CURRENT AND HISTORIC STREAM CHANNEL RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN CATTLE AND ELK GRAZING PRESSURE AND BEA VER ACTIVITY by SUZANNE CATHERINE FOUTY A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Geography and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2003 "Current and Historic Stream Channel Response to Changes in Cattle and Elk Grazing Pressure and Beaver Activity," a dissertation prepared by Suzanne Catherine Fouty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Geography. This dissertation has been approved and accepted by: Dr. Patricia F. McDowell, Chair of the Examining Committee Date Committee in charge: Accepted by: Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Patricia F. McDowell, Chair Dr. Patrick Bartlein Dr. Shaul Cohen Dr. Jeffrey Ostler Dr. Robert L. Beschta 11 An Abstract of the Dissertation of Suzanne Catherine Fouty for the degree of · in the Department of Geography to be taken 111 Doctor of Philosophy March 2003 Title: CURRENT AND HISTORIC STREAM CHANNEL RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN CATTLE AND ELK GRAZING PRESSURE AND BEA VER ACTIVITY Approved: Dr. Patricia F. McDowell Livestock grazing and beaver trapping alter streams hydrologically and geomorphically leading to declines in the quality and extent of stream-riparian ecosystems. The influence of reductions in grazing pressure and fluctuating levels of beaver activity (treatments) on channel capacity was studied at I 08 channel cross- sections, located on eight headwater streams in Montana and Arizona. Cross-sections were surveyed two or three times over a two-to-five year period to determine annual rates of change as a function of treatment. Most cross-sections in the cattle and elk exclosures and grazed areas showed minimal changes in area(< 10 percent). Large decreases in cross-section area were observed in reaches with intact beaver dams, especially near the dams. The beaver ponds reduced channel capacity between 50 to I 00% in most reaches, compared to< 25% in reaches without beaver ponds. The ponds effectively restored the hydrologic connection between the stream and valley floor in less than one year. Upon IV dam failure, channel capacity increased within a year by 40 percent or more as the ponds drained and sediment eroded. A conceptual model describing geomorphic and hydrologic response of a drainage basin to the entry of beavers and then their removal or abandonment was developed, based on a literature review and field data. The model suggests that the simultaneous existence of discontinuous arroyos and wetlands, observed by Euro-American expeditions to the Southwest prior to settlement, may in fact reflect landscapes transforming due to recent beaver trapping rather than a recent climate shift. Beaver-dam failures would trigger channelization and thus greater flood magnitudes as water was more rapidly routed from upper to lower watersheds. The study suggests that Euro-American trapping and grazing, though temporally and spatially separated, combined with two recent periods of above-average precipitation to transform drainage networks in the West and increase stream ecosystem sensitivity to climatic variability. This transformation pre-dates the installation of stream gages and the data collection that forms the current basis of our understanding hydraulic geometry and fluvial processes. Consequently, current hydraulic geometry relationships and our understanding of stream sensitivity to climatic variability reflect highly disturbed watersheds and ecosystems, not intact systems. CURRICULUM VITA NAME OF AUTHOR: Suzanne Catherine Fouty PLACE OF BIRTH: Seattle, Washington DATE OF BIRTH: August 23, 1956 GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon University of Arizona University of Washington University of Michigan North Seattle Community College Central Washington State University Washington State University DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy in Geography, 2003, University of Oregon Master of Science in Geological Sciences, 1989, University of Arizona Bachelor of Science in Geology, 1982, University of Washington AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: V Current and historic influences of livestock grazing and beaver trapping on stream and riparian systems Stream and riparian restoration Human and environment relationships as it pertains to restoring ecosystems Scientific and public perceptions of rivers, beavers, cattle, and wolves Stream channel changes and community stability in the face of climate change PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Graduate Teaching Fellow, University of Oregon, Eugene, 1995-1999. Course Instructor - Geomorphology (Geography 311), Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene, Winter 1997. VI Independent Consultant - Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Protection Agency (subcontractor), Montana and Arizona 1994-1998. Seasonal Hydrologist/Hydrologic Intern, Forest Service, California and Montana, Summer 1991, Summer 1992, Summer 1993. Outdoor Environmental Educator, Yosemite Institute, Yosemite National Park, California 1990 - 1992. Water Resource Specialist II, New Mexico Environment Department/ Underground Storage Tank Bureau, Santa Fe, 1989- 1990. Hydrologic Intern, Tucson Water, Tucson, 1987 - 1989. Hydrologic Technician, U. S. Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada, Summer 1985. Physical Technician, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, 1983 - 1984. Field Assistant, University of Washington, Department of Geology, Kenya, East Africa, Summer 1982. GRANTS, AW ARDS AND HONORS: University of Oregon Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship, 1999 University of Oregon - Department of Geography Travel Grant, 1998 University of Oregon - Department of Geography Summer Research Grant, 1996, 1997, 1998 Pacific Northwest Forest Sciences Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), 1998 Madison Valley Rangelands Group (Ennis, Montana), 1997 USDA Forest Service Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (Dillon, Montana), 1995, 1997, 1998 USDA Forest Service Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (Springerville, Arizona), 1994, 1997 The Nature Conservancy (Tucson, Arizona), 1994 Bureau of Land Management Dillon Resource Area (Dillon, Montana), 1994, 1995 The Lore Kahn Foundation (Livingston, Montana), 1993, 1994 PUBLICATIONS: Vll Fouty, S. C. 2002. Cattle and Streams - Piecing together a story of change. In Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West (G. Wuerthner and M. Matteson eds). Island Press, Washington, p. 185 187. Fouty, S.C., 1996. Current condition of selected streams in the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forest -- 1994. Report for: The Nature Conservancy (Tucson, Arizona) and the Forest Service (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Springerville, Arizona) Ohmart, R.D., Fouty, S.C., and Tiller, R.L., 1994. Stream Conditions in the Vicinity of the Valley Concrete Sand and Gravel Operation, Verde River, Arizona. Report for: U.S. Department of Justice. 51pp. Fouty, S.C., 1985. The thematic mapper and its applications to geomorphology In Geomorphic Surfaces in the Tucson Basin, Arizona: A Field Guidebook (L.L. Ely and V.R. Baker, compilers), pp. 63 - 79. Fouty, S.C. (compiler), 1984. Index to Published Geologic Maps in the Region around the Potential Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository site, southern Nye County, Nevada. U.S. Geological Open-File Report 84-524. ABSTRACTS: Fouty, S.C., 1998. Stream Channel Morphological Responses to Reductions in Grazing Pressure (abs.): American Water Resources Association- Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources. Reno, Nevada. Fouty, S.C., 1998. Images of Western Rivers: The Internalization of Degraded Systems as Normal and Its Impact on Restoration Attempts (abs.): River Management Society-- Rivers: The Future Frontier. Anchorage, Alaska. vm Fouty, S.C., 1996. Beaver trapping in the Southwest in the early 1800s as a cause of arroyo formation in the later 1800s and early 1900s (abs.): Geological Society of America -- Cordilleran Section, No. 11823, p. 66. Fouty, S.C., 1989. Paleoclimatic implication of chloride profiles: Application to long-term groundwater protection and toxic waste disposal, Whisky Flat and Beatty, Nevada (abs.): Geological Society of America, V. 21, No. 6., p. A343. Fouty, S.C. and Stone,W.J., 1989. Paleoclimatic implications of chloride profile shapes: Application for long-term groundwater protection and management,Whisky Flat, Nevada (abs.): American Water Resources Association -- New Mexico Section: Advances in Management of Southwestern Watersheds Symposium. IX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Patricia McDowell for letting me pursue a topic that is close to my heart and for the discussions that ensued. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Patrick Bartlein, Dr. Shaul Cohen, Dr. Jeffrey Ostler, and Dr. Robert Beschta, for their support, input and time. I am deeply indebted to my field assistants who braved lightening storms, flies, long hours, hot days, and rain to help me survey the streams. It was truly a joint effort. So to Kristin Herman, Cynthia Taylor, Heather Caldwell, John Irish, John Donahue, Bob and Barbara Ko:fira, Mike Allen, Stew Churchwell, Jeff Baldwin and Frances, and Carla Neasel-My deepest thanks. Thanks also to Pete Bengey:field, Dan Svoboda, and Jim Brammer on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Their laughter, help, and great conversations were like water on a parched surface. Thanks especially to Pete Bengey:field for his friendship, knowledge, and many discussions regarding rivers and grazing. And my deepest thanks to my folks for supporting me through this process with much love and the occasional :financial gift. You are an example of how to live one's life with courage and integrity. This research was funded by a variety of organizations. My thanks to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, the Pacific Northwest Sciences Laboratory, the Dillon office of the Bureau of Land Management, The Nature Conservancy, the Madison Valley Rangelands Group, and the Lore Kahn Foundation for their :financial support during the summer field seasons. The work would not have been possible without their help. The research was also supported by a University of Oregon Graduate Research Fellowship (1999-2000). X Thanks to my fellow graduate students for your kindness, laughter, support, and great conversations. You brought sunshine and joy into my life. Thanks to JJ Shinker and Tom Minckley for their help with computers and to Erin Aigner for her help with figures. Thanks to Coleen Fox, Laurie Grigg, Margaret Knox, Andrea Brunelle-Daines, Drew Lamb, Jen Pierce, Steven Jett, Sarah Shafer, Jeff Baldwin, John Green, Jeff Peters, JJ Shinker and Tom Minckley. You made the journey memorable and possible. A very special thanks to Andrea Brunelle-Daines for her support during the final leg of this journey, for her emails that kept me laughing, and for the hospitality of her home. And to my friends outside the department whose love and support also sustained me - Thank you. I wish to also thank the river - for being willing to share with me some of its story - for helping me to see and for teaching me to listen. A deep thanks to my most beloved dog, Mariah -for being with me through this long journey. You have hiked the mountains with me, explored the rivers, and made my life and field seasons remarkable. Finally I thank Earth, the wolf, the salmon, the eagle and hawk and all that grace the skies, the water, and the earth- for being and for reminding me of what is at stake. In the end I cannot say if the journey was worth it. For now I am just grateful for the opening of vistas, for the time that stretches before me, for the space that lies within and without. These pages were simply windows. It is time to go outside and feel the wind again, to remember why I began this journey in the first place. Through the window I step, into the river, bound by the practical and the magical and a deep commitment to the land and all that is wild .............. . I am haunted by waters. Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................. .. CURRENT STREAM CHANNEL RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN CATTLE AND ELK GRAZING PRESSURE AND CHANGES IN BEAVER-DAM INTEGRITY IN SOUTHWESTERN MONTANA AND EAST-CENTRAL ARIZONA ........................................ . Xl Page 1 7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Background....................................................................... 12 Study Design...................................................................... 22 Results............................................................................. 61 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Conclusions....................................................................... 130 THE INFLUENCE OF BEAVERS AND BEA VER TRAPPING ON WATERSHED HYDROLOGY, CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY, VEGETATION, AND DRAINAGE NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL. ................... . 136 Introduction ........................................ :.............................. 136 Background....................................................................... 140 Method Used in Constructing a Conceptual Model of Watershed Response to Beavers and Beaver Trapping.................................. 157 Conceptual Model Part 1: Watershed Response to the Establishment of a Long-Term Beaver Presence.............................................. 159 Conceptual Model Part 2: Watershed Response to Extensive Beaver Trapping after a Long-Term Presence........................................ 175 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Conclusions....................................................................... 231 IMPLICATIONS FOR PLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY ............... . 235 Introduction....................................................................... 235 Placing Current Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Pluvial Concepts in Their Historical Context......................................... 236 Conclusions....................................................................... 252 Xll APPENDIX................................................................................... 256 A. GEOMORPHIC CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY DIMENSIONS FOR EACH CROSS-SECTION...................................................... 256 B. CROSS-SECTION GRAPHS, LOCATION INFORMATION, AND THE RELATIVE LOCATION OF THE CROSS-SECTIONS WITHIN EACH CREEK....................................................... 273 C. SUMMARY OF REACH DATA COLLECTED........................... 505 D. REACH CHARACTERISTICS............................................... 508 E. HYDROLOGIC BANKFULL CROSS-SECTION AREAS BASED ON STAGE INDICATORS NOTED IN THE FIELD..................... 517 F. ANNUAL AND NET CHANGES IN CROSS-SECTION AREA AS A FUNCTION OF CREEK, CROSS-SECTION, TREATMENT, CHANNEL SEGMENT, AND BASELINE CROSS-SECTION 523 AREA ............................................................................. . G. STATISTICAL AND GRAPHICAL COMP ARIS ON OF REACH AND CROSS-SECTION HYDROLOGIC BANKFULL WIDTHS...... 552 H. LINEAR REGRESSION RESULTS.......................................... 606 I. VALUES USED TO DETERMINE THE GEOMORPHIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANNUAL RATES OF CROSS-SECTION AREA CHANGE................................................................ 609 J. VALUES USED TO DETERMINE PERCENT REDUCTION IN GEOMORPHIC CHANNEL CAPACITY................................... 621 K. ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT REQUIRED TO DECREASE THE GEOMORPHIC CHANNEL TO ITS PRE- DISTURBANCE CROSS-SECTION AREA................................ 624 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................... 627 xm LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Location of the study areas in southwest Montana and east-central 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Arizona .......................................................................... . Photograph of the Basin Creek, MT area taken in the vicinity of cross- section 7. Photograph of the Muddy Creek, MT area taken in the vicinity of cross-section 3 ................................................................. . Photograph of Price Creek, MT area taken in the vicinity of cross-section 19 .............................................................................. .. Photograph of the White Mountains area, AZ taken in the vicinity of Lower Burro Creek cross-section 3 ......................................... . Geomorphic channel baseline widths, depths, and cross-section area for the four study areas ................................. . Example of bank erosion as a result of grazing pressure and hoof action ................................................................. . Example showing the variation in the elevation of the channel banks and the multiple valley-floor surfaces ........................................... . Examples from Basin Creek, Montana of the basic data used in this study to evaluate changes in cross-section area as a function of treatment ....................................................................... . Annual rates of geomorphic cross-section area changes as a function of creek, treatment, and channel segment for grazing treatments .......... . Annual rates of cross-section area changes (sq. m/yr) as a function of grazing treatments at the cross-section and reach scales ................ . Annual rates of change in the geomorphic cross-section area as a function of beaver-dam integrity, Price Creek, Montana ................. . 10 25 25 26 26 28 45 56 63 69 76 81 xiv 13. Annual rates of change as a function of distance upstream of an intact or failing beaver dam.............................................................. 81 14. Comparison of cross-section area changes as a result of beaver-dam failures............................................................................ 83 15. Comparison of annual rates of cross-section area change as a function of the different treatments..................................................... 84 16. Annual rates, directions, and percent change in baseline cross-section areas as a function of treatment............................................... 91 17. A comparison of the actual rates of geomorphic cross-section area change with the target rate.................................................... 95 18. Percent reductions in available channel capacity in streams with and without beaver dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 99 19. Percent reduction in available channel capacity as a function ofbeaver- dam 1ntegr1ty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 20. Examples of changes in cross-section area trend over time................... 103 21. Changes in cross-section area over time with respect to baseline cross- section area, Muddy Creek, Montana.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 22. Changes in cross-section area over time with respect to baseline cross- section area, Price Creek, Montana... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 105 23. Cross-section showing changes to the channel banks as a result of bank trampling....................................................... 107 24. Comparison of cross-sections with similar net changes in area, but with different geomorphic significance to the channel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 25. Changes in the channel widths of the Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas over time............................................................... 125 26. Timing of beaver trapping in the lower 48 states............................... 137 27. Spatial and temporal distribution of the stream gages used by Leopold and Maddock (1953) and the generalized timing of beaver trapping in the lower 48 states. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 xv 28. Changes in the channel widths of the Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas over time................................................................ 156 29. Conceptual model of how beavers influence fluvial systems.................. 160 30. Examples of intact beaver dams................................................... 162 31. Percent reduction in available channel capacity in the beaver dam- controlled reaches.............................................................. 166 32. Conceptual model of how beaver trapping or site abandonment influence fluvial systems .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 176 33. Examples of two types of dam failures on Price Creek, Montana............ 178 34. Annual rates of cross-section area change as a function of beaver-dam integrity in the Price Creek cattle exclosure, Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 3 5. Changes in the percent reduction in available channel capacity as a result of beaver-dam failures and pond drainage post 1995, Price Creek, Montana... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 36. Reconstruction of November to May precipitation for Northwestern Plateau Climatic Division of New Mexico for AD 985 - 239 1970 .............................................................................. . 37. Hypothetical relation between valley-floor gradient and valley-floor 243 instability with time ........................................................... . 38. Known location, dates, and movement of trappers in the Gila River 249 drainage basin ................................................................. . XVI LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Summary of study area characteristics ............ '................................ 29 2. Treatment, survey history and distribution of cross-sections for each study area............................................................. 41 3. Results of the statistical tests comparing the variances (HOV) and means (General Linear Model) of annual rates of cross-section area change for grazing treatments within a given study area... