sampled a total of 78 watersheds within the Salmon River Basin of

Idaho, of which 57 were in granitics and 21 in volcanic geologies. Within

granitics we sampled 15 cattle grazed watersheds, 9 sheep grazed watersheds,

and 33 reference watersheds. In volcanics we sampled a total of 12 cattle, 5

sheep, and 4 reference watersheds. We collected 15 instream, 8 riparian

vegetation, and 11 aquatic invertebrate response variables in each watershed.

We found few differences in grazed and ungrazed watersheds within

granitics, using analysis of variance tests. However, we observed high variability

within many of the variables, which may have prevented statistical significance

even when there were large differences between the means. In volcanics we

observed a number of statistical differences in riparian vegetation and

invertebrate variables between treatments. In general , cattle grazed watersheds

are in poorer condition than reference watersheds. However, given our limited

sample size, particularly in reference streams, these results should be view with

caution until larger sample sizes are collected.

4

This report is designed to document the sampling design and methods,

describe methodologies, display result summaries, and provide a timely

synthesis of results to the field units. It is not intended to be a complete

interpretation of the results and we recognize that further analyses need to be

conducted. We hope this report will stimulate comments and feedback to help

improve the project in future years. Finally, we would especially like to thank all

Forest Service and BLM field office personnel that have supported this project.

5

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Granitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Volcanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

PACFISH Comparisons . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Natural Conditions Database Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Additional Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

6

INTRODUCTION

The decline of the steelhead trout (Onchorynchus mykiss gairdneri) and

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the interior Columbia River basin has

prompted new interest in examining the current condition of habitat throughout

the range of this species. In particular, spawning and rearing habitat that is

affected by forest management activities is under increased scrutiny as to

current conditions and perceived trend. Forest management activities such as

timber harvest, road construction, and livestock grazing have all been shown to

negatively influence stream habitat. However, recent large-scale conservation

strategies have prescribed habitat protection measures that may further protect

habitat and promote recovery of degraded habitat throughout the range.

There are currently a number of documents that provide guidance for

protecting anadromous fish habitat in the Columbia River basin. Each national

forest within the range of steelhead trout in the Columbia River basin has

completed a forest plan that guides the protection and management of aquatic

and riparian resources on the forest (NFMA 1976). Due to increased concern

over the status of anadromous salmonids, the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and

USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed an aquatic and riparian-

area management strategy (PACFISH) to protect habitat for Pacific anadromous

salmonids (PACFISH 1994). The purpose of this strategy was to provide

consistent, interim guidance to national forests on appropriate management

strategies and to develop interim management objectives for fish habitat prior to

the revision of forest plans. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Plan (ICBEMP) was developed to provide a long-term strategy to

2

manage resources within the Columbia River basin. As part of this plan, aquatic

and riparian management guidelines were developed that would replace the

more general guidance of PACFISH and provide direction for the restoration of

habitats throughout the basin.

The recent listing of steelhead and bull trout under the Endangered

Species Act prompted a review of current habitat management practices on

federal lands by the United States Department of Commerce, National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS). As part of the Section 7 consultation process with the

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, the NMFS and USFWS

issued biological opinions on the adequacy of land and resource plans to protect

anadromous fish habitat. One of the commitments identified in the Opinions was

to monitor grazing strategies to determine if current grazing practices were

meeting PACFISH riparian management objectives.

The USFS, NMFS, and USFWS met in April 1998 to develop a plan for

monitoring the condition of steelhead and bull trout habitat in grazed lands

(Kershner, draft). Goals for this plan (from the Biological Opinions) include

developing a coordinated effort with a defensible sample design, maximizing the

effectiveness of limited monitoring funds, identifying appropriate scales and

levels of monitoring, and identifying how monitoring results should be used to

make management adjustments. The group recognized that a variety of

management activities affect aquatic and riparian systems and that effects from

one or more activities can be cumulative. An approach to monitoring that

3

considers these relationships and attempts to track their effects will ultimately

provide the kind of feedback needed to adapt specific management activities on

National Forest lands.

At the request of Region 4 - USFS, the USFS National Fish Ecology Unit

developed a draft monitoring plan to determine the feasibility of an extensive

approach to address the following question: Are key biological, chemical, and

physical attributes, processes, and functions of riparian and aquatic systems

degraded, maintained, or restored in the range of the steelhead and bull trout as

a result of grazing management within Region 4, U.S. Forest Service (Kershner

et al. 1999). We defined the effectiveness monitoring component of this project

with the following question: Are current grazing practices effective in maintaining

or restoring high quality habitat?

We developed the following objectives for the pilot effort: (1) - Compare

conditions in reference and managed watersheds using techniques and methods

from existing inventory and monitoring efforts to maximize compatibility with

existing efforts; (2) - Provide a consistent, replicable method that could

potentially be used as base-level Forest Plan monitoring; (3) - Determine the

feasibility of assessing the influence of grazing activities on stream and riparian

habitat across the range of the steelhead and bull trout.

Study Area

For the 1998 – 1999 pilot study we selected the Salmon River sub-basin

as our study area (Figure 1). We stratified the basin by geology to reduce the

4

variability due to different parent material. In 1998 we chose watersheds

underlain with granitics and in 1999 both granitic and volcanic geologies were

sampled. The Salmon River basin is located in central Idaho and is a major

spawning tributary for steelhead and bull trout within the Snake River drainage.

Watersheds within the study area are typically steep with narrow valley bottoms.

Mountains within the basin have been extensively glaciated resulting in valleys

filled with alluvium and outwash (UCRB 1996).

Climatic conditions within the sub-basin are highly variable. Precipitation

in the study area predominately falls as snow from October to May (UCRB

1996). Some precipitation falls as rain during the spring, summer, and fall

months. Temperatures within the study area are highly variable with short, cool

summers in the mountainous areas and longer, extended growing seasons in the

montane valleys and lower elevations. Winters are typically cold with sub-

freezing temperatures from mid-November to April being the norm throughout

the basin.

Valley bottoms and stream types within the Salmon River basin are highly

variable. Valley bottom types are characterized as steep confined valleys,

moderately steep/moderately confined valleys, and flat moderately confined

valleys (UCRB 1996). Streams within grazed systems represent a full variety of

5

Figure 1. Horizontal

6

stream types from steep, confined streams to highly braided, meandering

meadow streams.

Vegetation within the sub-basin is variable and dominated by a variety of

forest types, grasses, and shrubs. Forest vegetation groups within the study

area are dominated by dry forests (douglas fir, ponderosa pine, grand fir, white

fir) and cold forest (mountain hemlock, spruce-fir, aspen, white bark pine,

lodgepole pine, alpine larch). Range vegetation groups include dry grass

(fescue, agropyron), dry shrub (bitterbrush, sage, juniper), cool shrub (mountain

big sage, mountain shrub), riparian shrub (salix/carex), riparian herb (graminoids,

sedges), and riparian woodlands (cottonwood, aspen) (UCRB 1996).

Livestock grazing has occurred in the study area since the late 19th

century. Sheep and cattle grazing have occurred throughout the Salmon River

basin continuously since their introduction. Currently, range integrity ratings are

low-moderate throughout most of the study area (UCRB 1996).

METHODS

Field methods

We used U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Unit - 6th field watersheds

within the Salmon River as a list of potential sample watersheds (UCRB 1996).

We first stratified by four major geologic types and chose granitics and volcanic

geologies for this pilot study. We then developed two additional stratification

criteria for sample watersheds within each of these geologies. First, we only

included watersheds that contained “response” reaches with gradients < 3

7

percent. This reach type was chosen because it displays the greatest response

to upstream impacts from management activities. We then used four categories

to group watersheds by the types of management activities that occur within

them. Watersheds were classified as “reference” if they were not grazed by

livestock within the last 30 years and had experienced minimal timber harvest,

roading, or mining activities. Watersheds with livestock grazing were categorized

as “cattle” or “sheep” watersheds, depending on the dominant livestock use and

had low to moderate timber harvest, roading, and mining. The remaining

watersheds were grouped into the “other” category and were not sampled. This

“other” category included watersheds in which extensive timber harvest, roading,

or mining activities had occurred, watersheds that contained inactive grazing

allotments, and watersheds that did not contain response reaches.

Biologists, hydrologists, and range conservationists from local Forest

Service offices were contacted to help categorize each watershed within their

management area. We then randomly selected reference, cattle grazed, and

sheep grazed watersheds (Table 1). We sampled watersheds in all three

categories during both years. In addition, ten watersheds sampled in 1998 were

re-sampled in 1999. These “sentinel watersheds” are an integral component of

the analyses. They define the amount of variability that occurs within a site

between successive years.

We used stream reaches as our primary field-sampling unit. Sample

reaches were located in third order streams within each watershed. If two or

more third order streams occurred within the watershed, we randomly selected

8

the sample stream for our survey. A crew leader started at the downstream end

of the stream and established the reach at the first site that contained a

response channel greater than 200 meters in length, no side-channels, and no

current beaver activity. Sample reaches were a minimum of 110 meters in

length and a maximum of 200 meters as measured along the thalweg. All

reaches contained at least four pool/riffle sequences to accurately describe the

entire length of the channel type (Overton et al. 1997).

We used several methods to describe the location of each reach to insure

future relocation. This information is summarized in a separate document

entitled “Reach Descriptions and Data Summaries”. Written directions and a

short description of the site were recorded. A site map was drawn that included

both the stream and riparian area. Maps described the shape of the stream

channel, major in-channel features, vegetation, location of tributaries, roads and

other recognizable features (Harrelson et al. 1994). The latitude and longitude at

the bottom of each reach was determined by using a handheld Global

Positioning System (GPS) recorder (accuracy of +/- 30m). Color photographs

were also taken looking both upstream and downstream from the top and bottom

of each reach. Additional photographs were taken of channel and vegetation

cross-sections, and representative views of pools, riffles, and any unique

characteristics occurring within the reach.

