Using Multiple Indicator Monitoring Protocols

What is MIM Streambank Alteration?  The number of lines on the plot that intercept hoof prints, hoof shears – disturbances caused by trampling.  5 lines per frame – one sample  At least 80 samples per site – total of 400+ lines  % Streambank Alteration = the proportion of the 400+ lines that intercept hoof prints/shears

MIM Bank Alteration 80+ plots Samples

Hoof Print & Hoof Shear Dimensions  Average width = mm  Average length =171.8 mm 230mm 120 mm

Bank Shear and Tramples

Why use a simple intercept method?  Simple = more efficient  Simple = better agreement among observers

Variability Among Observers – Various methods  GLP: SD = 4.7, CV = 56  GL : SD = 6.3, CV = 20  BF: SD = 8.1, CV = 35  MIM (35 tests): SD = 4.3, CV = 22.7 Heitke et.al. 2008

MIM estimates length of greenline altered: MIM: 4 “Hits” = 80% LENGTH OF GREENLINE (within 1 hoof print ) altered = 90% AREA OF PLOT altered = 60% Typically the vegetated side of the greenline has fewer alterations

Simultation using actual hoof print dimensions

Results High Regression Coefficient 1:1 relationship (.91 X MIM) Lower Regression Coefficient 1:3 Relationship (.32 X MIM): MIM 20% - AREA 10% MIM 40% - AREA 16% MIM 60% - AREA 23%

Proper Use of Bank Alteration  As a short-term indicator of disturbance effects on bank stability and vegetation  Any value assigned as a trigger to move livestock or as a measure of grazing use is a “guideline” which must be able to change through time (See Cowley 2002)  Thus a “Term and Condition” should incorporate an adaptive process.

Bank Alteration and Bank Stability

EF Deer Creek Dominant Vegetation POPR– 65% MFE – 22% JUBA – 12% SCMI – 3% % Hydric – 19% October 2009 Bank alteration:1% Bank stability: 70% Nick Stiner, Malheur NF – Fall 2009 Christopher Christie photo 2008 June 2009 Sept Bank alteration: 24% Bank stability: 51% June 2009 Bank alteration: 4% Bank stability: 67%

Cowley 2002 – Lit Summary  “Little research data is available concerning the amount of streambank alteration that a stream can tolerate and repair each year.”  “Each of the authors mentioned above recognizes the ability of streams to repair a certain amount of bank alteration”  “The further a streambank is from the desired future condition, the less additional alteration it can tolerate and still recover to a stable level.”

Amount of Alteration that streambanks can repair annually depends upon:  Stream gradient  Streambed material composition,  Streambank soil composition,  Vegetation cover and type  Channel geometry,  Flow rate and timing, and  “... concentrated impacts under rotation systems can cause sufficient woody plant or streambank damage in a single season or year that recovery might take several years. Therefore, the best approach is to limit grazing stress to the site’s capability for annual recovery.” (Clary and Kruse 2004)

A Rational Approach to Bank Alteration Criteria and Standards  Existing Condition: Compare existing condition to a reference (best method) Bank Stability (%): Bank Cover (%): Hydric herbaceous vegetation (%) ○ (closer these are to reference the higher the allowable level of bank alteration)  Channel Type: >gradient = higher allowable level > particle sizes = higher allowable level

The Confidence Interval  Any criteria requires consideration of the precision of the measurement.  CI for Streambank Alteration 32 tests ○ Maximum – 11% ○ Minimum -.5% ○ Average – 6%  Using the CI: Set trigger at allowable level minus 6% Set standard at allowable level plus 6% e.g. If allowable level is 20%, trigger might be set at 14%, and term and condition set at 26%.