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4. Results of the statistical tests comparing the variances (HOV) and means ( General Linear Model) of paired treatments within the Basin Creek study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 5. Results of the statistical tests comparing the variances (HOV) and means (General Linear Model) of the annual rates of cross-section area change as a function of grazing treatment._................................ 78 6. Cross-sections with bank retreat related to grazing in areas managed under the Riparian Guidelines and as SEM areas......................... 88 7. Summary of annual percent change in baseline cross-section area as a function of treatment at the cross-section scale............................ 92 8. Geomorphic significance and implications of the cross-section responses as they pertain to hydrologically reconnecting the stream and the valley floor in 10 years.............................................. 96 9. Differences in cross-section response as a function of grazing pressure and beaver-dam integrity........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 10. Examples of the speed at which channelization occurs, and the depth, width, and length of the channelization..................................... 153 11. Examples of the speed at which hydro logic and vegetative conditions change in the presence of beaver ponds.................................... 168 12. Examples of the speed and character of vegetation changes as a result of channel incision...................................................... 185 13. The estimated timing of beaver trapping, the next observation, and the baseline General Land Office surveys for areas discontinuous arroyos and incised tributaries prior to Euro-American settlement and cattle xvii grazing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 19 5 14. Summary of the relative temporal relationships of various events related to Euro-American disturbances and their impact on watershed hydrology and geomorphology............................................... 201 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Stream ecosystems in many of the lower 48 states have undergone tremendous change since the mid-1500s as a result of regional-scale Euro-American disturbances. Widespread and extensive beaver trapping began in the mid-l 500s in response to European market demands (Phillips 1961) as Europeans arrived on the North American continent and discovered the abundance of beavers. Initially, Native Peoples did the bulk of the trapping, bringing their pelts to European trading posts situated along major rivers. Later, Euro-Americans dominated the trapping particularly in the West, many working for fur trading companies (Chittenden 1954; Phillips 1961). The extensive and systematic trapping was the first of many Euro-American regional-scale disturbances that would occur on the North American continent and preceded most Euro-American settlements. The widespread removal of beavers was followed decades later by a second period of regional disturbances as settlers, their settlement activities, and livestock dramatically reduced riparian and upland vegetation, triggering a loss of stream-bank stability and an increase in flood magnitudes and frequencies (Cooke and Reeves 1976). Over the course of these two disturbance periods, streams changed from complex, often multi-channeled systems with extensive riparian zones, many with beaver ponds (Pattie 2 183; Burroughs 1961 ), to wide and/or entrenched, single-thread streams with narrow riparian zones (Cooke and Reeves 1976; Sedell and Froggatt 1984). As channels incised and widened, the channel size increased enabling greater discharges to be transported in the channel before the flood waters overtopped the stream banks (i.e. available channel capacity increased). The result was a decrease in the frequency of valley-floor flooding (Campbell et al. 1972; Shankman and Pugh 1992), and a severance in the hydrologic connection between streams and their valley floors. The consequences of this hydro logic disconnection included lowered water tables, decreased soil moisture, and an increase in flood magnitudes and their frequency (Cooke and Reeves 1976; Chapter 3). Valley-floor vegetation shifted from dense cover of riparian species to more xeric species and the width of the riparian zone began to decrease (Bryan 1928b; Hastings and Turner 1965; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). The lower rooting density, percent cover, and abundance of the xeric species further reduced the stream-bank and valley-floor resistance to stream erosion increasing the potential for additional channel widening and all of the attendant changes. The loss of the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connection has had, and continues to have, serious consequences for nonhuman and human communities. It has resulted in: 1) a reduction in the width and complexity of the riparian zone, 2) a decrease in the quality, extent, and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat, 3) an increase in the depth to the valley water table, 4) an increase in the magnitude of flood peaks and therefore their potential for channel erosion, and 5) a decrease in late summer or drought-year low flows and in water quality. These changes not only influence the viability of migratory bird, fish, wildlife, and plant populations and communities and human communities, but also increased the sensitivity of stream ecosystems to climatic variability. 3 The consequences of the hydrologic disconnection are most noticeable in the Southwest and Intermountain West, an arid and semi-arid region bounded by the Rocky Mountains to the east and the Cascades and Sierra Nevadas to the west. In this region, streams make up only one to two percent of the landscape but are critical habitat for 60 to 80 percent of all wild species (U. S. GAO 1988a) and essential to the survival of human communities. Yet, the limited information that exists indicates that thousands of miles of stream and riparian corridors are in poor condition and in need ofrestoration (U. S. GAO 1992). Therefore, it is critical to identify how these corridors might be rapidly restored and the factors and land uses controlling their rates of recovery. Successful restoration of stream systems, however, requires an understanding of fluvial processes, the components and feedback loops present in these systems, and how historical and current land use influence channel evolution. Two human disturbances that have had, and continue to have, a significant influence on stream channels and their adjacent riparian areas throughout much of the western United States, and perhaps elsewhere, are beaver trapping and cattle grazing. However, few studies exist examining 1) how changes in beaver-dam integrity influence channel morphology and local and downstream hydrology or 2) how channel morphology responds to reductions in cattle-grazing pressure. And no studies exist that quantify how elk-grazing pressure influences channel morphology or the relative contributions of cattle versus elk grazing on the evolution of current channel geometry. The lack of information about the respective contributions of elk and cattle has become problematic because elk numbers are increasing in many areas that are heavily grazed by cattle, and both species utilize the same spatial and vegetative aspects of the landscape (Irwin et al. 1994; Singer et al. 1994). Increased interest in the use of beavers as agents of stream restoration highlights the need to understand the actual, rather than hypothetical, influence of abundant beaver dams on stream hydrology and channel morphology. Therefore, this dissertation seeks to fill the information void by examining how changes in elk and cattle grazing pressure and beaver activity influence the short-term evolution of stream-channel morphology and hydrology. 4 The dissertation has three chapters in addition to this introduction. Chapter 2 examines how two human disturbances ( cattle grazing and beaver trapping) and two natural disturbances (elk grazing and beaver-dam failures) influence stream-channel morphology and the hydrologic connection between streams and their valley floors. Five cattle and elk grazing treatments are examined for their effect on channel geometry and range from complete exclusion of cattle and elk to grazing by both. Two levels of beaver-dam integrity are examined: intact beaver dams and failing beaver dams. The variable of interest in this chapter is the "geomorphic" channel cross-section area, defined as the bank-to-bank channel. This channel was selected rather than the hydrologic bankfull channel because it is the geomorphic channel that must undergo a reduction in cross-section area if the stream is to reconnect hydrologically with its valley floor. Channel cross-sections were surveyed two to three times over a two-to-five year period and the data used to determine changes in the cross-section area as a function of treatment. The baseline channel cross-sections and reach characteristics were measured at the time an area underwent a change in cattle and/or elk grazing pressure or within a year of the change. Measurements in reaches with changing levels of beaver activity could not be as tightly constrained because the beavers and the beaver trappers operated independently of the land-management agencies. 5 Chapter 3 presents a conceptual model of the fluvial processes and the geomorphic and hydrologic responses of streams to beaver colonization and beaver trapping or abandonment of a drainage. The conceptual model provides a mechanism capable of explaining the discontinuous arroyos, the active tributary incisions, and the relative abundance of wetlands and ponds observed by early expeditions and General Land Office surveys that post-date trapping but pre-date Euro-American settlement and grazing in the Southwest and Intermountain West. The conceptual model, literature review, and original field data are used to demonstrate the ability of beavers to accelerate stream and riparian restoration. The chapter also shows how placing current conceptual models, hydraulic geometry relationships, and studies of past changes in a broader historical and disturbance context that includes beaver trapping can alter the interpretations and conclusions of prior research. Chapter 4 is the final chapter and concludes the dissertation with a discussion of the implications of chapters 2 and 3 on the discipline of fluvial geomorphology. The chapter discusses how our interpretation and understanding of the recent evolution of stream and riparian ecosystems and their sensitivity to climatic variability changes when viewed in light of early beaver trapping and later livestock grazing. It also reiterates how the magnitude and nature of historic disturbances and channel changes continue to influence the evolution of current channel morphology. 6 The combination of the three chapters reveals the complexity and challenges inherent in trying to restore stream ecosystems altered by regional-scale and chronic human disturbances. The three chapters demonstrate the importance of understanding not only fluvial processes and physical factors inhibiting restoration but also the historical and societal factors that inhibit restoration. The recognition of the various physical, historical and societal factors involved in any attempt at watershed restoration should result in the development of more successful strategies for restoring these ecosystems. This dissertation hopefully contributes to that process. 7 CHAPTER II CURRENT STREAM CHANNEL RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN CATTLE AND ELK GRAZING PRESSURE AND BEA VER-DAM INTEGRITY IN SOUTHWESTERN MONTANA AND EAST-CENTRAL ARIZONA Introduction Pluvial processes, channel characteristics, and human land uses interact over time and space via feedback loops to influence the evolution of channel morphology and the degree to which streams and valley floors are connected hydrologically (i.e. how frequently the valley floor is flooded). Euro-American land uses over the last 300 years have caused channels to widen, straighten, and incise, thereby severing the hydrologic connection and reducing the quality and extent of critical riparian corridors (Cooke and Reeves 1976; Cronon 1983; Wiens 2001). Restoration of those ecosystems that depend on this connection requires a better understanding of how historic and current human activities and fluvial processes interact to influence the ongoing evolution of the channel cross-sectional area and geometry. Therefore, this chapter compares the impact of cattle, elk, and beavers on channel cross-sections because 1) these species exert considerable influence on the evolution of channel morphology and the riparian zone, 2) humans have greatly altered their numbers and distributions on the landscape, and 3) this alteration of numbers and distribution has set in motion fluvial processes that have hydrologically disconnected streams from their valley floors. The importance of each species on stream systems is discussed separately. The fluvial processes of interest are those that lead to reductions in channel cross-section area and the recovery of the stream and valley floor hydrologic connection. 8 The goal of my research was to identify 1) the initial response of channel cross- sections to reductions in cattle and elk grazing pressure and shifts in beaver-dam integrity over a two-to-five-year period, 2) the rates and directions of those changes, and 3) the processes and factors that determine those rates and directions of change. Five cattle and elk grazing treatments were examined, ranging from complete exclusion of both cattle and elk to grazing by both. Two levels of beaver-dam integrity were examined: intact beaver dams and failing beaver dams. I established 108 channel cross-sections on 42 reaches: 13 reaches in east-central Arizona and 29 reaches in southwest Montana encompassing one watershed in Arizona and three watersheds in Montana (Figure 1). The cross-sections were monumented and repeatedly surveyed over a two-to-five-year period to determine how the channel cross-sections responded to the different treatments. Similar cattle and elk grazing treatments were examined in Arizona and Montana in order to determine if climate influenced the rates, directions and processes of cross-section area change. A review of the climate characteristics of the study sites found, however, that the climate was fairly similar between the two areas, especially when contrasted with the more arid regions of the Intermountain West. The data collected at the cross-sections were used to answer the following questions. 1. What factors, other than the study treatments, may be controlling direction and amount of change in the channel cross-section areas? Is the magnitude of their influence great enough to preclude identifying a treatment influence? 2. What is the response (rates, directions, and proc~sses) of the channel cross- sections to reductions in cattle and elk grazing pressure and changes in beaver- dam integrity? Are the rates, directions, and processes similar or different? Why? 3. What is the geomorphic significance of the cross-section area change as it relates to reconnecting the stream hydrologically to its valley floor? 9 4. What are the time scales of channel change, potential trends, and the effectiveness of the different study treatments as strategies for restoring the stream and valley- flood hydrologic connection? 5. What factors limit the ability of streams to reconnect hydrologically with their valley floors? The study streams flow through meadows and comprise first through fourth-order streams. The majority of the streams have drainage areas less than 15 km2 and the channels are typically less than 10 m wide. Stream banks are relatively homogeneous in their stratigraphy and are composed of sand loams and silt loams, making the banks relatively cohesive. All of the streams were ungaged. Conversations with agency personnel, however, indicated that during the study period (1993 to 1998) the weather was neither unusually wet nor unusually dry. In addition, flood debris on the valley floor, suggestive of recent unusually high flow events, was not observed. Figure 1. Location of the study areas in southwest Montana and east-central Arizona. (1) = Basin Creek, Montana, (2) = Muddy Creek, Montana, (3) = Price Creek, Montana, and ( 4) White Mountains suite, Arizona (Hay, Home, Lower Burro, Lower Stinky, and Mandan Creeks). 10 11 The geomorphic characteristic of interest in my study is the "geomorphic" channel cross-section area, defined as the bank-to-bank channel. This channel was selected because it is the geomorphic channel that must undergo a reduction in cross- section area if the stream is to reconnect hydrologically with its valley floor. Repeated measurements of this channel were made over a two-to-five year period to determine changes in the channel cross-section area. The baseline channel cross-sections and reach characteristics were measured at the time a grazing allotment or portion of the allotment underwent a change in cattle and/or elk grazing pressure or within a year of the change. Measurements in reaches with changing levels of beaver activity could not be as tightly constrained because the beavers and the beaver trappers operated independently of the land management agencies. Three hypotheses were developed at the beginning of the study: 1. Channels inside cattle and elk exclosures will decrease in area or remain stable while channels outside exclosures will increase in area as the stream banks continue to experience grazing pressure; 2. The presence of intact beaver dams will result in rapid reductions in channel cross-section area; and 3. Cross-sections reaches with intact beaver dams will decrease in channel area more quickly and more predictably than in the cattle and elk grazing treatments. The testing of the three hypotheses provided insights into 1) fluvial processes involved in restoration, 2) the time scales of change, and 3) the components required to restore the stream and valley floor hydrologic connection and the limitations present when attempting to restore that connection. 12 Background Restoration of stream and riparian ecosystems degraded by historic and current Euro-American land uses (Bryan 1928b; Schumm et al. 1984; Shankman 1996; Wiens 2000) requires that streams and their valley floors once again become reconnected hydrologically. This reconnection can only be accomplished by reducing the available channel cross-section area that must be filled with water before flooding the valley floor, such that the valley floor floods at lower discharges. Therefore, this section begins with a discussion of the fluvial processes that lead to reductions in channel cross-section area. This subsection is followed by an examination of how cattle, elk, and beavers alter channel cross-section area and concludes with a discussion of the current studies tracking channel responses to cattle and elk grazing pressure and beaver activity. Pluvial Processes Leading to Reductions in Channel Cross-section Area Available channel capacity can be reduced through lateral accretion, bed aggradation, maintenance of higher water levels in the stream, or a combination of the three. The reduction in cross-section area through channel narrowing and bed aggradation requires sediment in transport and the presence of mechanisms to trap and then stabilize the bedload or suspended sediment once it is deposited. The maintenance of higher water levels in the stream requires dam structures, either human or beaver-built. Information on the potential for channel cross-section area reductions and the processes that are likely lead to a reduction can be found in 1) the characteristics and dimensions of the current channel morphology ( e.g. width, depth, sinuosity), 2) bank composition ( e.g. silt loam, clay, gravel) and stratigraphy (homogeneous, composite), 3) the location, abundance and composition of vegetation in the riparian zone, and 4) the presence or absence of beavers. 13 Researchers have identified three scenarios that can lead to channel cross-section area reductions. In the first scenario the cross-section area decreases through the deposition of sediment. Reductions in cross-section areas occur through vertical aggradation of the channel bed and bar surfaces, lateral accretion of the banks via bar development, or some combination of these processes (Hupp and Simon 1991; Hooke 1995; McKenney et al. 1995; Friedman et al. 1996; Scott et al. 1996). In high-energy environments, bedload (sands and gravels) is deposited (Hupp and Simon 1991; McKenney et al. 1995; Friedman et al. 1996). In low-energy environments, such as ponds or zones with abundant channel or bar vegetation, the sediment deposition may involve a mix of suspended load (clay and silts) and bedload (Ives 1942; Winegar 1977; Butler and Malanson 1995; Zierholz et al. 2001). The second scenario involves a flood- induced channel-widening event followed by stream incision into the newly exposed channel bed (Schumm and Lichty 1963; Burkham 1972; Pizzuto 1994; Friedman et al. 1996; Scott et al. 1996). The majority of the channel bed remains exposed except during large floods and begins to recolonize with vegetation. The exposed bed becomes part of a new :floodplain, inset into the larger geomorphic channel. The third scenario involves the isolation of a secondary channel and its infilling by sediment and vegetation (Burkham 1972; Johnson et al. 1995; Hooke 1995). Depending on the energy of the 14 depositional environment, the sediment deposited will be a mix ofbedload and suspended load. In each of the three scenarios, the establishment of vegetation on the channel bed or banks or bars initiates the feedback loop between vegetation and sediment accumulation required for continued reductions in channel cross-section area. In the absence of accretion and/or aggradation, the channel cross-section area remains the same or increases, and the stream remains disconnected hydrologically from its valley floor, flooding only during large, infrequent events. In addition to the three scenarios mentioned above, there is a fourth scenario that has generally been overlooked in the contemporary geomorphic literature: the presence of intact beaver dams. Beaver ponds effectively trap sediment and maintain elevated water levels behind the beaver dams (Apple et al. 1984; Naiman et al. 1986, 1988; Butler and Malanson 1995; this study). Both sediment deposition and higher water levels in the channel reduce the available channel capacity and thus the amount of channel area that must be filled before water begins spilling onto the valley floor. The result of this decrease in available channel capacity should be an increase in the frequency of valley- floor flooding and a rise in the valley-floor water table. In cases where beaver ponds occur, the rise in water table appears to be maintained because the hydraulic gradient between the groundwater and the stream has decreased as a result of the elevated water in the ponds (Apple et al. 1984). 