Stream gradient and sinuosity were measured to characterize the stream

channel at each reach. Both the upstream and downstream boundaries of the

sample reach were located at either the head or tail of a pool to allow for

9

accurate measurements of channel gradient. The channel gradient at the water

surface was recorded for each reach. Elevations were measured to the nearest

centimeter using a surveyor’s level with tripod and a stadia rod. When the entire

reach could not be surveyed from one location, we divided the reach into

sections. Reach gradient was calculated by dividing the total change in elevation

by the length of the channel. Sinuosity was calculated for each reach by dividing

the channel length by valley length. Valley length was defined as the distance

between the upper and lower boundaries of the reach as measured along an

axis running parallel to the valley floor.

A combination of in-channel and riparian vegetation characteristics were

measured at each reach. In-channel variables were used to described the

biological, physical, and chemical nature of the stream. Vegetation variables

described riparian community types and riparian zone function. Variables used

in this study to describe in-channel and riparian functions have been commonly

used by other researchers to evaluate grazing effects (Kauffman et al. 1983a,

Platts et al. 1983, Myers and Swanson 1991, 1992, Winward (in press)).

Appendix A describes each variable and how they were computed.

Stream Channel and Water Quality Measurements

Bank characteristics were measured at a series of transects located within

the study reach. The location of the first transect was derived by choosing a

random number (k) between 0 and 9. The first transect was then established (k)

10

meters upstream of the start of the reach. Subsequent transects occurred at 10-

meter intervals working upstream. All bank characteristic variables were

measured on both the right and left banks. The total number of transects in a

reach ranged from 10 to 19.

Bank angle was measured using the procedures described by Platts et al.

(1987). A clinometer and rod were used to measure the angle formed by the

downward sloping stream bank as it met the stream bottom. The angle of

undercut banks extended from the midpoint of the undercut to the outer edge.

All angles were measured to the nearest degree with undercut banks having

values < 90 degrees and non-undercut banks > 90 degrees. The depth of

undercut banks was measured to the nearest centimeter and extended from the

deepest point of the undercut to the outer edge. The average bank angle,

percent undercut banks, and average undercut depth were calculated.

Bank stability measurements were collected at each transect by observing

an area of the bank 15 cm to either side of the transect location and vertically

from the scour line to either the crest of the first convex slope or to twice

maximum bankfull depth. Two methods were used to describe bank stability. In

1998 we used method 1 while in 1999 we used both method 1 and method 2.

Method 1

Method 1 assigns each location with a stability rating of 1, 2 or 3 (Sierra

Province Assessment, in press) using the following criteria:

1) Stable - A stable stream bank has greater than 75% of living plants and/or

other stability components that are not easily eroded, and has no

11

indicators of instability.

2) Vulnerable - A vulnerable streambank plot has greater than 75% cover but is

not fully stable due to the presence of instability indicators.

3) Unstable - An unstable streambank has less than 75% cover and/or the

presence of instability indicators.

Stability indicators include live plants, rocks, downed wood, and erosion

resistant soils. Instability indicators include soil displacements such as

fracturing, blocking, slumping, trails, and mass movement of soils from landslides

and erosion. The percent of stable banks and average bank rating were

calculated.

Method 2

Method 2 was developed by Platts et al. (1987) and modified by Bauer

and Burton (1993). This method again uses bank cover and the presence of

instability indicators to describe bank stability. The bank is considered “covered”

if it contains > 50% live vegetation or roots, rocks > 150 mm, wood > 10 cm in

diameter, or any combination of the above. Banks were considered stable if they

do not show indications of breakdown, slumping, or fracturing, or consist of bare

soil but have an angle > 100 degrees. A dichotomous key was used to

categorize each location into one of six categories; covered stable, uncovered

stable, false banks, covered unstable, uncovered unstable, or unclassified. The

percent of stable banks was calculated.

The length, maximum depth, pool crest depth, and residual pool depth

were measured for each “primary” pool in the sample reach using the R1/R4 Fish

12

Habitat Inventory Procedures (Overton et al. 1997). Primary pools were defined

as occupying at least half the width of the bankfull channel, the maximum depth

is at least 1.5 times the pool crest depth, and at least as long as it is wide. Pool

lengths were measured by stretching a 100m tape along the thalweg from the

beginning of the pool to the end. Measurements were recorded to the nearest

10-cm. Maximum depths were measured by locating the deepest point of the

pool and recording the depth to the nearest 2-cm, while pool crest depths were

determined by measuring the deepest point in the pool tail. Residual depths

were calculated as the difference between the maximum depth and the pool

crest depth. The results were summarized as the percent of the reach

composed of primary pool habitats and average residual pool depth.

Channel cross-sections were measured to determine bankfull and wetted

widths, and width to depth ratios. One cross section was measured in each of

the first four riffles/runs that contained a relatively straight channel and clearly

defined bankfull indicators. Cross-sections were located at the widest part of the

riffle (excluding human or animal crossings). A minimum of 10 depth

measurements were taken at equal distances along each cross-section.

Additional depths were measured at the left and right wetted edges and the

deepest point. When islands existed that were higher than the bankfull

elevation, the two channels were measured separately and then combined for

analysis. The average bankfull width, bankfull width to depth ratio, wetted width,

and wetted width to depth ratio were calculated.

Substrate composition was measured using Wolman pebble counts

13

(Wolman 1954) in the four riffles/runs identified for channel cross sections. At

least twenty-five particles were sampled in each riffle/run for a minimum of 100

particles in each reach. Sampling was conducted within the bankfull width and

throughout the entire length of the habitat unit. The number of particles in each

size class was used to generate a cumulative frequency graph. The D16, D50,

and D84 were determined from the graph.

The percent surface fines (< 6mm) were measured at the pool tail using

the R1/R4 Fish Habitat Inventory Procedures (Overton et al. 1997).

Measurements were recorded for the wetted, flowing area of the first four scour

pools. Dam, pocket, and step pools were not measured. The sampling area

extended from the pool tail crest upstream a distance equal to 10% of the pool

length. The sample area was then visually divided into 3 sections (left, middle,

and right) with one sample taken in each section. A 49-intersection grid was

randomly tossed into each section and the number of intersections (and one

corner) underlain with fine sediments was recorded for a total possible rating of

50. The percent surface fines was calculated for each pool tail and then

averaged for the reach.

Macroinvertebrates were sampled using the protocol recommended by

the BLM/FS Aquatic Monitoring Center, Logan, Utah. One kick net sample was

collected in each of the four riffles/runs identified for channel cross-sections.

Crews sampled a representative site within each riffle or run. We sampled an

area that extended the width of the net (1.5 feet), 1 foot upstream of the net, and

to a depth of 4 inches. All four samples were combined for each reach.

14

Samples were analyzed by the Aquatic Monitoring Center and summarized using

11 metrics (Table 1).

Table 1. Aquatic invertebrate community and diversity indices and their general categories used in the analysis.

We collected water temperature measurements at 24 sites within

granitics. ONSET Hobo-temp continuous recording temperature loggers

collected temperatures during low flow, long day length periods, when maximum

temperatures were most likely. Temperatures were measured hourly in degrees

Celsius from July 2 to September 2. The average weekly temperature and the

average maximum daily temperature were calculated for each week.

Conductivity was measured at each reach using a YSI electronic conductivity

meter.

Riparian Vegetation Measurements

Metric Taxa Richness Tolerance Feeding/ Other habits

Ephermeroptera taxa X Plecoptera taxa X Trichoptera taxa X Clinger taxa X Total Operational taxa X Percent dominance of dominant tax

X

Long Lived taxa X Percent Predator taxa X Number intolerant taxa X Percent tolerant taxa X Community tolerance quotient (d)

X

RIVPACS X

15

Measures of streambank vegetation (Greenline Composition) and riparian

vegetation (Riparian Status) were conducted using survey techniques described

by Winward (in press). These methods were designed specifically to detect

changes in riparian vegetative communities caused by livestock grazing.

Greenline composition surveys describe the continuous line of vegetation

along the stream. The survey began at the top of the reach and extended for

363 feet along the right bank and then the same distance up the left bank. The

surveyor walked along the first line of perennial vegetation observing a 12 inch

wide strip of vegetation and recorded the dominant plant community type for

each step. Existing community type guides were used when available. In areas

where community typing has not occurred or when other species were present,

the dominant species was recorded. Alma Winward (personal communications,

USFS) was consulted to define seral and stability values for analyses.

Greenline data was used to determine the successional status and

relative stability of stream banks. The succession status method required that

each community type be assigned a successional rating of either “early” or “late”.

The percent of community types with a “late” rating was calculated. Each

community type was also assigned a streambank stability class ranking. Values

range from 1 to 10 with higher values indicating root masses with a greater ability

to buffer the forces of moving water. A stability class rating was calculated for

each reach.

Riparian status describes the percent of vegetation that has been altered

from a “natural” to “disturbed” condition. Five transects were established

16

perpendicular to the valley floor. The first and fifth transect are located at the

beginning and end of the greenline survey, respectively. The remaining

transects are located at ¼, ½, and ¾ of the straight-line distance between the 1st

and 5th cross sections. Each cross section begin at the edge of the riparian

vegetation on one side of the valley and stopped at the same point on the

opposite side. In systems with wide riparian areas, the transect stopped 25

meters from the streambank. The surveyor walked each transect and recorded

the dominant community type for each step. Riparian status data was analyzed

similar Greenline. Each community type was assigned a status rating of either

“natural” or “disturbed” and summarized as the percent of community types with

a “natural” status rating.

Effective ground cover is measured throughout the riparian area using

procedures from the Intermountain Region, Forest Service Soil Quality

Monitoring Methods publication. Measurements were taken along the five cross

sections established for riparian status. Measurements are made every other

pace within a 2 cm circle located directly in front of the surveyor’s right toe. A

location was classified as “bare ground” if < 50% of the area contains cover and

“covered” if > 50% of the area was covered. Covered locations were further

divided into “live vegetation”, “litter”, or “rock”. The percent of steps with cover

was calculated for each reach.

Shrub canopy cover measures the prominence of shrubs along the

streambank. Measurements were conducted by walking the “greenline” at a

distance of one foot in from the edge of perennial vegetation. A measurement of

17

either presence or absence of a shrub canopy was recorded for every pace at

the point of the right foot. The species of shrub was recorded when a canopy

exists. The term shrub includes all species of woody vegetation. The data was

summarized as percent shrub canopy cover. The percent “grazed” shrub

canopy cover was summarized the same way but only included woody plants

utilized by livestock. These include Salix, Betula, Populus, and Alnus.

Willow regeneration described the age classes of willows along the

streambank and was described in Winward (in press). Measurements were

taken along the length of the “Greenline” and for a distance of one meter to each

side of the greenline. The species and age class was recorded for every willow.

Age class was determined by the number of stems and grouped as sprout,

young, mature, or decadent. Rhizomatous species of willow were not included

since they cannot be aged using this method. A ratio of young to old shrubs was

calculated for each reach.

Statistics

We used a variety of graphical and statistical analyses to explore the

relationships in the data. All data were summarized prior to statistical analysis to

examine differences in the relationships between reference and grazed sites.

For statistical analysis, the data was divided into two groups. Group 1 data

included the 30 response variables that were collected during both 1998 and

1999 in granitic parental material (Table 2).

The first analysis that we performed, was to compare data from the 10 Sentinel

18

sites (sampled in both years) for differences between years and management

with a two-way Proc mixed repeated measures ANOVA using SAS statistical

package (SAS 1995). Following this analysis, we combined data from 1998 and

1999 and reanalyzed it, again using a Proc mixed model. This model examined

differences between the means by grazing treatment (cattle, reference, and

sheep) and used the sentinel sites to adjust for differences between years.

Data in Group 2 included all 35 response variables collected in volcanics

(Table 2). The data set was analyzed using a one-way ANOVA to examine

differences between treatments. In granitics, the same analysis was conducted

for the five response variables added in 1999. These analyses only compared

reference and cattle grazed sites since only one sheep grazed site was sampled Table 2. Parameters collected during 1998 and 1999 in granitics (Group 1) and additional parameters add during 1999 sampling in granitics and all parameters collected in volcanic geology.

19

in 1999.

Prior to assigning probabilities, we tested the residuals from each model

to determine if they met the assumption of a normal distribution. Response

variables which did not meet these criteria were subsequently transformed using

some iteration of the Box-Cox transformation ((Y + a)b – 1) / b and all models were

rerun using the transformed data. Data that could not be normalized, was

analyzed with Multi-response Permutation Procedure (MRPP) using the Blossom

statistical package (Blossom 1994). This non-parametric statistical test has no

Parameter Group 1

Group 2

Bankfull width X X Bankfull width to depth ratio X X Residual pool depth X X Percent of reach in pools X X Percent stable banks (method 1) X X Average bank rating (method 1) X X Average bank angle X X Percent undercut banks X X Average undercut depth X X Percent pool-tail fines X X D16 X X D50 X X D84 X X Green-line stability X X Green-line seral stage X X Green-line seral adjusted X X Riparian status X X Willow ratio X X 12 macroinvertebrate metrics X X Percent stable banks (method 2) X Large woody debris X Percent shrub cover X Percent grazed cover X Percent ground cover X

20

assumptions regarding normality of the data set. All probability tests were

considered significant when p<0.10.

Water temperature data was analyzed using a Proc-mixed model, using

management and week as the response variables.

Grand mean comparisons were conducted since large amounts of

variability within treatments may prevent the detection of differences when using

standard analysis of variance tests such as ANOVA. We summarized the results

by comparing the grand means for reference sites with those of grazed

treatments (cattle and sheep). The comparison was summarized as the grazed

treatment being in “poorer” condition, the “same” condition, or “better” condition

than the reference sites. Expectations of whether higher or lower values were

considered a “poorer” condition were interpreted from the literature. No

interpretations were made for large woody debris and the percent predator taxa.

RESULTS

Granitics

We sampled a total of 15 cattle grazed watersheds, 33 reference

watersheds, and eight sheep grazed watersheds in granitics during 1998 and

1999 (Figure 2). We observed a number of similarities and only a few

differences between stream bank characteristics in grazed and reference sites.

21

Figure 2. Horizontal

22

Statistically significant differences were found for three of the 34 variables.

Significant differences were observed in 3 of 15 instream variables (Appendix B-

1 & B-4), 0 of 8 vegetation variables (Appendix B-2 & B-4), and 0 of 11

invertebrate variables (Appendix B-3). Pair-wise comparisons, (Cattle vs

Reference, Cattle vs sheep, and Sheep vs Reference) are also presented for

statistical tests were the main effect was significantly different (Appendix B-5).

Many of the variables showed large amounts of variability within

treatments. In many cases, this high variability may have prevented the

detection of statistical significance even when means were different. However,

some patterns are still evident.

Stream Variables

Bankfull width was highest in sheep grazed sites followed by reference

and cattle grazed sites (Figure 3-1). This difference was significant between

sheep and cattle grazed sites (p<0.10). However, there was also a significant

interaction between management and year, which makes the individual tests

unreliable. Bankfull width to depth ratios were used to detect channel widening

within treatments. Cattle grazed sites had the lowest mean width to depth ratio

followed by reference and sheep grazed sites respectively (Figure 3-2). There

were no statistically significant differences between treatments.

There were differences in pool habitat quantity and quality between

treatments, but none of these differences were significant (Figure 3-3). Sheep

23

Figure 3. Measured stream bank and pool variables for Granitic sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

Aver

age

Bank

Ang

le

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

3-5 Average bank angleCattle Reference Sheep

Perc

ent o

f Ban

ks U

nder

cut

0

20

40

60

80

100

3-6 Percent banks undercut

3-1 Bankfull widthCattle Reference Sheep

Bank

full w

idth

(m)

0

5

10

15

20

3-2 Bankfull width to depth ratioCattle Reference Sheep

Wid

th to

Dep

th R

atio

(m/m

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

3-3 Percent of reach containing poolsCattle Reference Sheep

Perc

enta

ge o

f Rea

ch In

Poo

ls

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

3-4 Residual pool depthCattle Reference Sheep

Res

idua

l Dep

th (c

m)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

24

and cattle grazed sites generally had a larger percentage of the measured reach

in pools. Residual pool depth was higher at sheep grazed sites followed by

reference and cattle sites (Figure 3-4). All three treatments showed large

amounts of variability in both pool variables.

Average bank angle was slightly lower and considerably more variable at

reference sites than in both sheep and cattle grazed sites. There were no

statistical differences between treatments (Figure 3-5). The percent of banks

that were undercut showed a high degree of variability in all treatments, with

reference sites ranging from 12 to 88 percent, cattle grazed sites 18 to 83

percent, and sheep grazed sites 25 to 70 percent. Sheep grazed sites had the

highest mean whereas reference and cattle grazed sites were very similar

(Figure 3-6). The average depth of undercuts banks was also highly variable

within treatments (Figure 4-1). Sheep grazed sites had the highest mean value

for undercut depth followed by reference and cattle grazed sites, respectively,

but differences were not statistically significant.

We observed minimal differences between treatments in the variables

used to assess stream bank stability. The percent of banks that were rated

stable using method 1 were similar between treatments (Figure 4-2). Average

bank rating (method 1) was lowest (most stable) for sheep grazed sites followed

by reference and then cattle grazed sites (Figure 4-3). The percent of banks

rated stable using method 2 was higher than method 1 for both cattle grazed and

reference sites. Reference sites had a slightly higher mean value but there was

25

Figure 4. Measured stream bank and substrate variables for Granitic sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

Dep

th o

f Und

ercu

ts

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4-1 Depth of undercutsCattle Reference Sheep

Perc

ent S

tabl

e Ba

nks

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

4-2 Percent banks stable (method 1)

Cattle Reference Sheep

Aver

age

Bank

Rat

ing

0

1

2

3

4-3 Average bank rating (method 1)Cattle Reference

Perc

ent S

tabl

e Ba

nks

60

80

100

4-4 Percent banks stable (method 2)

Cattle Reference Sheep

Perc

net P

ool t

ail f

ines

0

20

40

60

80

100

4-5 Percent pool tail finesCattle Reference Sheep

D16

(mm

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

4-6 16th Percentile grain size (D16)

26

very little difference between treatments (Figure 4-4).

Differences in substrate measures were highly variable and there were no

significant differences between treatments. Pool-tail fines were highest at cattle

grazed sites whereas reference and sheep grazed sites were similar (Figure 4-

5). Cattle grazed sites ranged form 7 to 85 percent fines, reference sites from 7

to 65 percent, and sheep grazed sites from 9 to 55 percent. The 16th percentile

grain size (D16) also showed large amounts of variability ranging from 1–9 mm

for cattle grazed sites, 1–6 mm for reference sites, and 1–8 mm for sheep

grazed sites (Figure 4-6). The mean value was highest at sheep grazed sites

whereas cattle and reference sites were very similar. The median particle size

(D50) was highest at reference sites while sheep and cattle grazed site means

were the same (Figure 5-1). The mean of the 84th percentile grain size (D84)

was very similar between all treatments (Figure 5-2).