15 Cattle, Elk, and Beaver Influences on Channel Cross-section Area Cattle currently graze on over 250 million acres of public land (U.S. GAO 1992) and have been identified as a key agent of current and historical riparian and stream channel changes throughout much of the West (Trimble and Mendel 1995). Impacts include bank trampling, removal of upland, valley and stream-bank vegetation, and soil compaction (Cooke and Reeves 1976; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Platts and Nelson 1985; U.S. GAO 1988a, 1988b; Trimble and Mendel 1995). Soil compaction and the removal of vegetation can reduce the infiltration capacity of the soil, increase surface runoff, and decrease stream-bank resistance to erosion. These changes in turn can lead to local and downstream channel widening and incision and increased flood magnitudes (Cooke and Reeves 1976). Identifying the impact of cattle grazing on current bank trampling, upland reductions in vegetation and soil compaction has been complicated by increasing numbers of elk in parts of the West. Elk numbers are rebounding after years of being depressed by intense market hunting in the late 1880s arid early 1900s and are increasing in watersheds that are highly degraded, extensively used by humans, and devoid of their natural predator, the wolf. Despite increased elk numbers and their competition with cattle for forage, only a few studies compare the relative influence of elk and cattle on vegetation (Irwin et al. 1994; Singer et al. 1994; Case and Kauffman 1997). Though limited in number, these few comparative studies, along with personal communication with agency specialists, reveal that elk use can result in considerable reductions in riparian vegetation and high levels of stream bank trampling when elk and cattle 16 congregate in the riparian zone (Keigley 1997; Case and Kauffman 1997; J. Moore, USDA Forest Service, pers. com. 2000; P. Bengeyfield, USDA Forest Service, pers. com. 2000). Studies, however, comparing how cattle and elk respectively alter channel morphology, and the magnitude of their respective contributions, are absent. Therefore, the individual and combined contribution of these two ungulates to the current stream channel conditions remains uncertain and should be explored in order to better predict rates of and impediments to the restoration of the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connection. Beavers are the final species of interest in this study. Extensive beaver trapping began in the mid-1500s on the North American continent in response to the demands of the European consumer market (Phillips 1961) and was the first large-scale human- induced disturbance that occurred on the continent. Prior to this period of extensive trapping, first by Native Peoples trading with Europeans and later by Euro-Americans, 60 to 400 million beavers are estimated to have existed on the North American continent. Current beaver numbers are estimated in the 6 to 12 million range (Naimen et al. 1988). Trapping was extensive and well organized and predates all other Euro-American disturbances except along the East Coast where settlement activities and beaver trapping occurred simultaneously (Cronon 1983). Trapping was the dominant human activity in the Intermountain West from the early to mid 1800s (Phillips 1961; Chittenden 1954; Weber 1971). A review of early Euro-American beaver trappers' journals (Pattie 1831) and the Lewis and Clark expedition journals (Burroughs1961) reveals that prior to beaver trapping, watersheds 17 contained abundant riparian vegetation on the valley floor, wetlands, complex waterways and beaver ponds. These early descriptions are very different from current descriptions. Now the descriptions reveal wide and incised channels, minimal wetlands, drought- tolerant vegetation on many of the valley floors and, in many cases, an absence of the cottonwoods, aspen and willows that beavers need to build and maintain their dams and populations. The difference between historical and current stream and riparian zone conditions, combined with recent research into changes that occur in drainage systems when beavers reestablish themselves (Naiman et al. 1988; Johnston and Naiman 1990; Butler and Malanson 1995; Meentemeyer and Butler 1999) suggests that the widespread removal of beavers contributed to a dramatic transformation in stream ecosystems (Naiman et al. 1988). As dams failed and were not repaired the streams experienced a drop in base level, triggering channel incision into the fine sediments stored behind the dams, the development of a channelized drainage network, and eventually changes in the frequency and magnitude of overbank flooding onto the valley floors (Dobyns 1981; Parker et al. 1985; Fouty 1996; Chapter 3) and in valley-floor vegetation. The influence of beavers and beaver trapping on watershed hydrology, riparian vegetation, and drainage network characteristics will be examined in detail in Chapter 3. Studies Determining Channel Responses to Reductions in Cattle and Elk Grazing Pressure and Beaver-Dam Integrity This section discusses the current studies and methods for tracking channel responses to reductions in cattle and elk grazing pressure and changes in beaver-dam integrity. It begins with a discussion of current studies that focus on cattle influences on channel morphology because these studies are the most common. 18 Recognition of the impact that cattle have on upland and riparian vegetation and on stream banks has led some land management agencies and a few private and public lands ranchers to attempt stream-riparian ecosystem restoration through different management strategies. These management strategies include changes in cattle grazing pressure through rotations, shifts in season and duration of cattle grazing, or the removal of cattle via exclosures or permit buyouts. Unfortunately, the response of the stream channel and riparian systems to those strategies has not been monitored except in rare cases (P. Bengeyfield, USDA Forest Service, pers. comm. 1999) and so their effectiveness is unknown. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report found that only about 50 percent of the Bureau of Land Management cattle allotments have any trend data (vegetation only) and that even those data were considered to be of questionable quality (U.S. GAO 1992). A similar lack of vegetation and channel morphology monitoring exists for many lands managed by the Forest Service and state agencies with some exceptions such as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in southwest Montana (P. Bengeyfield, USDA Forest Service, pers. comm. 1998). In addition, only minimal academic research exists 19 quantifying livestock influences on channel morphology (Medina and Martin 1988; Clifton 1987; Platt 1991; Kondolf 1993; Magilligan and McDowell 1997), and most of these studies surveyed the variable of interest only once inside and outside their exclosures making it impossible to determine trends. Therefore, there is little actual data on how current cattle grazing-management strategies influence the ongoing evolution of channel morphology, nor is there any information on what other factors are contributing to the channel changes. While the data on cattle influences on channel morphology are limited, studies examining the impact of elk on channel morphology are nonexistent. Therefore, there are no studies that compare how cattle and elk respectively alter channel morphology or the magnitude of their influence. As a result, the individual and combined influence of these two ungulates on the evolution of channel morphology remains uncertain and needs exploring in order to better predict rates of, and impediments to, recovery. Research on how beaver dams influence downstream flood peaks and alter stream channel morphology is limited to two studies (Beedle 1991; Burns and McDonnell 1998). Burns and McDonnell (1998) compared the stream hydrographs of two small watersheds (0.4 and 0.61 km2), one of which had a single 1.3-hectare beaver pond located at the downstream end of the small headwater stream. They found that this single pond provided minimal retention during several large runoff events. Beedle (1991) explored how storm hydro graphs responded to increasing amounts of beaver pond storage as the numbers of ponds in series and the sizes of beaver ponds increased. His study watersheds were 6.2 km2 or less and his maximum pond size was 0.6 hectares. He found that the 20 amount of reduction in storm hydro graph peak flows varied with storm size, pond size and number, and storages capacity available prior to the flow event. Reductions in peak flows increased as the number of ponds in a series increased with five large-sized (0.6 hectare) beaver ponds in series reducing the storm peak flow by 14% for a 2-year event and 4% for a 50-year event (Beedle 1991). A few studies have quantified the volume and estimated rates of sedimentation in beaver ponds (Naiman et al. 1986, 1988; Devito and Dillon 1993; Butler and Malanson 1995; this study) and quantified increases in the areal amount of wetlands, wet meadows and ponds in response to the return of beavers to an area (Naiman et al. 1988; Johnston and Naiman 1990). Absent, however, are studies that compare sedimentation rates over time in reaches with and without beaver dams, document the speed at which changes in dam integrity alter the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connection, or document the speed at which channel incision can occur upon dam failures. The wide distribution of beavers prior to Euro-American trapping and this more recent research on beaver influences on watershed hydrology, however, highlights the need to explore the influence of beavers and beaver trapping on the historic and current hydro logic connection. The Use ofExclosures to Identify the Respective Influences of Different Species on Channel Morphology The standard method used to identify how cattle influence upland and riparian vegetation, runoff rates, and channel morphology is to exclude cattle from a portion of the area of interest with fencing, creating an "exclosure." The variable of interest is then 21 compared inside and outside the exclosure either over time or at some future time (Hubert et al. 1985; Platts and Nelson 1985; Medina and Martin 1988; Rinne 1988; Clifton 1987; Kondolf 1993; Magilligan and McDowell 1997). The exclosure approach is the method used in this study and was expanded to explore elk and beaver influences as well. Two approaches can be taken when using the exclosure method to evaluate the influence of a species on channel morphology or vegetation. The first approach is a space-for-time substitution. In this approach, measurements are taken inside and outside an exclosure at a single point in time and compared. This is the approach most commonly used to evaluate the influence of cattle on vegetation, soils, fisheries, wildlife and channel morphology because of limitations of time and funding (e.g. Schulz and Leininger 1991; Case and Kauffman 1997; Clifton 1987; Kondolf 1993; Magilligan and McDowell 1997; Keller and Burnham 1982; Hubert et al. 1985; Platts and Nelson 1985; Overton et al. 1994; Gamougoun et al. 1984). However, the lack of pre-treatment data (e.g. condition of the channel/vegetation prior to fencing) or a pristine, ungrazed system means that control conditions, which are considered standard in laboratory experiments, are absent (Rinne 1988). Thus it has remained unclear whether the differences observed in the space-for-time substitution studies truly reflect differences in the control variable (the study objective), or simply differences in local landscape or initial site conditions prior to building the exclosure. The lack of a control area or treatment has led Rinne (1988) to suggest a "frame of reference" or repeated survey approach. This second approach conducts a baseline survey inside and outside the exclosure and then repeats the survey over time in order to 22 determine how the variable of interest responds in the short-term and over the long-term term to reductions in cattle and/or elk grazing pressure. The more frequent the resurvey, the better the resolution and "frame ofreference," and greater the ability to predict of future changes and separate out short-term from long-term responses. The "frame of reference" approach eliminates the space-for-time substitution problem because baseline conditions are established in the first survey. I used this second approach in my study to determine the channel response to reductions in cattle and elk grazing pressure and changes in beaver-dam integrity. Study Design The study areas were selected based on information from the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management regarding 1) the locations of new or soon-to-be installed exclosures, and 2) allotments with management plans that called for reductions in cattle and elk grazing pressure. Seven treatments were examined: five grazing treatments and two beaver treatments. The cattle and elk grazing treatments involved various levels of cattle and elk grazing pressure and the baseline surveys occurred just before or shortly after a reduction in grazing pressure. The beaver treatments consisted of intact versus failing beaver dams. The timing of the beaver treatments could not be tightly constrained because of the unpredictability of beaver trappers and the beavers. The resurveys document the cross-section area response to reductions in grazing pressure and changes in the integrity of beaver dams. Resurveys also help identify the potential for hydrologically reconnecting streams to their valley floors and the factors inhibiting that reconnection. 23 Study reaches both inside and outside cattle and elk exclosures were selected for analysis. The cross-sections and selected reach characteristics ( e.g. low-flow thalweg depths and reach widths) were resurveyed over time to determine the rates, directions, and processes of cross-section area change as a function of treatment. The 108 cross- sections are distributed over 42 reaches and located in four watersheds: three in Montana and one in Arizona. Cross-section locations were monumented with rebar for accuracy and reproducibility. All cross-sections were surveyed at least twice, 32 were surveyed a third time and one was surveyed four times. The number of cross-sections per watershed was similar (26 to 28), but the number of cross-sections per treatment varied (i.e. 39 cross-sections in Riparian Guidelines reaches but only 10 in new elk exclosures). The unbalanced treatment sample sizes occurred because the physical sizes of the exclosures were small·and the number of exclosures and beaver-dam controlled reaches available for analysis were limited compared to the large areas accessible to cattle and elk. Study Sites The study sites are located in southwestern Montana and east-central Arizona. The Montana streams include Basin, Muddy and Price Creeks, all are headwater streams to the Missouri River and occupy separate mountain ranges. Basin Creek is located in the Gravelly Mountains in southwest Montana on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in the upper Ruby River watershed (Figure 2). Basin Creek flows west-northwest to join 24 the Ruby River that eventually joins with the Beaverhead River to form the Jefferson River, a major tributary of the Missouri River. The lower 1.5 miles of Basin Creek is important for spawning and recruitment of salmonids to the Ruby River (USDA Forest Service I 992). Muddy Creek is located in southwest Montana in the Tendoy Mountains. It is part of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Area. Muddy Creek flows south into Big Sheep Creek, a trout fishery of national significance. Big Sheep Creek later joins the Red Rock River to become part of the Jefferson River and eventually the Missouri River (Figure 3). The west-slope cutthroat trout occurs in Muddy Creek and is a state-listed 'species of special concern' (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1993). Price Creek is located in the Centennial Mountains in the Bureau of Land Management Resource Area. Price Creek flows north out of the Centennial Mountains into the Centennial Valley where it joins the Red Rock River to become part of the Jefferson River and eventually the Missouri River (Figure 4). The Arizona streams are Hay, Home, Lower Burro, Lower Stinky and Mandan Creeks and are located in the White Mountains of Arizona on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. All creeks are located in close proximity to each other and are not described separately (Figure 5). The streams are headwater streams to the Black River that flows into the Salt River, a tributary of the Colorado River. Hay, Stinky, Home and Burro Creeks are tributaries to the West Fork of the Black River and are targeted by the Apache Trout Recovery Plan to be managed for Apache trout ( Oncorhynchus apache) (USDA Forest Service 1993a). Mandan Creek is a tributary to the North Fork of the East Fork of the Black River. ( ( 25 Figure 2. Photograph of the Basin Creek, MT area taken in the vicinity of cross-section 7 in 1995. Looking northeast. Figure 3. Photograph of the Muddy Creek, MT area taken in the vicinity of cross-section 3 in 1993. Looking east. 26 Figure 4. Photograph of the Price Creek, MT area taken in the vicinity of cross-section 19 in 1995. Looking east. Figure 5. Photograph of the White Mountains area, AZ taken in the vicinity of Lower Burro Creek cross-section 3 in 1994. Looking west. 27 The basin, reach, and cross-section characteristics of the study streams are summarized in Table 1. The streams are first-to-fourth order streams and drain areas ranging from 2 to 76 kni. The majority of the streams drain less than 15 km2. All streams flow through meadows and have fine-grained homogeneous banks. The study reaches were selected because they had similar drainage areas, valley bottom gradients and widths, stream orders, valley-floor vegetation, bank stratigraphy and composition (Table 1 ), and channel morphology (Figure 6, Appendix A) despite being geographically separated. Currently, all watersheds 1) have new, and in one area old, exclosures, 2) are experiencing some reduction of cattle grazing pressure, 3) have cattle grazing pressure closely monitored by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management personnel, and 4) have some information on elk numbers, cattle management and numbers, cattle trespass of exclosures, and beaver habitation in each area. Elk occur in all watersheds, but their numbers are relatively small except in the White Mountains where forage consumption can be considerable (J. Moore, USDA Forest Service pers. comm 2000). Beaver activity was limited to Price Creek. Intact beaver dams existed inside the new Price Creek cattle exclosure in 1994, and· dams inside the new elk exclosure were built or repaired between the summer surveys of 1994 and 1995. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field notes indicate that beavers returned to Price Creek in the summer of 1991 and began repairing dams built prior to 1991 (0. Martinez, USDI BLM memo 1992). Beavers were trapped out of Price Creek between the 1994 and 1995 surveys (J. Roscoe, BLM, pers. comm. 2000), and the dams began failing between 1995 and 1997. By 1998 all dams had failed or were in the process of breaching. 28 ,-., E 10 .__, ..c:: ,'5 -~ i::: ~ .:2 -(.) 0.05, Appendix H). Linear regressions were not run on the data from the beaver dam-controlled cross-sections because the dams exerted such a strong control on the annual rates of change that any influence as a function of channel geometry or drainage area would be inconsequential. In conclusion, none of the five factors examined exerted a strong influence on annual rates of change. This allowed the annual rates to be examined graphically and statistically for a treatment influence. Annual Rates of Change as a Function of Grazing Pressure and Beaver-dam Integrity This section addresses the second research question: "What is the response (rates, directions, and processes) of the channel cross-sections to reductions in cattle and elk grazing pressure and changes in beaver-dam integrity? Are the rates, directions, and processes similar or different? Why?" Evidence for a treatment influence on the channel response was sought 1) within each creek and 2) between treatments once like treatment results were combined. Results from the grazing treatments and beaver activity were examined first separately and then together for comparison. The cross-section graphs and dot plots of annual rates of change versus treatment were examined for evidence of treatment influences on rates and directions of channel change. 71 The annual rates were examined graphically and statistically. The annual rate is the summation of all the sediment gains and losses that occurred at a cross-section. As a single numeric value, the annual rate cannot reveal the respective contribution of fluvial processes and treatment to the changes and, therefore, its ability to predict trends is limited. Information on fluvial processes and treatment effects, however, is available from the cross-section graphs because these graphs show the specific locations and character of the sediment gains and losses (Appendix B). This information is important when evaluating some of the more subtle patterns observed in the dot plots. Cross- sections were used to make a qualitative assessment of the respective contribution of fluvial processes and treatment and to evaluate the potential long-term contribution of those gains and losses to the evolution of the channel cross-section. The annual rates of change are examined first. Annual Rates as a Function of Grazing Pressure within a Creek Annual rates of changes as a function of grazing pressure were first examined for patterns within the three streams that had more than one grazing treatment: Hay Creek in Arizona and Muddy and Basin Creeks in Montana. The other streams either had beaver activity on them (Price Creek) or involved only one grazing treatment (Home, Lower Burro, Lower Stinky and Mandan Creeks). 