The amount of large woody debris (LWD) was highly variable between

treatments ranging from 0 to 76 pieces in reference sites and 0 to 14 pieces in

cattle sites. Reference sites had a higher mean value than cattle grazed sites

but differences were not statistically significant (Figure 5-3).

Vegetation Variables

We observed some differences in vegetative parameters between

reference and grazed sites, however none of the differences were statistically

significant. Once again, large amounts of variability within treatments were

27

Figure 5. Measured substrate and vegetation variables for Granitic sites

Cattle Reference Sheep

D50

(mm

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

5-1 Median particle size (D50)Cattle Reference Sheep

D84

(mm

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

5-2 84th Percentile grain size (D84)

Cattle Reference

Num

ber L

WD

0

20

40

60

80

100

5-3 Total pieces of large woody debrisCattle Reference Sheep

Gre

enlin

e Se

ral

40

60

80

100

120

5-4 Greenline seral

Cattle Reference Sheep

Gre

enlin

e Se

ral

40

60

80

100

120

5-5 Greenline seral (Adjusted)Cattle Reference Sheep

Rip

aria

n St

atus

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

5-6 Riparian status

28

observed.

Greenline seral and riparian status displayed some of the largest

differences between treatments. Greenline seral was rated higher at reference

sites than both cattle and sheep grazed sites (Figure 5-4). Greenline seral for

reference sites was classified as Potential Natural Community (PNC) or late

seral stage for all but one site. All cattle grazed sites were rated as PNC or late

seral except for three and all sheep grazed sites were rated as PNC or late seral

stage. The adjusted value for Greenline seral followed a very similar pattern with

no significant differences between treatments (Figure 5-5). The means for

riparian status were highest for sheep grazed sites followed by reference and

cattle grazed sites, respectively. There was not a significant difference between

treatments (Figure 5-6).

The green-line stability rating was highest at sheep grazed sites and there

was little difference between reference and cattle grazed sites. The mean value

for all three treatments was rated as “high” (Winward, In press; Figure 6-1).

Cattle grazed sites were all rated as “high” with the exception of one site, which

was rated as “medium”. Reference sites were mostly rated as “high” with two

sites rated “excellent”, and one “medium”. Sheep grazed sites were all rated as

“high” or “excellent”.

Measurements of the shrub community and effective ground cover were

not significantly different between treatments. The willow ratio (young:old) was

slightly higher at reference sites whereas there was little difference between

29

Figure 6. Measured vegetation variables for Granitic Sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

Gre

enlin

e St

abilty

6

8

10

6-1 Greenline stabilty ratingCattle Reference Sheep

Willo

w R

atio

0

10

20

30

40

6-2 Willow ratio (young:old)

Cattle Reference

Perc

ent S

hrub

Cov

er

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

6-3 Percent shrub coverCattle Reference

Perc

ent G

raze

d C

over

0

20

40

60

80

100

6-4 Percent grazed cover

Cattle Reference

Perc

ent G

roun

d C

over

70

80

90

100

110

6-5 Effective ground cover

30

cattle and sheep grazed sites (Figure 6-2). There were no differences in the

percent shrub cover or percent grazed cover between cattle and reference sites

(Figures 6-3 and 6-4). The mean value for effective ground cover was slightly

higher for reference sites (Figure 6-5).

Invertebrate variables

The analysis of aquatic invertebrate community and diversity indices

showed a variety of responses in metrics used to express taxa richness.

However, there was large amount of variability within nearly all of the response

variables. None of the invertebrate metrics showed a significant difference

between treatments.

The number of operational taxa (OTU) was slightly higher and more

variable in reference sites than either cattle or sheep grazed sites (Figure 7-1).

The percent dominance of the most dominant taxa showed very little difference

between treatments (Figure 7-2). The number of ephemeroptera taxa was

highest at sheep grazed sites followed by reference and cattle grazed sites,

respectively. Reference sites showed the largest amount of variability among

treatments ranging from 0 to 13 distinct ephemeroptera taxa (Figure 7-3). The

number of plecoptera taxa was highest in sheep and reference sites, but again

we observed large amounts of variability (Figure 7-4). The number of trichoptera

taxa followed a different pattern with cattle and reference sites being very similar

while and sheep grazed sites had considerably lower taxa numbers (Figure 7-5).

31

Figure 7. Measured invertebrate variables for Granitic sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber T

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

7-6 Number Long lived taxaCattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber T

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

7-5 Number Trichoptera taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber T

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

7-3 Number Ephemeropter taxaCattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber T

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

7-4 Number Plecopter taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep

Tota

l Ric

hnes

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

7-1 Total OTU richnessCattle Reference Sheep

% D

omin

ate

Taxa

0

20

40

60

80

7-2 Percent most dominate taxa

32

There was very little difference between treatments in the number of long-lived

invertebrate taxa. Cattle and sheep grazed sites were both highly variable

(Figure 7-6).

Measures of community tolerance to pollution showed a variety of

responses between grazed and reference sites, however no significant

differences were observed. The number of intolerant taxa was higher at

reference sites and very similar between cattle and sheep grazed treatments

(Figure 8-1). The percent of assemblage made up of tolerant taxa was different

between treatments. Cattle grazed sites were highly variable and had a slightly

higher mean value than reference and sheep grazed sites (Figure 8-2). There

was very little difference between treatments in the community tolerance quotient

(CTQd; Figure 8-3).

Invertebrate metrics associated with feeding groups were similar between

treatments and no statistical differences occurred. The number of clinger taxa

was higher at reference sites followed by cattle and sheep grazed sites (Figure

8-4). The percent of invertebrate predators was slightly higher in sheep grazed

sites and very similar between reference and cattle grazed sites (Figure 8-5).

Water Temperature

We collected water temperature data during the summer of 1999 at 24 of the

sites sampled during 1998. Ten sites were grazed by cattle, eight were reference

sites, and six were sheep grazed sites. We saw differences between both average

33

Figure 8. Measured invertebrate variables for Granitic sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber T

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

8-1 Number intolerant taxaCattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber T

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

8-2 Number tolerant taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep

CTQ

d ra

ting

20

40

60

80

100

8-3 CTQd ratingCattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber T

axa

0

5

10

15

20

25

8-4 Number clinger taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep

% P

reda

tor T

axa

0

10

20

30

40

50

8-5 Percent predator taxa

34

weekly temperatures and average maximum weekly temperature. There was a

significant difference between treatments in the average weekly temperature

(p=0.07) (Figure 9-1). Sheep grazed sites had significantly higher temperatures

reference sites (p=0.07). Average weekly maximum temperatures were also

different between treatments (p=0.005, Appendix B-1). Reference sites had

significantly lower maximum temperatures than both cattle (p=0.024) and sheep

grazed sites (p=0.02, Figure 9-2).

Comparisons of Grand Means

Comparisons between the grand means for the response variables

collected indicated that cattle grazed sites were generally in poorer condition

than reference sites (Table 3). Twenty one of 32 comparisons indicated that

cattle grazed sites were in poorer condition (66%), 6 were the same (18%), and

5 cattle grazed sites were in better condition (16%). The differences were most

prominent for riparian vegetation variables with seven of eight comparisons

showing poorer conditions at cattle grazed sites. Comparisons for stream and

invertebrate variables were similar with 57% and 60% of the variables indicating

poorer conditions in cattle grazed sites. Comparisons between reference and

sheep grazed sites indicate that the conditions were similar between these

treatments. Thirteen of 32 comparisons considered sheep grazed sites in poorer

condition (41%), 7 were the same (22%), and 12 considered sheep grazed sites

in better condition (37%). This relation was similar within stream, riparian

35

Julian Week

26 28 30 32 34 36Aver

age

Max

imum

Wee

kly

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

CattleReferenceSheep

Figure 9-2 Grand mean of maximum daily temperature, by Julian week and grazing treatment.

Julian Week

26 28 30 32 34 36

Aver

age

Wee

kly

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

CattleReferenceSheep

Figure 9-1 Grand mean of average daily temperature, by Julian week and grazing treatment.

36

Table 2. Comparison of the grand means for each response variable for cattle versus reference and sheep versus reference watersheds. We used the expectation that grazed watersheds would have poorer habitat quality than reference watershed. A comparison was rated “E” if the difference was in the expected direction, “U” if in the unexpected direction, and “S” if values were the same. The expected direction of change for each variable was interpreted from the literature and defined as either “increase” or “decrease”.

Granitic Sites Volcanic Sites

Cattle vs Ref.

Sheep vs Ref.

Cattle vs Ref.

Sheep vs Ref.

Expected Change*

STREAM VARIABLES Bankfull width U E U E Increase Bankfull width to depth ratio U E E E Increase Residual pool depth S U S U Decrease Percent of reach in pools U U E U Decrease Percent stable banks (method 1) E S E E Decrease Percent stable banks (method 2) E E E E Decrease Average bank rating (method 1) E U E E Increase Average bank angle E E E E Increase Percent undercut banks S U E E Decrease Average undercut depth E E E E Decrease Percent pool-tail fines E S E E Increase D16 S U E S Decrease D50 E E E E Decrease D84 E E E E Decrease VEGETATION VARIABLES Green-line stability E U E E Decrease Green-line seral stage E U E U Decrease Green-line seral adjusted E S E E Decrease Riparian status E U E U Decrease Willow ratio E E E U Decrease Percent shrub cover E E E E Decrease Percent grazed cover U E E E Decrease Percent ground cover E U E E Decrease INVERTEBRATE VARIABLES Ephemeroptera taxa E U E U Decrease Plecoptera taxa S S E S Decrease Trichoptera taxa S E E U Decrease Clinger taxa E E E U Decrease Total Operational taxa U S E U Decrease % dominance of dominant tax E U E U Increase Long Lived taxa S S U U Decrease Number intolerant taxa E E E S Decrease Percent tolerant taxa E U E E Increase Community tolerance quotient (d) E S E E Increase

37

vegetation, and invertebrate variables.

Volcanics

We sampled a total of 21 watersheds in volcanics. Twelve were cattle

grazed sites, 4 were reference sites, and 5 were sheep grazed sites (Figure 10).

Hence our results should be viewed with caution given the low sample sizes.

Significant differences were observed in 2 of 15 instream variables (Appendix B-

6), 5 of 8 vegetation variables (Appendix B-7), and 6 of 11 invertebrate variables

(Appendix B-8). Pair-wise comparison tests that were significantly different are

presented in Appendix B-9. In general, higher quality conditions were observed

in sheep and reference sites than in cattle grazed sites.

Stream variables

Bankfull width was highest in sheep grazed sites followed by reference

and cattle grazed sites respectively (Figure 11-1), however differences were not

statistically significant. Reference sites had lower width to depth ratios than

either cattle or sheep grazed sites. Cattle grazed sites displayed high variability

ranging from 8 to 40 (Figure 11-2). Means were not statistically different

between treatments.

There were differences in pool habitat quantity and quality between

grazed and references sites. The percent of the reach containing pools was

highest at sheep grazed sites followed by reference and cattle grazed sites

38

Figure 10. Horizontal

39

(Figure 11-3). Variability within treatments was very high, particularly in cattle (7-

74%) and reference sites (26-78%). There was a significant difference between

treatments (p < 0.10). Sheep grazed sites contained a higher percentage of

pools than cattle grazed sites (p = 0.06). Residual pool depth also showed a

great deal of variability within treatments, especially in sheep grazed sites (0.3 –

1.0 meters; Figure 11-4). Sheep grazed sites had the highest mean residual

pool depth, followed by reference and cattle grazed sites. There was a

significant difference between treatments (p < 0.05) with sheep grazed sites

having deeper pools than cattle grazed sites (p = 0.03).

Average bank angle was lowest for reference sites, followed by sheep and

cattle grazed sites (Figure 11-5). However, high variability was observed and

differences between treatments were not statistically significant. Average bank

angle at cattle grazed sites ranged from 60-150 degrees whereas reference and

sheep grazed sites were somewhat less variable ranging from 72 to 127 and 99

to 121 degrees respectively. The percent of banks that were undercut was

highest in reference sites followed by sheep and cattle grazed sites (Figure 11-

6). All treatments were highly variable with cattle grazed sites ranging from 0 -

73 percent of banks undercut, reference sites from 17 to 54 percent, and sheep

grazed sites from 16 to 33 percent. Average depth of undercuts was similar in

reference and sheep grazed sites whereas cattle grazed sites were consistently

lower (Figure 12-1). Differences between the treatment means were not

statistically significant.

40

Figure 11. Measured stream bank and pool variables for Volcanic Sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

Bank

full w

idth

(m)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

11-1 Bankfull widthCattle Reference Sheep

Wid

th to

Dep

th (m

/m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

11-2 Width to depth ratio

Cattle Reference Sheep

Perc

ent o

f Rea

ch in

Poo

ls

0

20

40

60

80

100

11-3 Percent of reach containing poolsCattle Reference Sheep

Res

idua

l Dep

th (c

m)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

11-4 Residual pool depth

Cattle Reference Sheep

Aver

age

Bank

Ang

le

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

11-5 Average bank angleCattle Reference Sheep

Perc

ent b

anks

und

ercu

t

0

20

40

60

80

11-6 Percent of banks undercut

41

Figure 12. Measured stream bank and substrate variables for Volcanic sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

Dep

th o

f Und

ercu

ts

0

5

10

15

20

Cattle Reference Sheep

Perc

ent S

tabl

e Ba

nks

0

20

40

60

80

100

12-2 Percent banks stable (method 1)

Cattle Reference Sheep

Aver

age

Bank

Rat

ing

0

1

2

3

12-3 Average bank rating (method 1)Cattle Reference Sheep

Perc

ent S

tabl

e Ba

nks

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

12-4 Percent banks stable (method 2)

Cattle Reference Sheep

Perc

ent P

ool t

ail f

ines

0

20

40

60

80

12-5 Percent pool tail finesCattle Reference Sheep

D16

(mm

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

12-6 16th Percentile grain size (D16)

42

Three variables were used to assess bank stability between treatments. There

were differences between treatments in all three variables but none were

statistically significant. The percent of banks that were rated “stable” using

method 1 was highest in reference sites followed by sheep and cattle grazed

sites respectively (Figure 12-2). There was extremely high variability within

treatments. Cattle grazed sites ranged from 17-88 percent stable, sheep grazed

sites from 31-75 percent and reference sites from 33-81percent. Average bank

rating (method 1) followed the same pattern with reference sites rating the most

stable (Figure 12-3). Method 2 was considerably less variable within treatments.

Reference and sheep grazed sites were again more stable than cattle grazed

sites (Figure 12-4).

No statistical differences were observed between the three substrate

variables. Pool tail fines were highest at cattle grazed sites followed by sheep

and reference sites, respectively. All treatments with the exception of reference

showed high variability (Figure 12-5). Cattle grazed sites ranged from 4 to 74

percent, whereas sheep and reference sites were less variable ranging from 5 to

49 and 4 to 15 percent. The mean of the 16th particle grain size (D16) was

dissimilar between treatments with reference and sheep grazed sites largest,

followed by cattle grazed sites (Figure 12-6). There was considerable variability

within treatments, especially within reference sites (1–12 mm). The median

(D50) and 84 percentile particle grain size (D84) showed a very similar pattern

with reference sites highest followed by sheep and cattle grazed sites (Figures

13-1 and 13-2).

43

The amount of large woody debris (LWD) was highly variable in within all

treatments and was not significantly different. Reference sites had the highest

mean number followed by sheep and cattle grazed sites (Figure 13-3).

Vegetation Variables

We observed a number of differences in vegetation variables between

reference and grazed sites. Reference and sheep grazed sites displayed

significantly higher values of greenline seral, greenline seral adjusted, greenline

stability, and riparian status.

Greenline seral was significantly higher at reference and sheep grazed

sites than cattle grazed sites (Figure 13-4). Cattle grazed sites had fewer late

successional community types than reference (p = 0.08) and sheep sites (p =

0.03). Reference and sheep grazed sites were classified as Potential Natural

Community (PNC) or late seral stage for all sites. Only four of eleven cattle

grazed sites were rated as PNC or late seral. Of the remaining seven, three

were rated as very early, one as early, and three as mid-successional status.

The adjusted value for Greenline seral stage was also significantly different

between treatments (p < 0.05, Figure 13-5). Cattle grazed sites were

significantly lower than both reference (p = 0.07) and sheep grazed sites (p =

0.06). Riparian status displayed a similar pattern with reference and sheep

grazed sites rating significantly higher than cattle grazed sites (p < 0.01, Figure

44

Figure 13. Measured substrate and vegetation variables for Volcanic sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

D50

(mm

)

0

10

20

30

40

13-1 Median particle size (D50)Cattle Reference Sheep

D84

(mm

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

13-2 84th percentile grain size (D84)

Cattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber L

WD

0

10

20

30

40

13-3 Total pieces of large woody debrisCattle Reference Sheep

Gre

en-li

ne S

eral

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

13-4 Greenline seral

Cattle Reference Sheep

Gre

enlin

e Se

ral

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

13-5 Greenline seral (Adjusted)Cattle Reference Sheep

Rip

aria

n St

atus

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

13-6 Riparian status

45

13-6). Cattle grazed sites had significantly more disturbed community types than

both reference (p = 0.03) and sheep grazed sites (p < 0.01).

The mean for the greenline stability rating was again largest at reference

and sheep grazed sites and were rated as “high” (Figure 14-1). Cattle grazed

sites received a “mid” rating with 3 out of 11 sites received a low rating. There

was a significant difference among treatments (p < 0.01). Community types at

cattle grazed sites had a lower root mass rating than either reference (p < 0.01)

and sheep grazed sites (p < 0.01).

Significant differences between treatments were not observed for the

three shrub variables. Willow ratio (young:old) was highest at sheep grazed sites

followed by reference and cattle grazed sites, respectively (Figure 14-2). The

percent shrub canopy cover was highest at reference sites and there was little

difference between sheep and cattle grazed sites (Figure 14-3). Similarly,

percent grazed canopy cover was higher at reference sites than cattle grazed

sites (Figure 14-4).

The mean value for effective ground cover was highest at reference sites

followed by sheep and cattle grazed sites, respectively. Sheep and cattle grazed

sites had considerably more variability (78-100% and 73-100% respectively) than

reference sites (99-100%, Figure 14-5). There was a significant difference

between treatments (p < 0.02). Cattle grazed sites had significantly less ground

cover than reference sites (p = 0.02).

46

Figure 14. Measured vegetation variables for Volcanic sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

Gre

enlin

e St

abilit

y

4

6

8

10

14-1 Greenline stability ratingCattle Reference Sheep

Willo

w R

atio

0

1

2

3

4

14-2 Willow ratio (young:old)

Cattle Reference Sheep

Perc

ent S

hrub

Cov

er

0

20

40

60

80

100

14-3 Percent shrub coverCattle Reference

Perc

ent G

raze

d C

over

0

20

40

60

80

100

14-4 Percent grazed shrub cover

Cattle Reference Sheep

Perc

ent G

roun

d C

over

60

80

100

120

14-5 Effective ground cover

47

Invertebrates

Analysis of the aquatic invertebrate community and diversity indices

showed a variety of responses in metrics used to express taxa richness. The

number of operational taxa (OTU) showed differences between treatments.