72 A graphical examination of treatment influence on rates and directions of cross- section area changes showed no strong treatment influence on Muddy Creek (Figure 1 Ob) or on Hay Creek (Figure 10d). All treatments had a similar mix and range of increases and decreases in cross-section area. This graphical observation was supported by the statistical analysis. Muddy and Hay Creeks had similar variances and means in annual rates as a function of treatment, indicating the absence of a treatment influence over a two-to-five year period (Table 3). Basin Creek, in contrast, graphically shows a greater range in annual rates of change and a possible treatment influence. All but one cross-section inside the new cattle and new elk exclosures showed some reduction in cross-section area while the cross- sections in the Riparian Guideline treatment recorded both increases and decreases in area (Figure 10a). A statistical analysis of the annual rates as a function of treatment on Basin Creek agreed with the graphical observations. The annual rates as a function of grazing treatment had similar variances but dissimilar means (Table 3). A series of paired comparisons on the Basin Creek showed that a difference in means occurs between the new elk exclosures and the Riparian Guidelines cross-section rates and directions (Table 4). The rates from the new cattle and the new elk exclosures had similar variances and means. The rates from the Riparian Guidelines and new cattle exclosure were not significantly different in variance or mean, but close to being significantly different in mean suggesting a continuum in channel response as a function of grazing pressure. The difference in channel response between the elk exclosure and Riparian Guidelines' cross-sections initially suggested a treatment influence. However, 73 elk use in the Basin Creek study area is minimal because the elk tend to congregate at the higher elevations (USDA Forest Service 1992; P. Bengeyfield, USDA Forest Service pers. comm. 2000), and another explanation was soughtto explain the differences between the elk exclosures and the other four grazing treatments. Table 3: Results of the statistical tests comparing the variances (HOV) and means (General Linear Model) of annual rates of cross-section area change for grazing treatments within a given study area. The null hypotheses are that 1) variances are similar and 2) means are similar. The significance level Study Area Basin Creek, MT is a= 0.05. A negative annual rate indicates a reduction in cross-section area. RG = Riparian Guidelines, SEMA = Special Emphasis Management Area, EE = elk exclosure, CE= cattle exclosure. P-values that are significant (i.e. reject the Ho) are underlined. Treatments Sample Homogeneity of General Average annual compared size Variance (HOV) Linear Model rates of change Barlett's test · Test (sq. m/yr) (p-value) (p-value) RGs, New EE, 16, 7,5 0.15 .fil 0.01, -0.1, NewCEs -0.06 Muddy Creek, RGs, New CE, 15,3,9 0.54 0.20 -0.005, -0.03, MT Old CEs 0.03 Price Creek, RGs only 8 NIA NIA 0 MT Hay Creek, SEMAs, New 3, 3, 3 0.36 0.85 0, -0.02, 0 AZ (White EE, New CE Mts) 74 Table 4: Results of the statistical tests comparing the variances (HOV) and means (General Linear Model) of paired treatments within the Basin Creek study area. The null hypotheses are 1) variances are similar and 2) means are similar. Significance level is adjusted to a= 0.017 using the Dunn-Sidak procedure (Underwood 1997). A negative annual rate indicates a reduction in cross-section area. RG = Riparian Guidelines, SEMA = Special Emphasis Management Areas, EE= elk exclosure, CE = cattle exclosure. P-values that are significant (i.e. reject the Ho) are underlined. Study Area Treatments Sample Homogeneity of General Average annual compared size Variance (HOV) Linear Model rates of change F-test (p-value) (sq. m/yr) (p-value) Basin RGs, New EE 16, 7 0.28 > 0.01 0.01, -0.1 Creek, MT RGs, New CE 16, 5 0.16 0.08 o.oi, -0.06 New EE, New 7, 5 0.05 0.48 -0.1, -0.06 CE The elk exclosure contains two study reaches and six cross-sections. The upper reach has a number of low surfaces covered with sedges and rushes that are effectively capturing sediment from the eroding banks and channel bed upstream. The lower reach is downstream of the confluence between North and South Basin Creeks and downstream of the cattle exclosure fence on South Basin Creek. The position of cross-sections downstream of the confluence and cattle/elk fence, combined with an abrupt bend in the river's direction and tall willows along the channel's edge may be causing water to slow down and/or slightly pond in this lower elk exclosure reach. The result would be enhanced sediment deposition. Therefore, this apparent treatment response is more likely the result of site-specific characteristics, and the removal of cattle, rather than related to a reduction in cattle and elk grazing pressure. In the future it is probably more appropriate 75 to analyze the data from the Basin Creek elk exclosure with the data from the other cattle exclosures because the absence of elk activity means that the only reduction in grazing pressure is coming from the removal of cattle. In conclusion, Basin Creek was the only stream of the three that appeared to have a grazing-treatment influence. However, further investigation found that elk numbers are low in the Basin Creek study area, and though a real difference in channel response exists, the difference is more likely combination of local site characteristics and the absence of cattle grazing rather than the absence of elk and cattle grazing. The lack of a strong grazing treatment signal at these three streams led me to combine observations from like treatments. The goal was to see if an increase in sample size revealed patterns suggestive of a grazing-treatment influence not visible in the smaller sample size. Annual Rates as a Function of Grazing Pressure - Like Treatment Observations from all Creeks Combined Observations from like treatments were combined and examined graphically and statistically at the cross-section and reach scales to see if a grazing-pressure signature existed in the larger sample size. At the cross-section scale, Figure 11 shows a similarity in channel response between the new cattle exclosures, Riparian Guidelines, SEM areas and old cattle exclosures, at least in the early stages of a.reduction in cattle grazing pressure. These four treatments all show a mix of increases and decreases in cross- section area, though variability exists in the relative abundance of cross-section area increases and decreases. a. Cross-section as sample unit (N = 90) New elk exclosures New cattle exclosures SEM a:reas RipB1181\ guidelines Old.cattle exclosures -0.2 I I . o9 . ol • Q I o9 0 .: □□ ••f 0 9 □• . 1. : : Q I ~: i!i . 0 • □□ B.:!!l:.!9 ! 0 0 i;il . . 0 •• -0.1 0.0 0.1 Annual rates of cross-section area change (sq. m/yr) b. Reach as sample unit (N = 36) New elk exclosures New cattle exclosures I • • SEM . : l . . . a:reas RipB1181\ guidelines Old.cattle exclosures -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 Annual rates ofreach area change (sq. m/yr) N= 10 N= 18 N= 14 N=39 N=9 0 N=3 N=8 N=7 N= 16 N=2 76 0.2 0.2 Figure 11. Annual rates of cross-section area changes (sq. m/yr) as a function of grazing treatments at the cross-section and reach scales. Open squares = Bends, Solid dots = Straight sections. 77 The annual rates at the bends and straight sections are combined and averaged at the reach scale to reflect the overall reach response (Figure 11 b ). Graphical examinations of the annual rates at the reach scale show patterns similar to the ones observed at the cross-section scale (Figure 1 la), with two differences. The similarity between the new elk and new cattle exclosures is slightly more pronounced in Figure 11 b, while the similarity between the new cattle exclosures and the Riparian Guidelines, SEM areas, and old cattle exclosures is not as strong as in Figure 11 a. Statistical evaluation of the annual rates as a function of treatment at the cross-section and reach scales (Table 5), however, reveals that the variances between the four grazing treatments has remained about the same while the similarity in their means has slightly increased (p values= 0.086 to 0.114). The apparent difference between the channel response inside the new elk exclosures compared to the other four grazing treatments can not simply be explained as a function of the cessation of all grazing pressure. As noted earlier, there are two important caveats when interpreting the meaning of the cross-section observations from the new elk exclosures. First, only two elk exclosures were available for sampling because beavers entered the third elk exclosure between the first and second survey. Therefore, the sample size is very small. Second, two of the three reaches in the new elk exclosures occur on Basin Creek. As mentioned earlier, the lack of elk in the study area (P. Benegyfield, USDA Forest Service, pers. comm. 2000) lends support to the suggestion that the consistent reductions in cross-section area at Basin Creek are reflecting site-specific characteristics and, possibly, the removal of cattle grazing 78 pressure, rather than the removal of elk and cattle grazing pressure. Therefore, this particular data set is limited in its ability to conclusively link the complete removal of cattle and elk grazing with the higher rates of cross-section area reductions and should be considered only as a starting point for further research. Table 5: Results of the statistical tests comparing the variances (HOV) and means (General Linear Model) of the annual rates of cross-section area change as a function of grazing treatment. All like treatment results combined. The null hypotheses (Ho) are 1) variances are similar and 2) means are similar. The significance level is a= 0.05. RG = Riparian Guidelines, SEMA = Special Emphasis Management area, New CE = new cattle exclosure, New EE= new elk exclosure, Old CE= old cattle exclosure. P-values that reject the null hypothesis are underlined (i.e. the variances or means differ). Treatment comparisons Cross- HOV General Linear Av. Annual rate of section Bartlett's test model test change Sample (p value) (p value) (sq. m/yr) size RGs, SEMAs, New CEs, 39, 14, 18, 0.68 > 0.01 0, 0.01, -0.03, New EEs, Old CEs 10,9 -0.07, 0.03 RGs, SEMAs, New CEs, 39, 14, 18, 0.55 0.09 0, 0.01, -0.03, OldCEs 9 0.03 RGs, SEMAs, New CEs 39, 14, 18 0.35 0.13 0, 0.oI, -0.03, NCEs vs. NEEs 39, 10 0.97 0.08 Reach Av. Annual rate of Sample change size (sq. m/yr) RGs, SEMAs, New CEs, 16, 7, 8, 3, 0.56 > 0.01 0, 0.01, -0.02, - New EEs, Old CEs 2 0.07, 0.04 RGs, SEMAs, New CEs, 16, 7, 8, 2 0.45 0.11 0, 0.01, -0.02, 0.04 Old CEs (no elk exclosures) RGs, SEMAs, New CEs, 16, 7, 8, 3 0.38 >O.oI 0, 0.01, -0.02, -0.07 New EEs (no old cattle exclosures) New CEs, New EEs 8,3 0.18 0.04 -0.02, -0.07 79 The interpretation of the meaning of the cross-section area increases observed in the two old cattle exclosures on Muddy Creek should also be approached with caution. The sample size is small (two reaches) and restricted to a single creek. There is no theoretical basis for expecting channels inside cattle exclosures to increase in area. Therefore, these changes reflect adjustments to local channel characteristics, watershed conditions, and/or feedback loops that have been set in motion as a result of historical land use or random frequency events rather than current cattle grazing pressure in the reaches. These changes suggest that channel adjustments can continue long after cattle have been removed from the area(> 30 years). The lack of a strong grazing treatment signal was unexpected and further complicated by the fact that the new elk exclosures and the old cattle exclosures tell conflicting stories (Figure 11 ). Explanations were sought for the lack of a strong signal and four possible explanations emerged: lack of time, lack of sediment, type of sediment in transport (bedload versus suspended sediment), and/or lack of a sediment trapping mechanism. These factors and their contribution to determining rates and directions of channel change are explored in the discussion section. Another possibility is that the annual rate measurement is not sensitive enough to pick up an grazing treatment signal after only two-to-five years. The annual rate is a single numeric number. As the sum of all sediment gains and losses at a cross-section, the annual rate cannot illuminate the long-term contribution of individual gains and losses to channel evolution. Therefore, differences in channel response to reductions in grazing pressure may be obscured in the annual rate as the channel undergoes a period of adjustment before stabilizing. Annual Rates as a Function of Beaver-Dam Integrity Beavers were present only at Price Creek, but a graphical examination of the annual rates of cross-section area change for the two beaver treatments shows the clear influence of darn integrity on rates and directions of cross-section change (Figure 12). Most cross-sections in reaches with intact beaver darns show large reductions in cross- section area, while most cross-sections in reaches with failing beaver darns show large increases in cross-section area. The next step was to calculate the annual rates for each survey interval and examine cross-section area response as a function of distance upstream of a beaver darn and darn integrity (Figure 13 ). It was necessary to calculate 80 the annual rates for each survey interval (i.e. 1995 to 1997, 1997 to 1998) when analyzing the influence of distance upstream of a beaver darn on cross-section area because 1) the darns failed over the course of the study and 2) the changes were not linear over time. Figure 13 shows the channel's sensitivity to changes in beaver-dam integrity. When the darns were structurally sound, channel bed aggradation was rapid at sites upstream and in close proximity to the darns. When the darns began to fail, the fine sediment trapped behind the darn rapidly eroded, revealing one of the fluvial processes by which channelization and drainage network expansion occurs. Cross-sections located 15 rn or less upstream of a beaver darn responded rapidly to changes in beaver darn integrity, with the rates of change varying over time. Cross-sections located more than 15 rn upstream of a darn showed a more variable response indicating that factors other than darn integrity and distance were also influencing rates and directions of cross-section Failing beaver dams Intact beaver dams Cross-section area decreasing Cross-section area increasing - .It. O Q+ 0 ! □ 1_0.5 10.5 Annual rate of cross-section area change (sq. m/yr) 81 i.b Figure 12. Annual rates of change in the geomorphic cross-section area as a function of beaver-dam integrity, Price Creek, Montana. Open squares = Bends. Solid dots = Straight sections. 1.40 ,--------------------------------, 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 Cross-section area increasing X X X X X X X X X X X X 0.00 -llll-.\---l""-l---a""=l--;..H--;,,.1-+--;,,i+----i.J-l---lml-+--w-+--i..Hf----f'"9---l""'tl---l"'9--t-4----i..l-l----=l -0.20 -0.40 -Olli -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 Cross-section area decreasing Ill Smvey intewal 1994/1997 m 1995$1997 □ Smvey intewal l 997 /1998 -1.40 1------------------========::::::J 3 3 3 5 6 9 11 12 15 15 16 19 22 22 27 35 Distance upstream ofa beaver dam (m) Figure 13. Annual rates of change as a function of distance upstream of an intact or failing beaver dam. Only cross-sections that had intact beaver dams at the time of their baseline survey are showns. 'X' indicates the survey interval during which the dam failed. 82 response. Other influential factors include 1) time since the dam was built or began failing, 2) the condition of the dam at the time of the baseline survey, 3) the rate and nature of the dam breach, 4) distance upstream of a dam, 5) the interaction between valley width and the particulars of the channel planform, and 6) availability of sediment. The rapid rate of change as a function of beaver-dam integrity and proximity to a dam is clearly visible in cross-section and trend plots (Figure 14). The dam failures also provide information on the type of sediment in transport on Price Creek. Evaluation of the cross-section graphs for 17 and 18, located downstream of the dam controlled reaches on Price Creek, showed no changes in cross-section area between 1995 and 1998 despite the remobilization of large amounts of trapped sediment upstream once the dams failed (Figure 14). This lack of change at cross-section 17 and 18 indicates that the sediment moving through Price Creek was traveling most likely as suspended load. Comparison of Annual Rates as a Function of Grazing Treatments versus Beaver-Dam Integrity A comparison of the annual rates of cross-section area change as a function of treatment found that the rates were greater in the beaver-dam-controlled reaches than in reaches under the various grazing treatments (Figure 15a). The same result was observed when annual rates were examined at the reach scale though the distinction between the new elk exclosures and intact beaver-dam cross-sections is less pronounced (Figure 15b ). A statistical analysis using ANOVA and homogeneity of variance tests found that the annual rates of cross-section area change in the new elk exclosures and the intact beaver- ( Upstream I I XS 29 Net Change = o- 1.34 sq. m g. -1 § ------~-----------.--- ·.g -2 l ... ~ . iil -3 Bdam failed I I 4 5 6 7 8 9 W 11 ~ Distance from Right Pin (m) o--.--..----.----.--..----.----.--..------.--, XS 30 -1 g -2 ~ t----~-., 0 ·.g -3 > ., ii:l -4 -5 0 g -1 § -2 ·.g > ~ -3 Bdam failed XS18 -4 No Bdams 5 6 7 8 9 10 Net Change = 1.87 sq. m Net Change = -0.01 sq. m 11 12 13 0---------------~ -1 g -2 § -3 ·-g ~ -4 XS 17 Net Change = 0 sq. m iil No Bdams -5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2-----------~ XS29 Bend Bdam controlled 0 -1-- ----F---------I -1 . -2 -1---+----+--+----+---i 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2 ·~----------~ XS 30 Straight 1 _ Bdam controlled -1 -2 +---+----+---,__ _ _,__ _ _, 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2---r------------, XS 18 Bdam controlled/ RG Straight 0 --l--- -1_ ...... =-=======111 -1 -2 -1----+----+--+----+---i 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2 XS17 1 _ Bdam controlled/ RG Straight 0 +------=-=-==--tit----- -1 -2 -1----+----+--+----+---i 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 83 Downstream Distance from Left Pin (m) Figure 14. Comparison of cross-section area changes as a result of beaver-dam failures ( cross-sections 29 and 30) versus cross-section area changes downstream of the failures ( cross-sections 17 and 18), Price Creek Montana. Comparison between 1995 and 1998. BLACK= erosion. DASHED line= baseline geomorphic channel width. a. Cross-section as sample unit (N = 121) N=20 Feilingbeaver ., .. , .. .. • 0 <> 0". ◊ 9◊ {> <> darns N= 11 Intact beaver ◊ lo ,, .,. "., . " darns N= 10 Newelk i. J .. owo exclasures N= 18 New cattle "" 11: • exclasures N=14 SEMmas &»Ji:g <> N=39 RipBrilln <> " guidelines .,,,. N=9 Old cattle .., • exclas11111s -0.5 0.0 0.5 Annual rate of cross-section area change (sq. m/yr) b. Reach as sample unit (N = 46) N=7 Felling beaver darns N=3 lntar:t beaver . I darns New elk • I N=3 exclos11111s • I N=8 New cattle -.:~. exclos11111s SEM :J :. N=7 mas Riporim • .!. N= 16 guidelines Old cattle O.rO • exclasures -d.s N=2 0~5 Annual rate of reach area change (sq. m / yr) 1.0 I 1.0 84 ◊¢ Figure 15. Comparison of annual rates of cross-section area change as a function of the different treatments. a) at the cross-section scale and b) at the reach scale. 85 dam reaches had means (p = 0.23) and variances (p = 0.19) that were not significantly different. Whether this similarity would have continued over time is unclear and cannot be tested as all beaver dams had failed or were breaching by the final survey in 1998. Evidence Suggesting a Grazing Pressure Influence The lack of a clear signal in the annual rates as a function of cattle and elk grazing pressure was unexpected, as was the absence of any consistent pattern in direction or magnitude of the annual rates as a function of cross-section location on a bend or straight section (Figures 10 and 1 la). However, one difference is noticeable that bears further scrutiny: fewer straight sections in the new cattle exclosures (1 in 11 ), new elk exclosures (2 in 7), and old cattle exclosures (2 in 6) increased in cross-section area compared to the cross-sections in the Riparian Guidelines (11 in 25) and SEM (7 in 11) areas (Figure 1 la). The magnitude of these increases ranged from 0.01 m2 to 0.29 m2 with the largest increases occurring in the Riparian Guidelines and SEM areas. This difference in the number of cross-sections increasing in area is not simply a function of different sample sizes. Even when the observations are normalized, more cross-sections in straight sections in the areas managed under the Riparian Guidelines (44%) and as SEM areas (64%) increased than did the cross-sections in the new cattle exclosures (1 %), new exclosures (29%), and old cattle exclosures (33%). This greater frequency of cross- section area increases on straight sections in reaches grazed by cattle and elk suggests a grazing-pressure signature because straight sections are expected to be stable in these small systems. This observation was, therefore, examined further. 86 Prior to drawing any conclusions about the above observation, it is important to remember that the cross-sections were not randomly selected. I selected cross-sections to provide specific information on change and stability. I tried to select similar types of cross-sections in the different grazing treatments, but some variability existed in what was available in the different reaches. This lack of random selection of the cross- sections, combined with reach variability, means that one must proceed with caution when drawing conclusions from this observation. First, the cause of the increase in net cross-section area may be processes other than grazing pressure. Second, a lack of change, or even a reduction, in cross-section area does not necessarily negate the possible presence of a grazing pressure influence. The annual rate is a sum of all sediment gains and losses and cannot reveal cross-section specific changes that have long-term implications for channel evolution. I therefore examined all 60 cross-section graphs from straight sections in order to identify the location of bank erosion and deposition - information that might illuminate if and how grazing pressure was affecting the evolution of the channel. Evaluation of the causes of channel changes observed on the graphs was supplemented by field observations. The upper and lower bank losses were evaluated separately for change. Lower bank changes were considered the result of :fluvial processes (Thorne and Tovey 1981; Lawler 1992) while upper bank retreat, if observed in the field to be the result of hoof shearing action, was the result of grazing pressure. Bank retreats from rotational slumping, planar sliding, or tension crack failure had to be evaluated individually because these processes can be triggered either by :fluvial processes (Thorne and Tovey 1981; 87 Knighton 1998) or cattle grazing (Trimble and Mendel 1995; Knighton 1998). Increases in cross-section area over the study period due to channel incision were not considered the direct result of current cattle-grazing pressure in the same way that upper bank retreat was considered a direct consequence of current grazing pressure. However historical livestock-grazing impacts on riparian and upland vegetation contributed to base-level drops by removing stabilizing bank vegetation and increasing discharge, and current grazing pressure and livestock-related activities may be contributing to further base-level drops. Close examination of the 60 cross-section graphs and field notes found that the evidence for bank trampling as the cause of cross-section area increases was inconclusive. While 23 cross-sections increased in area (Figure 1 la), only 14 out of the 60 cross-section graphs showed stream bank retreat occurring (Table 6). All 14 cross- section graphs were located in the Riparian Guidelines and SEM areas (Appendix B). In two of the 14 cases, the cross-sections showed a net reduction in area, underscoring the importance of examining both the annual rates and the cross-section graphs. 88 Table 6: Cross-sections with bank retreat related to grazing in areas managed under the Riparian Guidelines and as SEM areas. The cross-sections in BOLD show a net decrease in cross-section area despite bank losses. Negative net changes= cross-section area reduction. RG = Riparian Guidelines, SEMA = Special Emphasis Management areas. Treatment Creek XS NetXS Amount of Amount Cause of bank retreat No. area change bank lost ofbank (sq. m) (sq. m) retreat (m) RG N. Basin 17 0.21 0.2 0.31 Trampling? RG N. Basin 18 0.07 0.06 0.12 Trampling RG N. Basin 19 0.19 0.08 0.1 Block failure RG N. Basin 22 > 0.01 0.03 0.19 Trampling RG S. Basin 11 -0.16 0.08 0.14 Trampling? RG S. Basin 12 -0.06 0.22 0.24 Tension crack failure (trampling?) RG S. Basin 13 0.05 0.05 0.19 Trampling? RG Muddy 16 0.17 0.11 0.58 Rotational slump RG W. Fk Price 5 0.11 0.06 0.14 Trampling RG W. Fk Price 31 0.05 0.04 0.12 Trampling SEMA Hay 1 0.1 0.05 0.48 Trampling SEMA Lower Burro 5 0.14 0.03 0.17 Trampling? SEMA Mandan 5 0.31 0.36 0.67 Tension crack failure (trampling) SEMA Mandan 6 0.08 0.07 0.62 Trampling The amount ofretreat ranged from 0.1 to 0.67 m (Table 6) or 0.05 to 0.22 m/yr, and the location, spatial extent, and amount of stream bank retreat varied. In some cases the entire bank retreated, while in other cases only a portion of the bank retreated. Two of the 14 cross-sections had considerable upper bank erosion, but the erosion was not attributed to the direct effects of cattle or elk trampling. At one site the erosion was the result of a rotational slump, and at the second site it was the result of a downward shift in a block of bank, possibly related to channel incision (Table 6). Both the channel incision and the rotational slump suggest a system still undergoing channel adjustments possibly related to past grazing impacts and land use, even though changes could not be attributed to present grazing pressure. The remaining 89 12 cross-section graphs had changes suggestive of a grazing-pressure influence (Table 6). While the bank erosion amounts were small in cross-section area, with most less than 0.1 m 2 , the linear amount of bank retreat ranged from 0.12 to 0.67 m. The cause of bank retreat, based on field observations, was predominantly trampling which sheared off small portions of the bank (Figure 7). Tension cracks failed in two places. The cause of their eventual failure (i.e. grazing pressure or fluvial processes) is unknown. These observations regarding changes in cross-sections on straight sections in the Riparian Guidelines and SEM areas suggest that the greater grazing pressure in these areas is impacting the channel. While the amount of bank retreat was small ( most < 0 .1 m2), these are small headwater streams. Therefore, even small amounts of bank retreat are important and can greatly influence the stream and valley floor hydrologic connection. Geomorphic Significance of the Cross-section Area Changes This section answers the third research question: "What is the geomorphic significance of the cross-section area change as it relates to reconnecting the stream hydrologically to its valley floor?" The geomorphic significance of the cross-section area changes was evaluated by examining the degree to which the available channel capacity decreased. Reductions in available channel capacity and the resultant improved stream and valley-floor hydrologic connection can occur either through sediment deposition or by the maintenance of higher water levels in the channel (i.e. backwater effects of beaver dams). Therefore, three aspects of the data were analyzed. First, the annual rates were evaluated in terms of their annual percent change in baseline cross- 90 section area. Second, the annual rate of change was compared against the target reduction in cross-section area required to hydrologically reconnect the stream and the valley floor. Finally, the percent reduction in the available channel capacity of the geomorphic channel was calculated for a point in time as a result of the amount of water present in the channel. This last calculation highlighted the ability of intact beaver dams to reduce available channel capacity as a result of ponding water behind the dams and is discussed in depth in the discussion section. Annual Percent Change in Cross-section Area The annual rates of change were expressed as a percent of baseline cross-section area in order to place the rates in their geomorphic context (Figure 16). The percent change calculation is highly sensitive to baseline area (Figure 16) and demonstrates the importance of examining the percent change and the actual rate of change simultaneously. Only three grazing cross-sections (three percent) had changes greater than 10 percent per year, and of the three, two had very small baseline cross-section areas (less than 0.5 m2). In contrast, the 16 beaver-dam cross-sections (53 percent) had changes in their baseline area greater than 10 percent. The examination of the data graphically and statistically prevents overestimating or underestimating the significance of the changes as they apply to the variable of interest - in this case channel cross-section area. The summary presented in Table 7 supports the earlier statistical tests and graphical plots that showed minimal difference between the l 91 a. Straight sections (N = 83) 1.2 - 120 -442% ---- -.:' 1.0 10of i' '-' & ro 0.8 (1) ,n 80 ..... '-' ro (1) A oil _g A ro 0.6 - Intact 60 ....., * (.) ..c: Riparian SEM (1) (.) Bdams ,n ro Old New NCEs Guidelines areas I ,n ~ EEs ,n 0.4 CEs 40 0 ..... A (.) 0 .s ·.:i (.) 0.2 · 20 (1) (1) oil er § ,n ,n ..c: 0 0.0 0 (.) ..... ....., (.) A <+--< (1) 0 (.) (1) -20 ..... (1) 't;j 0.. ..... 30% Non-dam controlled 90 14 87 (97%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 0 New Elk 10 0 2 (t) 7(!) 0 1/\m 0 Exclosures New Cattle 18 2 4 m 12 m 0 0 0 Exclosures Old Cattle 9 4 4(t)l(!) 0 0 0 Exclosures Riparian 39 7 11 (i) 20 CD 0 1/\ (j) 0 Guidelines SEMAs 14 1 7(t)5(!) 1 (j) 0 0 Dam controlled 31 15 (48%) 7 (23%) 2 (6%) 7 (23%) Intact Bdams 11 0 2(t)5(!) 3 (!) 0 1 (!) Failing Bdams 20 0 5 (t) 3 (!) 4 (j) 2 (j) 6A(j) Geomorphic Significance of the Annual Rates of Channel Change I examined the net cross-section area changes, the annual rates, and the calculated target rates to determine the "geomorphic significance" of the annual rates of cross- section area change. A channel change is defined as "geomorphically significant" if it 93 increases or decreases the degree to which the stream and valley floor are hydrologically connected. The target annual rate of cross-section area change is defined as the annual rate of decrease in cross-section area required to return the cross-section to its pre- disturbance area in 10 years and hydrologically reconnect the stream and valley floor. The target rates were then compared against their corresponding annual rates to determine whether the annual rate would meet the desired reduction in cross-section area in 10 years or less (Figure 17). The pre-disturbance cross-section areas selected for my cross-sections were 0.1 m2 for cross-sections with drainage areas less than 15 km2 and 0.53 m2 for cross-sections with drainage areas greater than 50 km2. The values were the smallest geomorphic cross-section area measured in their respective drainage area categories. The first step was to examine the net changes to determine which cross-sections had no net change in cross-section area. As mentioned earlier, a net area increase or decrease of 0.05 m2 or less was considered essentially no change. This value is so small ( a 22 cm by 22 cm square) that it more likely reflects variations in the location of the survey points between years rather than real change in cross-section area. Once the cross-sections with "no net change" were identified, the annual rates of change for the remaining cross-sections were examined. All cases in which the cross-section area increased were considered significant because the stream is beginning to, or continuing to, disconnect hydrologically from its valley floor. Decreases in cross-section area were separated into two categories, "positive" decrease and "significant" decrease, depending on whether the annual rate did or did not met the target rate. I identified six categories of 94 geomorphic significance (Table 8). Two categories applied to cases where the channel enlargement was less than or equal to 0.2 m2, and four categories applied to cases where the channel enlargement was greater than 0.2 m2• A channel enlargement ofless than or equal to 0.2 m2 over its estimated pre-disturbance channel area was not considered enough to disconnect the stream hydrologically from its valley floor. The majority of the cross-sections, and therefore the reaches, did not meet or exceed the annual rate of change required to hydrologically reconnect the streams to their valley floors in 10 years (Figure 17, Table 8, Appendix I). About a third of the cross- sections in the grazing treatments were improving. The remaining two-thirds either increased in area, and thus available channel capacity, or showed no change but had streams that were already hydrologically disconnected from their valley floors. Cross-sections in the area of failing beaver dams showed annual increases in cross-section area up to 1.08 m2/yr (Figure 13). The magnitude of these changes revealed the magnitude of sediment that had been trapped behind the dams and the speed at which a stream can shift from processes of aggradation to erosion. However, these initial high rates of erosion are expected to be short-term and drop abruptly once the stream has eroded through the fine sediments down to a more resistant layer in the channel bed. In terms of the recovery of the hydro logic connection, the intact beaver dams were very effective. The annual rates of cross-section area reductions at eight of the 11 intact beaver-dam cross-sections met or exceeded the target rate. Initial cross-section area reductions were as high as 0.58 m2/year for sites in close proximity to intact beaver dams. a. All Grazing Treatments combined -- Straight sections (N = 60) b. All Grazing Treatments combined -- Bends (N = 30) g 1.2 ,;:;- 1.2 ;,-, s XS area increasing s 1 XS area increasing & 0.8 & 0.8 ~ ~ 15 meters upstream of a beaver dam. '° V, 96 Table 8. Geomorphic significance and implications of the cross-section responses as they pertain to hydrologically reconnecting the stream and the valley floor in 10 years. Channel enlargement is defined as the amount that the geomorphic channel cross-section area has increased over the pre-disturbance channel area. Cross-section Criteria Stream and System Grazing Failing Intact area change Valley-Floor Condition Treatments Bdams Bdams Hydrologic Connection N=90 N=20 N= 11 Channel enlargement< 0.2 m2 No real IN et change in XS Hydrologically Stable and change in area change! :=:: 0.05 connected Functioning 2 0 0 cross-section m2 (2%) area occurred An increase Net XS area Becoming Degrading occurred in increases> 0.05 m2 hydrologically 3 1 0 the cross- disconnected (3.5%) (5%) section area Channel enlargement;::,; 0.2 m2 No real !Net XS area Hydrologically Stable but 31 3 3 change in change! :=:: 0.05 m2 disconnected in degraded (34.5%) (15%) (27%) cross-section condition area occurred An increase Net XS area Hydrologic Degrading occurred in increases > 0.05 m2 disconnection 21 15 0 the cross- increasing (23%) (75%) section area A positive l. Net XS area Hydrologic reduction decreases by more connection is Improving 30 1 4 occurred in than 0.05 m2 improving BUT (33.5%) (5%) (36.5%) the cross- will not reach the section area 2. Annual rate< desired goal in Target rate 10 years at current rate. A significant l. Net XS area Hydrologic reduction decreases by more connection is Rapidly 3 0 4 occurred in than 0.05 m2 improving AND Improving (3.5%) (36.5%) the cross- will reach or section area 2. Annual rate ~ exceed the Target rate desired goal in 10 years at current rate. Water Levels and Available Channel Capacity as a Function of Grazing Pressure and Beaver-dam Integrity 97 Most cross-sections in reaches controlled by beaver dams had annual rates of cross-section area reductions as a result of sediment deposition equal to or greater than the target rates in contrast to the low reductions in area for the grazing treatments (Figure 17). The large difference between rates of reduction in area for the dam-controlled and non-dam controlled sites is the result of the beaver dams effectively trapping the fine suspended load that would have otherwise been transported out of the reaches. However, even when sedimentation rates were low in the dam-controlled reaches, as it was at some cross-sections (Figure 13), the hydrologic reconnection between the stream and valley floor still occurred because the elevated water levels in the beaver ponds reduced the available channel capacity. The effectiveness of intact beaver dams and ponds towards reducing available channel capacity and maintaining the surface hydrologic connection between the stream and valley floor during the summer low-flow months is visible when comparing the percent reduction in the available channel capacity for the three Montana streams (Figure 18; Appendix J). The impact of this reduction in available channel capacity on flood frequencies will be examined later in the discussion section of this chapter and again in Chapter 3. Percent reductions in available channel capacity for the three streams as a result of water levels in the channels were compared for the 1995 surveys as a function of the geomorphic cross-section area. The surveys took place from mid-July to late August. In the dam-controlled reaches on Price Creek, one cross-section had a 100 percent reduction 98 in available channel capacity, being completely filled with water, while another cross- section had water extending onto the valley floor as result of the top of the dam being higher than the top of the bank. In addition, a number of the Price Creek cross-sections had reductions in available channel capacity of 50 percent or more due to water ponding behind the dams. Reductions in available channel capacity in the dam-controlled reaches less than 50 percent occurred where the dams were not being maintained. The lack of maintenance led to lower water levels as water leaked through the dams or spilled over the breaches in the dams. In contrast to the dam-controlled reaches, water occupied less channel area for similar geomorphic channel areas in the non-dam-controlled reaches. Reductions in available channel capacity were less than 40 percent for the majority of the non dam- controlled cross-sections. The two non-dam-controlled Price Creek cross-sections demonstrate that the percent reductions in available channel capacity as a function of the amount of water occupying the channel in the dam-controlled and non-dam-controlled cross-sections was not a function of creek and/or variations in discharge. The two cross- sections are identified in Figure 18 by open circles. Their percent reductions in available channel capacity are similar to the percent reductions calculated for the non-dam- controlled cross-sections at Muddy and Basin Creeks. ~------------------·- 120 110 ,-.._ ;::R ~ 100 .£ 0 90 o:! ~ 0 80 a) § 70 ...c: 0 60 .s I: 50 0 ·:g X .g 40 Q) ... 30 ~ 0 20 ... Q) p.. 10 0 - 0 11111 ---■------------------------· 11111 11111 Ill 11111 [----- ---Price- Intact dams Price - no dams Basin - no dams Muddy - no dams &---------------------------------------- A ID A 2 4 6 8 10 12 Geomorphic channel cross-section area (sq. m) 99 Figure 18: Percent reductions in available channel capacity in streams with and without beaver dams. All streams in southwest Montana and all data were collected between mid-July and late August 1995. The effectiveness of beaver ponds as a mechanism for reducing available channel capacity becomes even clearer when comparing the available channel capacity at Price Creek in 1995 ( dams intact) and in 1998 ( dams failing or failed) are compared (Figure 19). All cross-sections inside the dam-controlled areas show a significant increase in available channel capacity in 1998 as a result of dam failures and pond drainage. The difference between the two survey years cannot be attributed to variations in discharge because the water levels at cross-sections 17 and 18 did not vary between 1995 and 1998. Cross-sections 17 and 18 are located downstream of the beaver dam-controlled reaches 100 and downstream of the confluence between Price Creek and the West Fork of Price Creek. The changes in available channel capacity between 1995 and 1998 demonstrate the speed at which a hydrologic disconnection can occur as well as a means to its restoration. 0 125 ·~ ~ <.) 100 'o:l § ..g 75 .£ ~ - ,-_ ·a ~ ;:,,'--' 50 ro .E i:: 0 ·-g 25 "8 I-< I 0 P. Beaver dams present ________ _ XS19 No dams 18 ii 17 gj 0.95 1.23 1.43 1.6 1.63 1.68 2.09 2.22 2.39 2.71 3.07 4.09 3.79 6.84 Baseline channel cross-section area (sq. m) 11111995 o 1998 Figure 19: Percent reductions in available channel capacity as a function of beaver-dam integrity, Price Creek, Montana. The dams were intact in 1995, though some were not being maintained. Dams had completely failed or were breaching in 1998. Cross-sections 17 and 18 are downstream of the beaver dam-controlled reaches. Identifying Trends in the Cross-section Area Changes This final section examines changes in the cross-section area as a function of time to answer the fourth research question: "What are the time scales of channel change, potential trends, and the effectiveness of the different study treatments as strategies for 101 restoring the stream and valley flood hydrologic connection?" A combination of cross- section graphs, trend plots, and annual rates were used in the analysis. Multiple resurveys were essential for understanding the long-term response of streams to reductions in cattle and elk grazing pressure and changes in beaver-dam integrity. The resurveys documented the complex nature of:fluvial adjustments, revealing non-linear rates and, in some cases, abrupt reversals in the direction and magnitude of cross-section area change. Four causes were identified from the cross- section graphs as responsible for variations in rates and directions of change: 1) close proximity to a beaver-dam failure, 2) close proximity to an intact beaver dam, 3) the completion of an episodic event such as a bend failure, and 4) changes over time in the amount of sediment deposited relative to the amount of sediment eroded. A fifth cause, not yet visible at my cross-sections in beaver-dam controlled reaches, is the situation whereby a knickpoint generated at a failing beaver dam migrates upstream and at some later date results in a sudden increase in area at a cross-section distant from a dam. The amount of increase in a cross-section area will vary depending on the amount of sediment deposited at the site prior to dam failure. Several examples demonstrate this variability and complexity in response and underscore the limitations in relying solely on a single repeat survey and an annual rate to predict future trends. The first example examines trend plots from Muddy and Price Creeks. All four trend plots from Muddy Creek show variation in trend predictability (Figure 20a). The most noticeable changes occur for cross-sections 12 and 17 and are the result of the completion of bend failures. In contrast, Muddy Creek cross-sections 16 and 102 5, both on straight sections, show very little change in trend. Of the four Price Creek trend plots, three show changes in the magnitude and an abrupt reversal in the direction of channel change as a result of beaver-dam failures (Figure 20b). Price Creek 17, located downstream of the beaver dam-controlled reaches, also shows a change in trend, though the change is minor compared to the beaver dam-controlled cross-sections. The ability to predict future trends and channel changes at individual cross-sections is thus poor, if only the first survey interval rate was used (Figure 20). An examination of all the Muddy Creek and Price Creek trend plots showed no evidence for any linear trends as a function of treatment (Figures 21 and 22). In the case of Price Creek, the lack of trend in the beaver-dam reaches is because the dams failed part way through the study due to lack of dam maintenance as a result of beaver trapping, an event nicely captured by the plots (Figure 22). 103 2· 2 Muddy Bend Muddy XS 5 Straight --XS 12 --1 -- -- -- 0 0 - - ~- -I -1 -2 -2. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2 2 Price XS 13 Bend Price XS 17 Straight l .. O· mMu,_,,,,,,,,~,, 0 _,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_ - - -1 . - -1 -2 ' -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2 2 MuddyXS4 Bend Price XS 30 1 ... 1 . 0 - () - -1 . -1 Straight -2 -2. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Years Years Figure 20. Examples of changes in cross-section area trend over time. The dashed line reflects the predicted trend based on the first survey interval. 'O' = baseline area reference point. XS24 Straight NCE -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS23 Straight 1 NCE - -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS22 Straight NCE -I -2 1993 -1 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 19 RG Bend -2 +--+----+----tc--t------1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS JR Straight RG -1 -2 +------+--+----tc--+-------! 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 17 Bend RG -I -2. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 16 Straight RO -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year XS 15 Straight RG -I -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 14 Bend RG -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 13 Straight OCE -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -1 XS 12 OCE Bend -2 -1-----+----+----t--+-----I 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS25 Straigbt OCE -1 -2 -1----+--+----t--+---< 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS II Bend RO -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS JO Bend RG -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year XS9 RG -1 -2 1993 1994 xss RG -1 -2 1993 1994 XS7 RG -1 -2 1993 1994 -1 XS6 RG 1995 1995 1995 Bend 1996 1997 1998 Straight 1996 1997 1998 Bend 1996 1997 1998 Bend -2 +----t--+----+--+----t 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -1 xss RG Straight -2 +-->----+--+--+---< 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS4 Bend RG -I -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS3 Straight RO -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year XS2 OCE -1 -2 1993 1994 XS I OCE -1 -2 1993 1994 XS32 OCE -1 -2 1993 1994 -1 XS26 OCE 104 Bend 1995 1996 1997 1998 Bend 1995 1996 1997 1998 Stmight 1995 1996 1997 1998 Straight -2 +----t--+---+--+------i 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 31 Straight OCE -1 -2 -1----+--+----tc----t--------! 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS30 Straight OCE -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Figure 21. Changes in cross-section area over time with respect to baseline cross-section area, Muddy Creek, Montana. 'O' = baseline area. Plots start at the upstream end and head downstream. OCE = Old cattle exclosure, NCE = New cattle exlclosure, RG = Riparian guidelines. XS33 Stmight . . Odam controlled / -I -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 xsn Bend Bdnm controlled -1 -2 +--/--+--+--+---< 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 14 Straight Ddmn conlmlled -1 -2 +--/--+--+--+---l 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 15 Straight Bdam conlrollcd -1 -2 ·I--/--+--+--+---! 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS21 Straight Odam controlled -1 -2 +--.--+--+--+---! 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS20 Bend Bdam conlrolled -1 -2 +--/--+--+--+---! 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 19 Straight Bdnm controlled -1 -2 +--.--+--+--+---! 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year XS22 Slraight Bdam controlled -1 -2 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS23 Straight Bdmn controlled -1 -2 !--+--+--+--+---< 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS24 Straight Bdnm control!ed -1 -2 +--f--+--+-+----1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS25 Straight Bdam controlled -1 -2 +-~c--+--+--+----1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS26 Straight Bdnm controlled -1 -2 +--f--+--+-+----1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS27 Bend Bdam controlled -1 -2 +--f--+--+-+----1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS28 Slraight Bdrun conlrolled -1 -2 +--.--+--+--+---! 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year XS29 Ilcmt Bdnm controlled -1 -2. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS30 Straight Bdam controlled -1 -2 t---1---+--+--+---i 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -1 XS 18 Bdnm controlled/ RG Straight -2 +--t--+--+--+---l 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -1 XS17 !Mum controlled/ RG Straight -2 +--t--+--+--+----1 -1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS 16 Bdam controlled/ RG Straight -2 +--t---+--+--+----1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -1 -2 1---i--+--+---+-----1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year -1 West Fork Price Creek XS4 RG Straight 105 -2 1---i--+--+--+---l 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -1 xss RG Straight -2 +---i--+--+--+---l 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 -1 XS6 RG Straight -2 +---i--+--+---+----1 -1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS7 RG Straight -2 +---i~-+--+--+----1 -1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS32 RO Straight -2 +---if--+--+--+---! 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 XS31 RG Straight -1 -2 +--c--+--+--+----1 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year Figure 22. Changes in cross-section area over time with respect to baseline cross-section area, Price Creek, Montana. 'O' = baseline area. Plots start at the upstream end and head downstream. Bdam controlled = beaver dam influence, RG = Riparian guidelines, Bdam controlled/RG = Treatment shifted over study. 106 In some cases, both the annual rates and trend plots show minimal change in baseline cross-section area, and it is only by examining the cross-section graphs and field notes that the existence of change becomes visible. West Fork of Price Creek cross- section 32 is an excellent example. The reach section represented by cross-section 32 is still hydrologically connected to its valley floor, but the potential for a hydrologic disconnect in the future is high. The cross-section was resurveyed twice. The annual rates of change were low, only-0.01 m2 between 1995 and 1997 and 0.02 m2 between 1997 and 1998, and its trend plot showed little change (Figure 22). However, field observations noted high levels of bank trampling, an impact that was captured in its graph (Figure 23). The graph suggests that higher rates of change will occur in the future. Site- specific change at the cross-section as a result of bank trampling will be compounded as knickpoints observed in the reach migrate upstream beyond the cross-section. Therefore, in addition to channel widening, channel incision is expected to occur at the cross- section, the combination of events shifting the stream from being hydrologically connected to its valley floor to being disconnected. Again, the importance of using all the data available when attempting to predict channel change and identify impacts is highlighted as well as the importance oflong-term surveys. 0 ---,---........ --"""T"----,,----"T"""----,----,-----,------,-----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 r---------=.,,,,;,,,.. Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Survey Years -3 -j-- 1994 --------- 1998 0 2 3 4 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Bend (very gentle) Tension crack 1998 5 6 107 Figure 23. Cross-section showing changes to the channel banks as a result of bank trampling. West Fork Price Creek 5, Montana. DASHED line= Baseline geomorphic bankfull channel width. 108 Another example demonstrating the contribution made by the cross-section graphs shows how cross-sections can have similar net changes in area but for different reasons and with different implications for the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connection. In the case of Basin Creek 12, the net change was minimal (-0.05 m2) because the amount of bank that eroded was about equal to the amount of sediment that was deposited (Figure 24a). The long-term contributions of the gains and losses to the evolution of the channel morphology at Basin Creek 12 differ sharply. The left bank failure at Basin 12 is a permanent change while the sediment deposited on the bar may be temporary unless vegetation becomes well established. In the case of Mandan Creek 2, the net change was also minimal (-0.02 m2), but in this case it was because only a small amount of sediment was deposited (Figure 24b ). As the Basin Creek and White Mountains sites were only surveyed twice, trends at cross-sections or as a function of treatment could not be determined. The location, amount, and complexity of cross-section change over time were distinctly different for grazing treatments versus beaver treatments (Figures 14 and 15; Appendix B). These differences are qualitatively summarized in Table 9. The complexity of channel response underscores the importance of using cross-section graphs, trend plots and annual rates of change when interpreting results and predicting future changes. The results also underscore the value of having more than two surveys when attempting to draw interpret the data. While the annual rates of change are an effective means of comparing cross-sections and determining trends, they do not reveal the spatial and temporal composition a) Basin Creek 12 (Riparian Guidelines) 0 ~ -1 I ~ 0 .-§ -2 ~ ~ -3 -4 0 1995 to 1997 Net Change= -0.05 sq. m tension crack Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Survey year -f-- 1995 --- 1997 2 3 4 5 6 Distance from Left Pin (meters) b) Mandan Creek 2 (Special Emphasis Management area) 1994 to 1997 0 Net Change= -0.02 sq. m Geommphic bankfull 1994 - - - - ,Fi I 1 " L sedges ---- 1 e -3 Survey year -f-- 1994 -4 --- 1997 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 109 Straight section 7 8 9 Straight section 22 23 24 Figure 24. Comparison of cross-sections with similar net changes in area, but with different geomorphic significance to the channel. Dashed line = baseline geomorphic channel width. Vertical exaggeration= 0. Graphs at same scale for direct comparison. 110 of those changes. This information is critical for interpreting trends in channel evolution and the potential for reconnecting the stream hydrologically to its valley floor. Table 9. Differences in cross-section response as a function of grazing pressure and beaver-dam integrity as observed on the cross-section graphs. Sediment gained and lost Grazing Treatment XS Beaver Treatment XS response responses Not equal. A gain or a loss Amount Usually about equal amounts. dominates in close proximity to beaver dams. At sites more distant to beaver dams, the results are more similar to the patterns noted in the grazing treatment areas. Spatial Distribution Spatially diverse and complex. Little spatial diversity. Varies, but usually small. The Large in close proximity to a Magnitude of Change occasional large net gain or loss beaver dam, decreasing with occurs on both straight sections distance upstream of a dam. and bends. Most of the largest gains and No clear influence. Dam Bend or Straight section influence losses occur at bends. proximity is the control. Ability to predict location, Low High direction and relative magnitude of future XS change Discussion The results show distinctly different cross-section area responses between the grazing treatments and the beaver treatments. The beaver dam-controlled reaches showed large magnitude increases or decreases in cross-section area depending on the integrity of the beaver dams and proximity to a dam. A similar strong signal, however, 111 did not emerge in the annual rates as a function of the grazing treatments (Figure 15). Large reductions in grazing pressure due to exclosures did not result in a corresponding pattern of large reductions in cross-section area. Of the 90 cross-sections located in grazing treatments, 87 (97%) had annual percent changes in their baseline area less than or equal to 10 percent (Figure 16). And except in the case of cross-sections with areas less than 0.5 m2 the annual rates were well below the target rates required to hydrologically reconnect the stream and the valley floor within a 10-year period (Figure 17). While the statistics and the dot plots indicate some differences between the new elk exclosures and the other four grazing treatments, the differences are small. Explanations for the Similarity in Annual Rates of Cross-section Area Change Despite Differences in Grazing Pressure The lack of variation in the annual rates of cross-section area change as a function of grazing treatment was unexpected. Three factors were considered as possible causes of the minimal contrast: 1) lack of time, 2) lack of sediment or absence of bedload, and 3) lack of an effective sediment trapping mechanism. The examination of these factors addressed the final research question: "What factors limit the ability of streams to hydrologically reconnect with their valley floors?" Lack of Time My study examined channel changes over a two-to-five year period in the early years of a reduction of grazing pressure. Thus one possible explanation of the minimal 112 difference is that not enough time has passed. Therefore, I examined the results from other exclosure studies to determine if additional time resulted in 1) greater differences in channel morphology inside and outside exclosures and 2) a consistent pattern of difference. Only those exclosure studies that measured changes in the geomorphic or hydrologic bankfull width and/or area were considered in the analysis in order to compare my results with like features. Exclosure studies that used wetted width as their channel-width parameter were not considered in the analysis because of their sensitivity to discharge (e.g. Platts and Nelson 1985; Stuber 1985; Myers and Swanson 1996; Clary 1999). My decision to restrict exclosure comparisons to those with information on the geomorphic or hydrologic bankfull widths narrowed the number of exclosure studies that could be evaluated to five studies (Winegar 1977; Clifton 1987; Medina and Martin 1988; Kondolf 1993; Magilligan and McDowell 1997). All five of these studies considered the contribution of cattle only and did not mention whether elk were or were not contributing to channel change. Two of these exclosure studies used the space-for- time substitution method (Kondolf 1993; Magilligan and McDowell 1997). The other three studies used either repeat surveys (Winegar 1977; Medina and Martin 1988) or combined historic photographs with a later survey (Clifton 1987) to evaluate change. No consistent patterns in channel morphology inside and outside the exclosures emerged from these five studies, and therefore they were unable to help identify the role of time in my results. Kondolf (1993) measured channel widths inside and outside a 24- year-old exclosure in the White Mountains in California and found minimal differences in width despite greater vegetation inside the exclosures: Magilligan and McDowell 113 (1997) measured bankfull channel width inside and outside four exclosures in eastern Oregon. The exclosures ranged in age from 14 to 30 years. Bankfull channel widths inside the four exclosures averaged 0.9 to 1.2 m narrower than in the adjacent grazed reaches in all but one case where the difference was even greater (Magillian and McDowell 1997). They suggest that the channels inside the exclosures have narrowed. However, the space-for-time substitution method makes it difficult to determine process and direction of change in the absence of baseline data. An alternative explanation for the differences inside and outside the exclosure fences is that over the last 14 to 30 years continued bank trampling outside the exclosures has caused these reaches to widen. The cross-sections were resurveyed six years later in three of their study areas. The limited resolution of the initial cross-section surveys prevented identifying the directions and rates of channel change over the intervening six years except at Camp Creek. At Camp Creek the channel widening outside the exclosure was pronounced enough that it was visible on the cross-sections (Mowry 2003). One cross-section inside the Camp Creek exclosure also increased in width. The remaining four exclosure cross-sections appeared stable based on the limited resolution of the initial survey (Mowry 2003). Medina and Martin (1988) resurveyed cross-sections over a nine-year period (1977 to 1985) in exclosed and lightly grazed reaches in southwest New Mexico. They found that all cross-sections increased in channel width. They attributed the increases in channel widths to a large fire in 1951 that occurred in the headwaters, followed by a series of subsequent storms that led to channel adjustments as a sediment pulse moved downstream. They did not considered cattle grazing pressure an influence as it was 114 negligible over the study period and the allotment had been rested four out of the seven years prior to the study (Medina and Martin 1988). No information was provided on the potential elk grazing pressure. Finally, Clifton (1987) and Winegar (1977) found high rates of bed aggradation and rapid vegetative recovery inside their exclosures compared to outside their exclosures. Beavers, however, were present in both exclosures and, based on the results from Price Creek and other studies (Apple et al. 1984; Johnston and Naiman 1990), beavers were probably responsible for the accelerated rates of cross- section area reductions and vegetative recovery. While these five studies do not answer the time question, they provide lines of inquiry that may partially explain the minimal response and lack of variation in channel response despite reductions in cattle grazing pressure. For example, it is entirely possible that the differences in the channel width patterns found by Kondolf ( 1993) and Magilligan and McDowell (1997) reflect pre-exclosure conditions only and have no treatment implications. Under this scenario, these channels are stable under the current cattle-grazing pressure. Their current channel area and morphology reflect channel adjustments made during the late 1800s through the 1940s when grazing pressure was much higher than it is today. It is also possible that site-specific variability, such as the cohesiveness of the banks, bank height, the composition and amount of sediment input into the channels, and the type and distribution of vegetation are controlling how the channels respond to reductions in grazing pressure. In reaches with composite and/or non-cohesive banks, grazing pressure outside the exclosures will facilitate channel widening through bank trampling and vegetation reductions (Trimble and Mendel 1995; 115 Knighton 1998), in addition to widening occurring through instream erosion. In contrast, the banks inside exclosures should eventually stabilize narrow as vegetation becomes established on the bars and banks, and in time possibly narrow if sufficient sediment is available. Differences in bank vegetation and bank stability in grazed and rested reaches were noted on the Rio de las Vacas in northern New Mexico (Rinne 1988). Banks inside the two exclosures were totally stable while 64 percent of the banks in the downstream grazed reaches were unstable. Stream-bank vegetation and overhanging vegetation were also greater inside the exclosure (Rinne 1988). Gunderson (1968) found a similar pattern in Rock Creek in Montana and Wyoming. Again, greater channel widths in the grazed versus rested reaches were accompanied by lower vegetative cover in the grazed reaches. He attributed the difference in widths to bank instability in the grazed reaches. Kondolf (1993) observed greater vegetation inside the exclosure, but found no difference in channel widths. This lends support to the suggestion that factors in addition to grazing pressure are contributing to his results. The varying results of the five ex closure studies, combined with my cross- sections, suggests that time is not the key factor determining rates and directions of channel change inside the exclosures. The two other factors suggested at the beginning of this section - lack of sediment and lack of a sediment trapping mechanism -- may be more important and are discussed below. 