Sheep grazed sites were higher than reference and cattle grazed sites in total

richness, and there was a significant difference between treatments (p < 0.01,

Figure 15-1). Sheep grazed sites had significantly more taxa than both

reference (p = 0.04) and cattle grazed sites (p < 0.01). The percent dominance

of a single taxon or family was highest in cattle grazed sites followed by

reference and sheep grazed sites, but no significant differences occurred

between treatments (Figure 15-2). The number of ephemeroptera taxa was

higher at sheep grazed sites followed by reference and cattle grazed sites

(Figure 15-3). Significant differences were detected between treatments (p <

0.10). Sheep grazed sites had significantly more taxa than cattle grazed sites (p

= 0.07). Plecoptera taxa abundance was significantly different between

treatments (p = 0.01; Figure 15-4). Cattle grazed sites had fewer taxa than both

sheep (p = 0.04) and reference sites (p = 0.04). Trichoptera taxa abundance

was highest in sheep and reference sites but differences were not statistically

significant (Figure 15-5). The number of long-lived taxa was significantly

different (p < 0.05) by treatment (Figure 15-6). Sheep grazed sites had more

long-lived taxa than reference sites (p = 0.02).

Measures of community tolerance to pollution showed a variety of

48

Figure 15. Measured invertebrate variables for volcanic sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

15-2 Percent most dominate taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber t

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

15-3 Number Ephemeropter

Cattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber t

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

15-4 Number Plecoptera taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber t

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

15-5 Number trichoptera taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber t

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

15-6 Number long-lived taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep

Tota

l ric

hnes

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

15-1 Total OTU richness

49

responses to treatments. The number of intolerant taxa was significantly

difference between treatments (p < 0.01; Figure 16-1). Cattle grazed sites had

significantly fewer intolerant taxa than reference (p = 0.01) and sheep grazed

sites (p = 0.02). The percent of tolerant taxa was higher in both cattle and sheep

grazed sites than in reference sites, but differences were not statistically

significant (Figure 16-2). The USFS Community tolerant quotient (CTQd) was

significantly different between treatments (P = 0.01, Figure 16-3). Cattle (p <

0.01) and sheep grazed sites (p=0.08) had significantly higher tolerance ratings

than reference sites.

Invertebrate metrics associated with feeding groups were different

between treatments. The number of clinger taxa was significantly different

between treatments (p = 0.01, Figure 16-4). Sheep grazed sites contained more

clinger taxa than cattle grazed sites (p < 0.01). The percent invertebrate

predators was higher at reference sites than sheep or cattle grazed sites, but the

differences were not statistically significant (Figure 16-5).

Comparisons of Grand Means

Comparisons between the grand means for reference and cattle grazed

sites indicated that cattle sites were in much poorer condition than reference

sites (Table 3). Twenty nine of 32 comparisons considered cattle grazed sites in

poorer condition (90%), 1 was the same (3%), and 2 considered cattle grazed

50

Figure 16. Measured invertebrate variables for Volcanic sites.

Cattle Reference Sheep

Num

ber t

axa

0

2

4

6

8

10

16-1 Number intolerant taxaCattle Reference Sheep

% T

oler

ant t

axa

0

10

20

30

40

50

16-2 Percent tolerant taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep0

20

40

60

80

100

16-3 CtqdCattle Reference Sheep

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

16-4 Number clinger taxa

Cattle Reference Sheep

% P

reda

tor t

axa

0

10

20

30

40

16-5 Percent predator taxa

51

sites in better condition (7%). This relation was similar within stream, riparian

vegetation, and invertebrate variables. Comparisons between reference and

sheep grazed sites indicate that the conditions in reference sites were better

than in sheep grazed sites. Eighteen of 32 comparisons considered sheep

grazed sites in poorer condition (56%), 3 were the same (10%), and 10

considered sheep grazed sites in better condition (34%). However, this trend

was not consistent between the three categories of response variables.

Reference sites were in better condition for 11 of 14 stream variables and 5 of 8

riparian vegetation variables whereas sheep grazed sites were in better condition

for 6 of 10 invertebrate variables.

PACFISH Comparisons

Summaries of reach data from granitic and volcanic sites were

summarized for comparisons with five PACFISH Riparian Management

Objectives (RMO’s; PACFISH 1994). Pools per mile and wetted width to depth

ratios were calculated for all reaches. However, our ratios only describe the

widest areas within riffles and probably overestimate the average ratio for the

reach. Bank stability and lower bank angle (percent undercut banks) were

compared in all meadow reaches. We defined “meadow reaches” as having less

than five pieces of large woody debris per 100 m of stream length. Large woody

debris was compared for 12 reaches.

Fifty-six of 65 granitic sites met or exceeded the PACFISH RMO’s for

52

Table 4. Landscape

53

Table 4 continued. Landscape

54

Table 4 continued. Landscape

55

pools per mile (Table 4). Fourteen of 19 cattle grazed sites, 35 out of 37

references sites, and 7 out of 9 sheep grazed sites met the pool objective. Eight

of 34 meadow sites met or exceeded the objective for percent bank stability.

Two of 13 were cattle grazed sites, 4 of 16 were reference sites, and 2 of 5 were

sheep grazed sites. Three of 34 meadow sites met or exceeded the objective for

lower bank angle. One of these was a cattle grazed site and three were

reference sites. The wetted width/depth ratio objective was met or exceeded for

2 of 65 sites. Both were reference sites. Four of eleven forested sites met or

exceeded the objective for large woody debris and all four were reference sites.

Sixteen of the 21 sites sampled in volcanics met or exceeded the

PACFISH objectives for pools per mile (Table 5). Eight of the twelve cattle

grazed sites, all reference sites, and four of five sheep grazed sites met the

objective. The bank stability objective was only met for 2 of the 16 meadow

sites. One was a cattle grazed site and the other a reference site. None of the

16 meadow sites met the objective for lower bank angle. The wetted width to

depth ratio objective was only met for 1 (cattle grazed site) of the 21 sites. Large

woody debris was only measured in one forested site and it did not meet the

objective.

Natural Conditions Database Comparisons

We compared values for bank stability and percent pool tail fines collected

by Overton et al. (1995) in the natural conditions database (NCD) for

56

Table 5. Landscape

57

the Salmon River with values from granitics sites in our study. We graphed our

bank stability values using both method 1 and 2 with NCD values which used a

methodology similar to method 2. We also compared pool tail fines for our

study to those collected by the NCD. We only use NCD values collected in pool

tails and not values collected in low gradient riffles. Also, the NCD used visual

estimates of fines whereas our study used the 49-intersection grid method.

The percent bank stability showed large variability between both methods

in our study and the NCD. Reference sites in the NCD showed higher bank

stability values than any of the treatments in our study using either of the

methods. Using Method 2, 70% of cattle grazed sites and 50% of reference

sites contained less than 80% stable banks whereas only 35% of NCD sites

were below 80% (Figure 17). Similarly 95%, 80%, and 65% of cattle, reference,

and sheep grazed sites respectively were less than 80% using method 1 (Figure

18). Percent pool tail fines also showed differences between the two studies

(Figure 19). Eighty percent of sheep grazed sites, 75% of reference sites, and

70% of cattle grazed sites in our study had less than 20% surface fines whereas

only 40% of the sites in NCD exhibited the same value. Caution should be used

when comparing the studies since the methodologies for estimating fines were

different.

58

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent Stable Banks (Method 2)

Cum

ulat

ive

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

(%)

Cattle n = 9Reference n = 26NCD n = 2464

Figure 17. Cumulative relative frequency distribution displaying the range of percent bank stability values for our sites and the NCD using method 2.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent Stable Banks (Method 1)

Cum

ulat

ive

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

(%)

Cattle n = 16Reference n = 32Sheep n = 8NCD n = 2464

Figure 18. Cumulative relative frequency distributions displaying the range of percent bank stability values for our sites (method 1) and the NCD (method 2).

59

Figure 19. Cumulative relative frequency distribution displaying the range of percent pool tail fines for our sites and the NCD. DISCUSSION

During 1998 and 1999 we sampled 15 cattle, 33 reference, and 9 sheep

grazed watersheds in granitics within the Salmon River Drainage Idaho. This

constitutes a nearly complete census of the grazed and reference watersheds in

the three strata. While analyses are not completed, we can make some

preliminary conclusions about the current condition of watersheds within

granitics.

In general, we saw few differences between the three treatments for the

majority of the response variables we measured. Statistically significant

differences were only observed in 3 of 37 variables, which is what we would

expect by random chance given a p value of 0.10. However, when we compared

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Surface Fines

Cum

ulat

ive

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

(%)

Cattle n = 47Reference n = 106Sheep n = 24NCD n = 2027

60

the means for each variable, 66% of the variables showed cattle grazed sites in

worse condition than reference. Nineteen percent of the collected variables

showed no differences, and 15% showed cattle grazed sites in better condition.

Stream temperatures were measured at 24 sites and described lower maximum

temperatures in reference sites than either cattle or sheep grazed sites. In

summary, we did not observe gross differences in instream and riparian habitat

quality between cattle grazed and reference sites, but that impacts may be

present at smaller scales. Finally, we did not observe differences between

sheep and reference watersheds. We stress that these are only preliminary

findings and that further analyses are being conducted to more thoroughly

address this issue.

In 1999, we sampled 12 cattle, 4 reference, and 5 sheep grazed

watersheds in volcanics to assess how the protocol functioned in a different

geology. The low sample size precludes definitive conclusions, but may provide

some indication of watershed conditions. Significant differences were observed

in two of the 15 stream variables, 5 of 8 vegetation variables, and 6 of 11

invertebrate variables. Most of these tests showed few differences between

sheep and reference watersheds, but indicated that cattle grazed watersheds

were in poorer condition. Comparisons between the grand means for cattle and

reference sites showed that cattle grazed sites were in poorer condition than

reference sites for 91% of the variables collected. Comparisons between sheep

and reference sites indicated that sheep grazed sites were closer to reference

conditions with 44% of the variables “poorer” and 34% “better” than reference

61

sites.

We observed several differences in stream characteristics between

granitics and volcanics. First, approximately one third of grazed volcanic

watersheds did not contain response reaches within third order channels.

Secondly, many of the response reaches contained a substantial amount of

beaver activity. As a result, we were unable to sample half of the grazed

watersheds that were initially chosen. Finally, many stream reaches occurred

within entrenched channels in volcanics. This type of condition may require a

new reach strata or different consideration during analysis.

There are several factors that may have influenced the analyses and

subsequent results. High variability was observed within treatments for the

majority of variables in both geologies. High variability within treatments

prevents the detection of statistical significance using analysis of variance tests,

even when large differences exist between the means. Therefore, biologically

important differences may be present but not identified using these analyses.

Secondly, each response variable is only one component of the “habitat”. It may

be more applicable to use models that combine variables when examining

overall habitat condition. Finally, inconsistencies and subjectivity in how the

variables were measured may be partially responsible for the high variability we

observed. We are currently addressing the first two questions through additional

statistical analyses and the last question by analyzing data from quality control

sampling conducted in 1999.

62

Additional Questions

1) We are conducting two additional types of analyses to further address

the current condition of streams and riparian areas within grazed watersheds.

Multiple regression analysis and discriminate functions analysis, which use a

suite of variables, may provide greater insight into the habitat relationship

between grazed and reference watersheds.

2) We recognize that grazing is only one of the management activities

that influence watershed condition and the variables we measure. Other

management activities such as road densities, riparian road densities, number of

road crossings, percent of watershed harvested and burned within the last 30

years, and mining history can all influence our results. These variables in

addition to watershed area and stream gradient will be used as covariates to

partition variability within treatments in grazed and ungrazed watersheds.

3) We recognize that reference watersheds will be rare in many areas

within the UCRB, which will exclude most tests used in this report. Other

extensive monitoring plans have proposed to have field office personnel

delineate the best watersheds available and use these as reference sites or uses

a team of experts to define the range of values expected at reference sites

(Mulder et al. 1999). We want to determine whether certain variables measured

in riparian exclosures would approximate reference conditions. Six exclosures

within granitics and five in volcanics were sampled during 1999. Each variable

will be compared with reference and grazed sites to determine its usefulness in

describing reference conditions.

63

4) A number of authors have recently argued the need for a scientifically

rigid quality control component for monitoring plans (Poole et al. 1997, Mulder et

al. 1999). This information is crucial in defining the accuracy, repeatability, and

legal credibility of the information collected. In 1999, six reaches were sampled

by all crews to test the amount of variability between crews in measuring each

variable at the same location. Analysis will determine biases between crews and

describe the amount of variation observed with each variable. This information

will also be useful in refining the sampling protocols to reduce variability in the

future.

REFERENCES

Bauer, S. B. and T. A. Burton. 1993. Monitoring protocols to evaluate water quality effects of grazing management on western rangeland streams. Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Blossum Statistical Software. 1991. User Manual. Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, National Biological Survey. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Harrelsonn, C. C., C. L. Rawlins, and J. P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 138p.

Kauffman, J. B., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts of cattle on stream banks in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management: 36(6), Nov. 683-691.

Kershner, J. L. Draft. Effectiveness monitoring of aquatic and riparian resources in the area of PACFISH/INFISH.

Kershner, J. L., R. C. Henderson, C. J. Abbruzzese, W. N. McDavitt, and R. Neilson. 1999. Summary report – pilot monitoring project to assess the status of steelhead habitat in grazed systems in Region 4, USDA Forest

64

Service. Logan, Utah. 55 pages.

Meyers, T. J. and S. Swanson. 1991. Aquatic Habitat Condition Index, stream type, and livestock bank damage in Northern Nevada. Water Resources Bulletin: Vol 27, No. 4:667-677.

Meyers, T. J. and S. Swanson. 1992. Variation of stream stability with stream type and livestock bank damage in Northern Nevada. Water Resources Bulletin: Vol 28, No. 4:743-754.

Mulder, B. S., and seven co-authors. 1999. The strategy and Design of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-437. Fort Collin, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61p.

Overton, C. K., J. D McIntyre, R. Armstrong, S. L. Whitwell, and K. A. Duncan. 1995. User’s guide to fish habitat descriptions that represent natural conditions in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-322. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 142p.

Overton, C. K., S. P. Wollrab, B. C. Roberts,and M. A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (northern and intermountain regions) fish and fish habitat standard inventory procedures handbook. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-346.

PACFISH (Pacific Anadromous Fisheries Habitat), U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Environmental assessment for the implementation of interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Platts, W. S., R. L. Nelson, O. Casey, and V. Crispin. 1983. Riparian stream habitat conditions on Tabor Creek, Nevada, under grazed and ungrazed conditions. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 63:162-174.

Platts, W.S., and twelve co-authors. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Research INT-221.

Poole, G. C., C. A. Frissell, and S. C. Ralph. 1997. In-stream habitat unit classification: inadequacies for monitoring and some consequences for management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 33(4):879-896.

65

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.

SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS language guide for personal computers, Version 6 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Winward, A. In press. Monitoring the Vegetation resources in Riparian Areas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 48p.

Wolman, M. G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse riverbed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 35(6): 951-956.

66

APPENDIX A

Description of How Each Parameter was Calculated

67

STREAM CHANNEL VARIABLES

Bankfull Width – Average of the bankfull widths (meters) from the four

channel cross-sections.

Bankfull Width:Depth Ratio – Average of the ratios from the four

channel cross-sections. The ratio for each cross-section was calculated as the

(bankfull width / bankfull depth).

Residual Pool Depth – Average of the residual pool depths for all pools.

Percent Pools - Sum of all pool lengths / reach length.

Percent Stable Banks (Method 1) – Each bank stability measurement is

given a rating of 1 “stable”, 2 “partially unstable”, or 3 “unstable”. The percent

stable banks is calculated as the (number of bank measurements rated 1 / total

number of measurements).

Average Bank Rating (Method 1) – Average rating from all bank

measurements

Percent Stable Banks (Method 2) – Each bank stability measurement is

rated covered stable, covered unstable, uncovered stable, uncovered unstable,

or false bank. The percent stable banks is calculated as the (number of covered

stable, uncovered stable, and false bank measurements / total number of

measurements)).

Average Bank Angle – Average of all bank angle measurements.

Percent Undercut Banks - Number of locations with bank angles < 90

68

degrees and an undercut depth of > 5 cm / total number of measurements.

Average Undercut Depth - Sum of all undercut depths / total number of

measurements.

Pool-tail Fines - Percent surface fines for each pool is calculated as the

(average (fine 1 + fine 2 + fine 3)) * 2 and then all four pools are averaged for

the reach.

D16 – The D16 (millimeters) is derived from Wolman Pebble Counts.

Sixteen percent of the substrate particles sampled are less than this size.

D50 - The D50 (millimeters) is derived from Wolman Pebble Counts. Fifty

percent of the substrate particles sampled are less than this size.

D84 - The D84 (millimeters) is derived from Wolman Pebble Counts.

Eighty four percent of the substrate particles sampled are less than this size.

Large Woody Debris – Number of pieces per 100 meters of stream

length.

69

RIPARIAN VEGETATION

Greenline Stability – Percent composition of each community type *

class stability rating for that community type. Values range from 1 to 10 with

higher values indicating root masses with a greater ability to buffer the forces of

moving water.

Greenline Seral – Number of steps with a “late” successional rating / total

number of steps. This method describes the successional status of the

community types with higher percentages indicating a greater proportion of late

seral community types.

Greenline Seral Adjusted – Greenline seral / capability group expected

value. Differences in environmental variables make it unlikely that all

streambanks can attain the same successional state. To adjust for expected

differences, Winward (in press) developed 10 capability groups based on stream

gradient and substrate size classes defined by Rosgen (1996).

Riparian Community Status - Number of steps with a “natural” status

rating / total number of steps. This method describes the deviation of current

community types from what would naturally be expected. Lower values indicate

greater deviation from a natural condition.

Willow Regeneration Ratio – This parameter is calculate as the ratio of

sprout and young : mature and decadent. Only non-rhizomatous willows are

included.

Shrub Canopy Cover - Number of locations with woody cover / total

number of locations.

70

Shrub Canopy Cover (Grazed) - Number of locations with “grazed” cover

/ total number of locations. This method only considers woody plants that are

used as forage by livestock. These are Salix, Betula, Populus, and Alnus.

Effective Ground Cover - Number of locations classified as “covered” /

total number of locations.

71

MACROINVERTEBRATES

Total OTU (Operational Taxanomic Unit) Richness – Total number of

taxa collected within a reach. Taxa richness normally decreases with decreasing

water quality, although organic enrichment can cause an increase in the number

of pollution tolerant taxa.

Number of Ephemeroptera Taxa - Number of Mayfly taxa.

Number of Plecoptera Taxa – Number of Stonefly taxa.

Number of Tricoptera Taxa – Number of Caddisfly taxa.