116 Lack of Sediment While the channel responses to reductions in grazing pressure were mixed, the impact of beavers on the channel cross-section areas was not. Beavers clearly accelerated bed aggradation and cross-section area reduction in the Price Creek exclosures (this study). Beavers are also implicated in the rapid rates of bed aggradation and vegetative recovery noted at Camp Creek (Winegar 1977) and Wickiup Creek (Clifton 1987) - changes that have been observed in other places in the presence of beavers (Bailey 1936; Apple et al. 1984; Johnston and Naiman 1990). The presence of beavers in these four exclosures helped answer the question regarding whether my sites were sediment starved or not. A comparison of changes at some of the Price Creek beaver-dam-controlled cross-sections and non-beaver-dam-controlled cross-sections located downstream showed noticeable differences in the amount of sediment deposited at each site. Cross-sections in close proximity to intact beaver dams had high annual reductions in cross-section area (-0.58, -0.39, -0.22 m2/yr, Figure 13), while cross-sections in the non-dam controlled reaches were minimal (most less than -0.01 m2/yr) (Figure 11). This difference in annual rates of cross-section area reductions between the dam-controlled and the non-dam controlled reaches was not simply a matter of cross-section location. Evaluation of the cross-section graphs for 17 and 18 (non-dam controlled sites) showed no change in cross- section area between 1995 and 1998 despite the remobilization of large amounts of trapped sediment upstream once the dams failed (Figure 14). This lack of change at cross-section 17 and 18 means that the sediment moving through Price Creek as 117 suspended load, and in the absence of a trapping mechanism was transported through the system leaving the impression that the system was sediment starved. Suspended sediment or bedload samples were not taken at my study sites. However, at Price Creek, the beaver dams provide information on both sediment availability and its mode of travel. The availability of sediment could not be addressed as directly at my other three streams, but the results from Price Creek, along with knowledge of the bank composition and presence of bank failures at my study streams, means that sediment is entering these streams and moving as suspended load. The repeat surveys on Price Creek provide strong evidence that the lack of difference in annual rates as a function of grazing treatment is, at least in part, the result of sediment moving as suspended load. Evidence for a beaver influence in the exclosures on Wickiup Creek and Camp Creek is more circumstantial than the repeat surveys on Price Creek. The Wickiup Creek exclosure was built in 1938. By 1948 old photographs document that the channel banks and the meadow inside the exclosure had revegetated and that the channel bed had aggraded approximately 0.6 m. After about 50 years the bed had aggraded one meter and the channel had narrowed inside the exclosure from a mean width of 5.25 m to 3.5 m (Clifton 1987). Clifton (1987) suggested that bed aggradation occurred as the result of cattle removal and rapid vegetative recovery on the banks and valley floor. She noted, however, that a portion of the exclosure was being affected by beaver activity at the time of the 1986 survey. Beavers were identified as being in part responsible for bed aggradation though their current effect was localized, affecting only a 100-meter reach 118 within the exclosure (Clifton 1987). This information however when coupled with the rapid revegetation of the valley floor from 193 8 to 1948, suggests that beavers may have been more influential in the bed aggradation and vegetative recovery than previously thought. A review of Forest Service files revealed that in 193 5 willows were planted and a male and female beaver released in the Wickiup Creek exclosure, or close by, based on an old photograph and a section/township/range location (Edwards 1939). The colony disappeared sometime during winter 193 7 and spring 193 8, apparently due to a food shortage. Sometime between 1938 and 1947, beavers re-entered the upper watershed of Wickiup Creek. The colony was small and having a problem with inadequate water supply during the summer (USDA Forest Service 1947). A recommendation was made for removal, but no information was located indicating whether the recommendation was carried out. The documented presence of beavers during the period of 1935 to 1948 provides an explanation for the rapid reduction of channel area and expansion of the valley-floor I riparian vegetation noted by Clifton (1987). The magnitude of the changes noted by Clifton (1987) are similar to those documented by other researchers when beavers reentered drainages (Bailey 1936; Apple et al.1984; Johnston and Naiman 1990), a magnitude and speed of cross-section area reductions that is absent in exclosures where the only change has been the removal of grazing pressure. The Camp Creek cattle exclosure was built in stages, beginning in 1965. By 1974 about four miles of stream had been fenced off from cattle (Winegar 1977). The regrowth of native vegetation was rapid. Reductions in sediment loads of 48 to 79 percent were measured in 1972 and 1973 as the stream passed through the exclosure. 119 The channel bed was measured at one location and found to have aggraded 0.9 m (36 inches) between 1966 and 1975 (Winegar 1977). Winegar (1977) attributed the reductions in suspended sediment load and bed aggradation to the development of riparian vegetation in the channel, but the timing of his measurements also coincided with the arrival of beavers inside the exclosure, suggesting a more than one contributing factor. Beavers were first noted in 1971 when they constructed a dam at the upstream end of the exclosure having been absent from the area since at least 1963 (Winegar 1977). By 1973 they had eight dams within 3.5 miles of fenced channel. The presence of the dams prior to the measurement of sediment deposition in 197 5 and the reductions in suspended sediment strongly suggests that the dams played a key role in accelerating the rates of channel bed aggradation and riparian vegetation recovery and aided in the reduction of the suspended sediment load. The contribution of beavers to the channel changes in the exclosures on Wickiup and Camp Creeks and in the two exclosures on Price Creek does not negate the importance of removing cattle grazing pressure, but underscore the important contribution of beavers and beaver dams toward stream restoration. The presence of bed aggradation inside the exclosures with beavers, but not upstream or downstream of the four exclosures, indicates that sediment was indeed present in these systems but traveling through the non-beaver dam-controlled reaches as suspended rather than bed load. The consistently higher rates of bed aggradation in these beaver-dominated ex closures compared to exclosures that do not contain beavers indicate that beavers are key to accelerating the hydro logic reconnection of the stream and valley floor and improving water quality by reducing suspended sediment loads. 120 The evaluation of sediment availability as a factor limiting cross-section area reductions at Basin Creek, Muddy Creek and the White Mountains' streams could only be addressed qualitatively because there were no beaver dams. Instead I used information about the sources and composition of the sediment input into the channel, their likely mode of transport (suspended or bedload) and the magnitude of the sediment input required to reduce the channel cross-section area. All streams showed minimal bed aggradation or sediment deposition on channel bars. My study streams are small headwater streams that flow through gentle topography. Bank erosion, channel incision, and at Muddy Creek some hillslope gullying, are the primary sources of sediment inputs into these channels. The banks in all three areas are composed primarily of silts, clays and fine sands. Therefore, when sediment enters the stream, it is largely transported as suspended load. The potential for large-scale channel area reductions in my small headwater streams, even with additional time, will be small in the absence of mechanisms capable of trapping the suspended load. Lack of Effective Sediment Trapping Mechanism The presence or absence of an effective sediment trapping mechanism determines the rate, direction, and stability of the changes. Beaver ponds were very effective on Price Creek at trapping suspended sediment but are not the only mechanism capable of 121 trapping this sediment. Vegetation can be very effective depending on its location, composition, and abundance. Its most effective locations are on the channel bed or on bars in close elevational proximity to the stream (Schumm and Lichty 1963; Burkham 1972; Winegar 1977; Pizzuto 1994; McKenney et al. 1995; Friedman et al. 1996; Scott et al. 1996 Zierholz et al. 2001 ). Therefore, channel geometry is important because it partially determines if bars and/or secondary channels are present or if the channel bed is exposed at low flow. In my non-beaver-dam-controlled reaches, most of the riparian vegetation occurs along the upper edge of the stream bank or along the valley-floor and stream-bank edge, locations that do not facilitate bank, bar, or bed accretion and aggradation. Channel bars exist in all of the study areas and most show some aggradation and accretion. However, at the time of the surveys, the bars were largely unvegetated, and so the contribution of the bar sediment towards long-term channel area reductions is uncertain because the bar stability is questionable. The above three subsections examined the factors that might be limiting the ability of streams to hydrologically reconnect with their valley floors (lack of time, sediment, sediment trapping mechanism). Examination of the different exclosure studies and the minimal changes observed in this study under the different grazing pressures suggest that the role of time or lack of time is the least important of the factors controlling the rates and directions of channel change, thought its contribution remains uncertain until additional long-term repeat surveys are completed. However, the data do suggest that the lack of a grazing treatment signal in the study is partly driven by a lack of sediment and the lack of sediment trapping-mechanisms. The results in the Price Creek 122 beaver dam-controlled reaches demonstrate that sediment is entering the system and moving through it but as suspended sediment. Documented bank failures on the study streams also demonstrate that sediment is entering the streams. However, whether there is enough sediment available to the watersheds to hydrologically reconnect the stream and valley floor along their entire lengths, even if a trapping mechanism was in place, needs to be examined. This question required estimating the amount of sediment that has been eroded from stream channels and determining the amount of sediment needed to reduce the geomorphic channels to their pre-disturbance channel areas. Predicting Future Channel Changes in Areas Under Different Grazing Treatments Basin, Price and Muddy Creeks and in the White Mountains are small headwater streams. The majority of the stream reaches studied have drainage areas less than 15 km2 and their geomorphic channel widths and depths are less than 10 m wide and 1.5 m deep. The total length of stream examined in this study was about 5 .4 km. A rough estimate of the cubic meters of sediment that has been eroded and removed from the system is about 8862 m3 or about 1.6 football fields piled one meter deep with sediment (Appendix K). These streams reflect only a small fraction of stream length in the West, yet even in these headwater streams the amount of sediment required to reduce the current geomorphic channel reaches to their pre-disturbance channel area is substantial. The challenges inherent in recovering the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connections on a large-scale become even more obvious when reviewing the published literature. Bryan (1928a) estimates that the Rio Puerco in New Mexico (15,540 km2) had 123 lost 487,144,150 m3 of sediment over a 42-year period as a result of channel incision and widening. This volume is the equivalent of 90, 3 79 football fields piled 1 meter deep with sediment. Douglas Creek in Colorado (1,070 km2) incised 10 m and widened considerably between 1882 and 1961 (Womack and Schumm 1977), the Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas (7407 to 16,589 km2) widened from an average of 15 to 366 m along more than 200 km ofriver between 1874 and 1939 (Schumm and Lichty 1963, Figure 25), and the Gila River in the Safford Valley near Safford, Arizona (20,450 km2) widened from an average of 43 to 610 m between 1875 and 1916 (Burkham 1972). These examples of historic channel widening underscore the magnitude of the sediment that has been removed from stream channels and transported downstream over the last 170 years. Other studies on arroyos in the American Southwest have documented additional places where extensive channel incision and widening have occurred since the early 1800s (Gregory 1917; Gregory and Moore 1931; Bryan 1927, 1928a; Colton 1937; Bull 1964; Cooke and Reeves 1976). In some cases, channel reaches will decrease in cross-section area after a period of channel widening and incision. In those cases, it is important to examine these channel reductions within their larger watershed contexts. For example, the portion of the Cimarron River studied by Schumm and Lichty (1963) decreased in channel widths between 1939 and 1954 (Figure 25), and the Gila River in the Safford Valley narrowed from an average of 610 m wide to an average of 122 m between 1918 and 1970 (Burkham 1972). Reductions in channel width of this magnitude require large inputs of sediment. The source of that sediment would have been erosion occurring in tributary 124 streams and upstream riverbanks and/or hillslope erosion. Therefore, while portions of the Cimarron and Gila Rivers decreased in channel width, they likely did so at the expense of upstream portions of their drainage networks that widened and incised, or as a result of considerable hillslope erosion and/or mass wasting. Consequently, the ability to restore the stream and valley floor hydrologic connection at the watershed, rather than reach, scale solely through the fluvial processes of sediment aggradation and accretion is unlikely to occur. The recovery process is hampered both by the lack of sediment trapping mechanisms along many miles of stream and because the amount of sediment required to accomplish this task does not, at present, exist. 1960 1954 1939 1874 ~ J E : SU!!.:!: .... ::::::::: ::.:: :::.: .. : i + + . :: :.. :.::. : : : : : : : : : i :: ii ;: II :: :: :: u :: ::: ::.: :::: .:::: . a i i . :.:.:.: .. !:!:::.: . : .: . : : : 1000 2000 Channel width (feet) Aerial photographs Aerial photographs Aerial photographs General Land Office notes 3000 Figure 25. Changes in the channel widths of the Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas over time (N = 120). Figure genetated using data presented in Schumm and Lichty (1963). 125 126 Beaver Dams as a Mechanism for Accelerating Restoration of the Stream and Valley- Floor Hydrologic Connection The results from Price Creek and other exclosure studies in small drainages with and without beavers indicate that there are a number of factors limiting the ability of streams to hydrologically reconnect to their valley floors. The removal or reduction of grazing pressure from the riparian zone and stream banks is a critical first step because it allows for vegetative recovery along the stream banks and the cessation of bank trampling. The results are increased bank stability and the development of riparian vegetative communities. However, reduction of grazing pressure in these lower-order streams alone will not be sufficient to achieve the hydrologic reconnection within 10 years, or perhaps even longer. Many of these small streams lack sufficient sediment inputs and the sediment trapping mechanisms needed in order to reduce the geomorphic channel capacity to its pre-disturbance capacity. Instead, restoration of the hydrologic connection in many lower-order streams will require the reestablishment of healthy beaver populations and their extensive dam networks. Beaver dams create ponds that store water and trap suspended sediment and bedload, reducing both the geomorphic channel capacity (deposited sediment) and the available channel capacity (ponded water and deposited sediment). It is the available channel capacity that is key in achieving hydrologic reconnection between the stream and valley floor. Therefore, even when sediment is limited, the ponds circumvent this limitation by keeping available channel capacity low via elevated water levels in the channel (Figure 19). The ponds influence both flood frequency and water table levels in several ways. First, the decrease in 127 available channel capacity due to ponds combined with the hydraulic effects of the dams are expected to cause the streams to overflow their banks at lower discharges and therefore more frequently. An increase in the frequency of valley-floor flooding increases recharge volumes and frequencies leading to a rise in the valley-water table and an increase the moisture content of the valley sediments. Second, the ponds maintain and stabilize the elevated water tables (Apple et al. 1984), probably by decreasing or reversing the elevational difference ( or hydraulic gradient) between the water surface in the stream and the valley water table. The increased storage of water in the valley sediments throughout watersheds would eliminate two of three factors hindering the expansion ofriparian vegetation and riparian ecosystems: low soil moisture and low water tables. The third factor is heavy grazing by cattle, and in some places elk. The lack of sufficient sediment inputs and the complexity and time-intensive nature of the sediment-vegetation feedback loops suggest that beavers may be the only way to hydrologically reconnect many lower-order and low gradient streams to their valley floors in a timely and cost-effective manner. Beavers build and maintain their dams for free (Naiman et al. 1986, 1988; Butler and Malanson 1995; Apple et al. 1984) or, one might say, in exchange for abundant cottonwoods, willows and aspen. The alternative to beaver dams is check dams built and maintained by humans at great initial and continuing financial costs (Heede 1966; Gellis et al. 1995; Shields et al. 1995), an expenditure of capital that is unlikely to occur at the watershed or region scale. 128 Beavers are the ideal ecological and economical agents for actively restoring stream-riparian systems in many first through fourth-order streams. At present, however, their ability to aid in restoring stream and riparian systems is severely restricted for two reasons. First, riparian vegetation is limited after decades of cattle and sheep grazing and farming and continues to be impacted by those activities. Beavers prefer to use willow, aspen, and cottonwoods as a food source and building material (Hall 1960; Apple et al. 1984; Olsen and Hubert 1994). Cattle and wild ungulates also prefer to consume these riparian species (Case and Kauffman 1997; Keigley 1997). The continued grazing of riparian vegetation types by cattle, and sometimes elk, that are needed by beavers to build and maintain their dams restricts the beavers' ability to restore the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connections and the complexity and stability of stream-riparian ecosystems. Thus the lack of abundant riparian vegetation is one of the key roadblocks to stabilizing and then restoring stream systems. The only way to solve this roadblock is to decrease livestock and wild ungulate use in these areas. In the case of cattle, the solution to reducing cattle use of the riparian zone comes from land management agencies who must either decrease use levels in this zone or exclude them by fencing or complete removal from a watershed. In the case of wild ungulates, the solution appears to be the reintroduction of the wolf. Some researchers in Yellowstone National Park are seeing reductions in the amount of elk use of the riparian zones as a result of wolf reintroductions, and willows and aspen appear to be responding (Ripple and Larsen 2000). Wolf reintroductions represent the return of a key player essential for maintaining ecological balance and are an area worthy of considerable study. 129 At present, studies are still in their infancy. But even if the wolf were to return, in many places the magnitude of the loss of riparian vegetation is so great that even with reductions in ungulate use of the riparian zone, some vegetative assistance will be needed to jumpstart the process. This jumpstart may be in the form of supplying beavers with willows, cottonwoods and aspen until the system stabilizes (Apple et al. 1984) and/or deliberately planting the desired vegetation types. There is, however, a second impediment to the recovery of beavers and their ability to be active agents of widespread stream/riparian restoration. This second obstacle is the social perceptions of many in ranching communities that beavers serve no purpose or are even detrimental to their operations. This attitude results in continued beaver trapping. As beavers are trapped and their dams fail or are deliberately destroyed, water levels rapidly drop in the stream (Figure 19) and sediment behind the dams erodes (Figure 13). The result is 1) the rapid loss of the hydrologic reconnection as the available channel capacity increases, and 2) lowered water tables as the hydraulic gradient between the stream and the valley water table once again increases. The result is a shift on the valley floor from wet meadows to dry meadows (Bryan 1928b; Bailey 1936; Schaffer 1941). The speed of these changes and their consequences for the quality of the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connection were well documented in the Price Creek cattle and elk exclosures. 130 Conclusions Expansion and extensive restoration of stream-riparian ecosystems requires that streams and their valley floors become hydrologically reconnected and that the valley floors once again become the active floodplain. For this to occur, the geomorphic channel cross-section area must decrease to pre-disturbance dimensions. Reductions in channel area can occur through bank accretion, bed aggradation, and/or elevated water levels. The magnitude of historical channel enlargements, the extension and channelization of many draiimge networks, and the removal of sediment trapping mechanisms (e.g. dense riparian vegetation, beaver ponds), however, places limits on the amount of large-scale reductions that can occur in the geomorphic channel area at the watershed scale via sediment deposition. Historical land uses have set in motion fluvial processes that continue to define the current stream conditions and trends throughout the West. Current cattle grazing, though much less than in the 1800s, continues to widen channels via bank trampling and impede the recovery of the riparian vegetation. The result is that the available channel capacity has continued to increase in areas grazed by cattle, and in some places elk. Reductions or the removal of grazing pressure from the riparian zone and stream banks is a critical first step in the restoration of stream and riparian ecosystems because it allows for the recovery of riparian vegetation and the cessation of bank trampling. The recovery and expansion of riparian vegetation on the stream banks and channel bars is necessary to increase stream-bank/bar resistance to instream erosion. This minimizes further increases in available channel capacity via fluvial processes and halts the processes contributing to the stream-valley floor hydrologic disconnection. Expanded riparian vegetation also provides critical habitat to a variety of wild species and the necessary food and building materials for beavers. The cessation of bank trampling is equally important as it eliminates another mechanism by which streams widen and increase in their available channel capacity. 