Percent Dominance of Most Dominance Taxa – (Number of organisms

in most dominant taxon / total number of organisms in sample) * 100. A

community dominated by a single taxon or several taxa from the same family

suggests environmental stress. The percent dominant’s normally increases with

decreasing water quality.

Percent of Assemblage made up by Predator Taxa – (Number of

predator organisms / total number of organisms in sample) * 100.

Number of Clinger Taxa – Number of “clinger” taxa. These taxa

typically cling to the tops of rocks and may be impacted by sedimentation or

abundant algal growths.

Number of Long-lived Taxa – Number of “long-lived” taxa. Long-lived

taxa typically have 2-3 year life cycles and respond negatively to human

disturbance.

72

Number of Intolerant Taxa – Number of “intolerant” taxa. The number

of intolerant taxa normally declines with decreasing water quality.

Percent of Assemblage made up by Tolerant Taxa – (Number of

organism from tolerant taxa / total number of organisms in sample) * 100. The

percent of tolerant taxa is expected to increase with decreasing water quality.

RIVPACS – Observed taxa at a site / expected taxa for that strata.

RIVPACS employs a predictive model that compares the number of

macroinvertebrate fauna to be expected in high quality habitat to the number

found at a given site. Scores > 79% indicate good quality habitat whereas

scores < 75% indicate poorer quality habitat.

Community Tolerance Quotient - This index is calculated as:

CTQd = ∑ (ni * TQ / N) where TQ is the tolerance quotient of that taxon, ni is the number of individuals

of a taxon, and N is the total number of organisms in the sample. Higher CTQd

values would indicate more polluted waters whereas lower values indicate higher

water quality.

73

WATER TEMPERATURES

Average Weekly Temperature – Average water temperature for each

Julian Week from July 2 to September 2.

Average Weekly Maximum Temperature – Average daily maximum

temperature for each Julian Week from July 2 to September 2.

74

APPENDIX B

Summary Tables for All Statistical Analyses

75

Appendix. A-1. Results from repeated measures ANOVA on stream variables, at granitic sites.

Response Variable Source DF P-value W-stat Bankfull width Management 2 0.082 0.83

Year 1 0.846 Year*Management 2 0.090

Width to depth ratio Management 2 0.362 0.65 Year 1 0.411 Year*Management 2 0.218

Residual pool depth Management 2 0.661 0.79 Year 1 0.344 Year*Management 2 0.537

Percent pools Management 2 0.689 0.50 Year 1 0.887 Year*Management 2 0.392

Percent stable banks (method 1) Management 2 0.235 0.17 Year 1 0.648 Year*Management 2 0.096

Average bank rating (method 1) Management 2 0.601* 0.04

Average bank angle Management 2 0.963 0.54 Year 1 0.343 Year*Management 2 0.127

Percent undercut banks Management 2 0.131 0.40 Year 1 0.319 Year*Management 2 0.031

Depth of undercut banks Management 2 0.406 0.32 Year 1 0.277 Year*Management 2 0.102

Percent pool-tail fines Management 2 0.137 0.68 Year 1 0.558 Year*Management 2 0.608

D16 Management 2 0.924* 0.00

D50 Management 2 0.170 0.17 Year 1 0.096 Year*Management 2 0.363

76

Appendix A-1. Cont.

Response Variable Source DF P-value W-stat D84 Management 2 0.475 0.18

Year 1 0.176 Year*Management 2 0.605

Average water temperature Management 2 0.071 0.58 Week 8 0.001 Week*Management 16 0.165

Maximum water temperature Management 2 0.005 0.11 Week 8 0.001 Week*Management 16 0.374

* Data not normally distributed, P-value represents results from MRPP test. Appendix A-2. Result from repeated measures ANOVA on vegetation variables, at granitic sites.

Response Variable Source DF MGMT W-stat Greenline seral Management 2 0.357* 0.06 Greenline seral adjusted Management 2 0.282 0.23 Year 1 0.499 Year*Management 2 0.359 Riparian status Management 2 0.211 0.19 Year 1 0.235 Year*Management 2 0.919 Greenline stabilty Management 2 0.969 0.39 Year 1 0.385 Year*Management 2 0.323 Willow ratio Management 2 0.702 0.13 Year 1 0.930

Year*Management 2 0.307 * Data not normally distributed, P-value represents results from MRPP test. Appendix A-3. Result from repeated measures ANOVA on invertebrate

77

variables, at granitic sites.

Response Variable Source DF P-value W-stat Richness (OUT) Management 2 0.943 0.60

Year 1 0.901 Year*Management 2 0.572

Percent most dominate taxa Management 2 0.680 0.22 Year 1 0.669 Year*Management 2 0.639

Number of clinger taxa Management 2 0.184 0.90 Year 1 0.984 Year*Management 2 0.968

Long-lived taxa Management 2 0.907 0.45 Year 1 0.535 Year*Management 2 0.926

CTQd Management 2 0.140* 0.05

Percent predator taxa Management 2 0.935 0.69 Year 1 0.517 Year*Management 2 0.824

Number of Ephemopter taxa Management 2 0.180 0.69 Year 1 0.511 Year*Management 2 0.429

Number Plecopter taxa Management 2 0.242 0.47 Year 1 0.516 Year*Management 2 0.459

Number Trichoptera taxa Management 2 0.485 0.76 Year 1 0.751 Year*Management 2 0.856

Number intolerant taxa Management 2 0.284 0.52 Year 1 0.656 Year*Management 2 0.122

Percent tolerant taxa Management 2 0.34* 0.00 * Data not normally distributed, P-value represents results from MRPP test. Appendix A-4. Results from One-way ANOVA on Group 2 data, at granitic sites.

78

Response Variable Source DF MGMT W-stat Bank stability (method 2) Management 2 0.412 0.38

Percent shrub cover Management 2 0.845 0.47 Percent shrub cover (grazed) Management 2 0.560* 0.06 Effective ground cover Management 2 0.308 0.16 Wood Management 2 0.385 0.15 * Data not normally distributed, P-value represents results from MRPP test. Appendix A-5. Results from Pair-wise comparisons showing Tuckey-Kramer adjusted P-values, for variables that were significantly different by management, in granitics. Response Variable Management Cattle vs Ref Sheep vs Ref Sheep vs Cattle Bankfull width 0.082 0.285 0.246 0.057 Average water temperature 0.071 0.245 0.065 0.597 Maximum water temperature 0.005 0.024 0.006 0.598 Appendix A-6. Results from One-way ANOVA on stream variables, at volcanic sites.

79

Response Variable Source Error DF P-value W-stat. Bankfull width Management 2 0.105 0.21 Width to depth ratio Management 2 0.598 0.83 Residual pool depth Management 2 0.039 0.14 Percent pools Management 2 0.069 0.98 Percent stable banks (method 1) Management 2 0.764 0.16 Percent stable banks (method 2) Management 2 0.766 0.38 Average bank rating (method 1) Management 2 0.900 0.11 Bank angle Management 2 0.419 0.79 Percent undercut banks Management 2 0.547 0.36 Depth of undercut banks Management 2 0.145 0.13 Percent pooltail fines Management 2 0.185 0.71 D16 Management 2 0.242 * 0.04 D50 Management 2 0.258 0.37 D84 Management 2 0.457 0.52 WOOD Management 2 0.540 * 0.05 * Data not normally distributed, P-value represents results from MRPP test. Appendix A-7. Results from One-way ANOVA on vegetation variables, at volcanic sites.

80

Response Variable Source Error DF P-value W-stat. Greenline seral Management 2 0.017 0.52 Greenline seral adjusted Management 2 0.026 0.67 Riparian status Management 2 0.005 0.81 Greenline stabilty Management 2 0.001 0.46 Willow ratio Management 2 0.225 0.74 Percent shrub cover Management 2 0.220 0.82 Percent shrub cover (grazed) Management 2 0.423 0.25 Effective ground cover Management 2 0.023 0.70 Appendix A-8. Results from One-way ANOVA on invertebrate variables, at volcanic sites. Response Variable Source Error DF P-value W-stat. Richness (OTU) Management 2 0.004 0.28 Percent most dominate taxa Management 2 0.448 0.39 Number clinger taxa Management 2 0.002 0.46 Number long-lived taxa Management 2 0.034 0.57 CTQd Management 2 0.012 0.60 Percent predator taxa Management 2 0.241 0.29 Number Ephemeropter taxa Management 2 0.034 0.92 Number Plecoptera taxa Management 2 0.013 0.64 Number trichoptera taxa Management 2 0.103 0.36 Number intolerant taxa Management 2 0.006 0.17 Percent tolerant taxa Management 2 0.690 0.57 Appendix A-9. Results from Pair-wise comparisons showing Tuckey-Kramer adjusted P-values, for variables that were significantly different by management, in volcanics.

81

Response Variable Management Cattle vs Ref Sheep vs Ref Sheep vs Cattle Residual pool depth 0.041 0.696 0.320 0.033 Percent pools 0.069 0.543 0.569 0.060 Greenline seral 0.017 0.078 0.978 0.032 Greenline seral adjusted 0.026 0.070 0.995 0.064 Riparian status 0.005 0.036 0.938 0.009 Greenline stabilty 0.001 0.001 0.545 0.009 Effective ground cover 0.023 0.018 0.155 0.540 Richness (OUT) 0.004 0.820 0.047 0.003 Number clinger taxa 0.018 0.780 0.104 0.008 Number long lived taxa 0.034 0.308 0.028 0.170 CTQd 0.012 0.003 0.078 0.384 Number Ephemeropter taxa 0.034 0.531 0.619 0.074 Number Plecoptera taxa 0.013 0.043 0.995 0.035 Number intolerant taxa 0.006 0.019 0.975 0.019