131 Restoration of stream and riparian ecosystems is a complex process. While reducing or eliminating grazing pressure from this zone is critical, this is not the only step that must be taken. In many places the amount of sediment being contributed to streams is less than the amounts needed to reduce channel area on the watershed scale even if vegetation were abundant along the banks and in the channel. Fortunately, beavers and beaver ponds can effectively circumvent the sediment and sediment trapping limitations in lower-order streams(< 5th order). The ponded water rapidly reduces the available channel capacity. The result is that valley floors flood at lower discharges and therefore more frequently reestablishing the stream and valley floor hydrologic connection. Unfortunately, in larger-order streams, removing or reducing grazing pressure may be the only restoration option available because the streams are too large to have beaver dams. While the amount of channel narrowing will be small, and will occur at much slower rates compared to ponded systems, the cessation of grazing will allow vegetation to become established on the banks and channel bars. In addition to stabilizing the banks and bars and increasing their resistance to erosion, the riparian vegetation captures what sediment is flowing through the system. Therefore, the restoration of upper and lower watershed stream and riparian systems will require multiple approaches, and results and 132 rates of recovery will be varied. However, in all cases, the first step is the removal or reduction of grazing pressure from the stream and riparian zone. Only then can the first step in the restoration process, vegetation reestablishment, begin. In my study, the ability of the small headwater study streams to reconnect hydrologically to their valley floors has been severely compromised by the amount of sediment lost from the cross-sections, the type of sediment input into the stream (largely suspended sediment), and the limited sources of sediment (largely stream banks). In addition, when sediment inputs are the result of upstream bank failures, the result is a net increase in geomorphic channel capacity upstream. The failure of the dams at Price Creek, due to beaver trapping, severed the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connection and removed the sediment trapping mechanism in those reaches. The silt bars, exposed in these reaches upon dam failure and pond drainage, were unvegetated in 1998, and their long-term stability and contribution to cross-section area reductions is uncertain. Channel bars in the five graz.ing treatments were also largely unvegetated, and it is too soon to determine how quickly reductions in cattle and elk grazing pressure will result in stream-bank stabilization and riparian vegetation recovery on the banks. My study only captured the initial response to reductions in grazing pressure and changes in beaver activity and more surveys will be needed to capture longer-term trends. The absence of sufficient sediment and/or effective trapping mechanisms to aid in the reduction of the channel cross-section area is ubiquitous throughout the West. Examination of the magnitude of the historical changes reveals enormous amounts of bank and bed erosion and large increase in channel cross-section. The magnitude of 133 these increases suggests that further large-scale widening and incision is unlikely under the current climate regime, except in small headwater streams. Cattle grazing pressure remains a significant and direct influence on the evolution of channel morphology in these small streams as trampling shears off sections of fine-grained, relatively cohesive bank. In larger streams(> 5th order), bank composition is often more heterogeneous than in small meadow streams. The heterogeneous bank composition, combined with the magnitude of the increases in available channel capacity, results in fluvial processes having a more important role in the evolution of these larger stream channels. These does not discount the importance of cattle grazing pressure on these larger systems, but reflects a shift in how cattle influence the continued evolution of channel morphology and the drainage network. In those stream systems where cattle grazing occurs, grazing continues to impede the recovery and the expansion ofriparian zones by continually removing the woody plants and sedges. The loss of this vegetation limits the potential for beaver-dam building, sediment trapping, bank stabilization, cross-section area reductions and the eventual hydrologic reconnection of streams to their valley floors. The relative contribution of elk towards limiting vegetative recovery in these larger streams varies but in some places is substantial (Singer et al. 1994; Keigley 1997). In addition to the increasing our understanding of how streams respond to reductions in cattle and elk grazing pressure and changes in beaver-dam integrity, the study highlighted some deficiencies in our current research approach. Often studies are short-term, one or two surveys at most. However, as this study shows, without multiple repeat surveys, the ability to estimate recovery times and identify processes is limited. A 134 rate calculated from two surveys cannot be assumed to continue into the future. In addition, repeat surveys determine if the changes occurring reflect linear trends, episodic events or just transitory changes with no long-term influence on channel area. The study also underscores the importance of examining the data from multiple angles. In this study I used cross-section graphs and trend plots and analyzed the annual rates of change statistically and graphically. Statistical tests and descriptive statistics provided one method of evaluating the significance of the response, but these measures can overstate and obscure important processes and relationships if used exclusively because they reduce the complex changes visible on the graphs to a single numeric value. Therefore, the statistical tests and descriptive statistics need to be supplemented by methods that place the response of the "variable of interest" in a larger context that references the scale and feature being examined and the requirements of the system or species being studied. Therefore, future studies would benefit by using both statistical tests, descriptive statistics, and employing some form of the geomorphic significance concept when evaluating study results. In conclusion, this study sheds light on how current and historical human land uses and natural processes continue to hinder the ability of streams to hydrologically reconnect with their valley floors. The study also provides methods for improving our understanding of those processes as well as accelerating the restoration process. In the end, true restoration, rather than technological fixes, requires shifts in our perceptions about :flooding and a recognition and appreciation of the contributions made to human communities by wild communities (e.g. beavers and wolves, both targets of human 135 predation) and natural disturbance regimes ( e.g. overbank flooding). This requires a shift in our values, an expansion of our worldview, and a larger historical perspective when evaluating the impact of long-term and chronic disturbance by humans. The restoration of the ecological function of stream-riparian ecosystems becomes ever more urgent as our concerns over water quality and quantity, declining fisheries and climate change increase and become increasingly politically volatile. The ongoing bank retreat visible on the graphs and in the field in areas grazed by cattle ( and by default accessible to elk), indicates that the reduction of grazing pressure is a critical first step in the stabilization of stream systems and their eventual recovery. However, this is but the first step. Reductions in channel area and vegetation recovery are expected to be slow to non-existent and may often be spatially limited. This does not discount the importance of reducing grazing pressure in the riparian zone, but simply underscores that the magnitude of historical changes to channels has left us with a more complex restoration challenge. The return of beavers to our upper watersheds in many places is an essential ingredient and capable of accelerating the stream and valley floor hydrologic reconnection. The combination of beavers with reductions in ungulate use of the riparian zones can produce rapid recovery of sustainable stream and riparian ecosystems capable of supporting humans, wildlife, fisheries, and plants for the long-term. 136 CHAPTER III THE INFLUENCE OF BEAVERS AND BEAVER TRAPPING ON WATERSHED HYDROLOGY, CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY, VEGETATION, AND DRAINAGE NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL Introduction Beavers are a keystone species in stream-riparian ecosystems (Naiman et al. 1988). Their numbers on the North American continent are currently estimated at 6 to 12 million, a sharp reduction from the 60 to 400 million estimated to have existed prior to Euro-American trapping (Naiman et al. 1988), but an increase over the trapping era when beavers were driven close to extinction (Phillips 1961; Ray 1975; Naiman et al. 1988). Trapping was systematic and temporally concentrated within individual watersheds and regions, beginning in the 1600s on the East Coast and along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, early 1700s on the West Coast, and moving into the Interior United States in the late 1700s and early 1800s (Phillips 1961; Figure 26). As examples of the numbers of beavers trapped, the Hudson Bay Company in Vancouver, Washington received 405,472 beaver pelts between 1834 and 1837 (USDA Forest Service 1937) while its office in California took 10,860 beavers from the San Francisco Bay area alone between 1830 and 1839 (Phillips 1961). ltifl0 - 1:>i ·, l ( IQ • 1,: (l IOI!) . S:(1 i B~S , J)IL•~• Figure 26. Timing of beaver trapping in the lower 48 states. Map courtesy of Jim Sedell (2001). 137 138 Trapping occurred prior to Euro-American settlement in all but the East Coast, resulting in a limited amount of information on how watersheds responded to the wholesale removal of beavers. Some researchers have argued that the long-term presence of beavers on the landscape, and their rapid removal by Euro-American and Native American trappers in response to the demand for beaver pelts by the European market, had enormous impacts on stream ecosystems hydrologically and ecologically (Ives 1942; Dobyns 1981; Parker et al. 1985; Naiman et al. 1986, 1988; Johnston and Naiman 1990; Fouty 1996). These researchers have suggested that beaver trapping was a major Euro- American disturbance of watersheds and that beavers and beaver trapping need to be integrated into our discussions and studies of fluvial processes and the evolution of current stream-riparian systems. Several studies have examined portions of the beaver story (Dobyns 1981; Parker et al. 1985; Naiman et al. 1986, 1988; Johnston and Naiman 1990), but an overriding, integrated conceptual framework of how beavers and beaver trapping influence stream channel morphology, local hydrology (water tables), and flood hydrology (flood magnitudes and frequency) does not exist. This chapter, therefore, presents a conceptual model of the fluvial processes and the geomorphic and hydro logic responses of streams to beaver colonization and beaver trapping or abandonment of a drainage. The chapter also examines why historic beaver trapping as a watershed-scale disturbance has been ignored in the fluvial geomorphic literature and how that omission has affected the discipline. 139 The conceptual model presented in this chapter is similar in structure to Cooke and Reeve's (1976) deductive model of arroyo formation in the Southwest in that both models examine the hydrologic and geomorphic response of streams to Euro-American disturbances. The disturbances examined, however, are different. Cooke and Reeves (1976) focused on post-settlement Euro-American disturbances such as livestock grazing, logging, agriculture, and road building while I focus on a pre-settlement Euro-American disturbance, namely beaver trapping. My model predicts the hydrologic and geomorphic changes that accompanied beavers entering and beavers abandoning or being removed from a drainage. The model is based on the scientific literature and my own research. The model is presented in two parts. The first half of the model (beavers enter a drainage and establish a long-term presence) provides the snapshot of the geomorphic appearance and hydrologic behavior of a watershed prior to trapping and the drainage network that evolves. It is only with this backdrop firmly in place that the impact of trapping can be explored. The second half of the conceptual model presents the hydro logic and geomorphic changes that occur as beaver numbers rapidly decrease in a watershed and the resultant drainage networks that develops. A drainage network in which beavers have become established will be referred to in the text as a "beaver-dominated system." A drainage network in which beavers have been trapped out of, or have abandoned the area, will be referred to in the text as "channel-dominated system." The model presented here explains the discontinuous arroyo, the active tributary incisions, and the relative abundance of wetlands and ponds observed by early expeditions and General Land Office surveys that post-date trapping but pre-date Euro- 140 American settlement and grazing. I will discuss the importance of placing our conceptual models, hydraulic geometry relationships, and studies of past changes in a broader historical and disturbance context and what have been the ramifications of not placing them within this context. I will discuss the implications of including beavers and beaver trapping in our studies of fluvial processes and how that alters our interpretation of pre-historic landscapes and our understanding of the evolution of stream and riparian ecosystems and their sensitivity of climatic variability. I will close this chapter with suggestions for future research. Background The development of a conceptual model of stream morphologic and hydrologic response to a long-term beaver presence, and subsequent beaver trapping, was based on five observations. First, observations of modern-day stream reaches with beaver dams are striking in their abundance of water and riparian vegetation compared to reaches without beaver dams, even when separated only by a fence line. This difference is particularly striking during times of drought and the summer low-flow season. Second, the journals from the beaver trappers (Pattie 1831; Work 1945; Ogden 1950) and the Lewis and Clark expedition (Burroughs 1961; Lewis and Clark 1970) describe complex, multi-channeled streams with dense riparian vegetation along the channels and wetlands and marshes on the valley floor, even in the Intermountain West and Southwest. These descriptions are in sharp contrast to current conditions in which most streams in these 141 areas are single-thread and entrenched or braided and entrenched, with their valley floors covered in drought-tolerant species. Third, prior to Euro-American trapping, beavers are estimated at 60 to 400 million on the North American continent. Yet by the early 1900s, they were nearly extinct (Naiman et al. 1988). The extend of beaver influence on local hydrology and vegetation suggests that so concentrated a removal of this number of beavers must have impacted watersheds as thousands of beaver dams failed and were not repaired. Thousands of dam failures would create thousands of localized base-level drops for points upstream of the failed dams (Dobyns 1981; Parker et al. 1985; Chapter 2). The result should be the development of a channelized drainage network as streams eroded the fine sediment trapped behind the dams, causing rapid increases in channel capacities as ponds drained and the sediment was remobilized. Numerous examples exist documenting the speed at which channel incision, widening and headward migration can occur (Cooke and Reeve 1976), suggesting that the transformation of the drainage networks could have happened within a couple of decades. Fourth, early military and scientific expeditions to the Southwest and Colorado Plateau in the 1840s through 1870s noted the existence of discontinuous arroyos, often terminating at wetlands or unincised reaches (Bryan 1928a; Bull 1964; Cooke and Reeves 1976), as well as actively incising tributaries (Dellenbaugh 1912). An explanation for these early observations has remained elusive. The general consensus is that the channelization was a watershed response to recent a climate shift and/or random frequency-magnitude variations because these observation pre-date Euro-American 142 settlement and grazing in the area (Bryan 1928a; Bull 1964; Cooke and Reeve 1976). However, all of these areas had been systematically trapped 10 to more than 30 years prior to these expeditions. Finally, discussions of the influence of beavers and beaver trapping on fluvial systems are completely missing from the discipline of fluvial geomorphology, making it an intriguing area for study (Dunne and Leopold 1978; Knighton 1998). These observations led me to conclude that Euro-American beaver trapping was a major Euro-American disturbance, one that occurred on a regional and watershed scale across the North American continent. In most places trapping precedes all other Euro- American disturbances to watersheds, riparian areas, and stream systems. The absence of abundant documentation showing how watersheds responded to this rapid depopulation of beavers provides a challenge when attempting to reconstruct historic stream ecosystem response to early Euro-American beaver trapping. Trapping predates Euro- American settlement, General Land Office surveys, and the early scientific and military expeditions by at least a couple of decades in most places, and so observations are few. The one exception is New England in the 1600s where settlement and trapping co-existed in time. Journals from New England during this period provide intriguing but limited references to vegetative and ecological changes as a result of beaver removal (Cronon 1983). Research exploring how beavers in the present day alter channel morphology, hydrology and vegetation characteristics is increasing. Beedle ( 1991) and Burns and McDonnell (1998) examined storm hydrographs for sm~ll headwater streams (:'S 6.2 km2) in southeast Alaska and in New York respectively. They found varying levels of 143 reductions in flood magnitudes from no reductions for a single pond to an increasing amount of reduction in flood magnitude as the number of ponds in series increased. Johnston and Naiman (1990) documented large increases in open water and wetlands as a result of beavers reentering a drainage basin in Minnesota. Naiman et al. (19 8 6) examined the impact of beavers on the structure and dynamics of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in two nearly pristine watersheds in Quebec (i.e. largely untrapped, logged, grazed or mined), and discussed a conceptual model of a stream-river continuum that is not exclusively a channelized system but incorporates the presences of ponds and wetlands. Chapter 2 documented rapid reductions in channel-water levels and an increase in available channel capacity as beaver dams failed, ponds drained, and previously trapped sediment eroded in Montana (this study). Chapter 2 also quantified rates and directions of change in channel cross-section area and depths of channel incision as dams failed and sediment was remobilized. Other researchers have documented channel scour downstream of beaver-dam failures (Hillman 1998; Kondolf et al. 1991 ). These studies are beginning to provide the empirical data needed to verify long-standing assumptions about the ability of beaver ponds to effectively trap sediment and reduce flood magnitudes -- assumptions that have been "based primarily on qualitative observations in the literature from the first half of the century (Meentemeyer and Butler 1999, p. 437)." The studies also underscore the speed and magnitude of the channel morphologic and hydrologic changes that occur in response to changes in beaver- dam integrity. 144 Conceptual Models of Pluvial Systems in Drainages without Beavers The majority of our current conceptual models for fluvial systems and the hydraulic geometry relationships focus on channel-dominated systems. Examples of conceptual models and predictive relationships include Cooke and Reeves' (1976) deductive model of arroyo formation in the Southwest, Knighton's (1998) model of the interrelationships in fluvial systems, Leopold and Maddock's (1953) hydraulic geometry relationships, and Love's (1979) conceptual model of the causes and time scales of fluvial adjustments in Chaco Canyon. Cooke and Reeves' (1976) deductive model and Leopold and Maddock's (1953) hydraulic geometry relationships are of particular interest to this paper and are discussed in more detail below and later in the chapter. Cooke and Reeves' (1976) deductive model shows how land use, climatic events and random-frequency events (e.g. a 100-year precipitation event) can decrease vegetation, increase runoff, decrease the resistance of valley-floor soils to erosion, increase local channel instability, and lead to arroyo formation. Yet Euro-American beaver trapping, the earliest Euro-American disturbance, is missing from their model. With the loss of beavers, dams would have failed and not been repaired, making stream- riparian systems less stable and more sensitive to alteration from later random-frequency events, climatic variability, and other Euro-American land uses. The specifics of these changes will be discussed in the conceptual model portion of the chapter. Leopold and Maddock's (1953) hydraulic geometry relationships are an excellent example of how the timing of historical events influenc~d the development of conceptual models and empirical relationships of fluvial systems. Their hydraulic geometry 145 relationships were based on stream-gage data collected over a period of seventy years from gaging stations all over the United States (Figure 27a). Leopold and Maddock (1953) deliberately chose rivers from a diversity of geographic locations and physiographic and geologic types and sizes because their intent was to examine the channel morphology, stream velocity, suspended sediment loads, and discharge information for general trends. Their resulting hydraulic geometry relationships have become integral to the study of fluvial geomorphology. These relationships formed the basis for our current understanding and interpretation of the shape of "natural" stream channels and how width, depth, velocity, and suspended sediment loads vary with discharge. Subsequent researchers have refined Leopold and Maddock's (1953) relationships by sorting their data based on bank cohesion, bank composition ( e.g. coarse versus fine), abundance of vegetation, or amount of suspended load. This has resulted in the development of hydraulic geometry relationships or exponents that are more site and feature-specific (see Knighton 1998, p. 173, 184). However, all of the studies are determining hydraulic relationships using data collected from watersheds that have been greatly altered by historical and on-going large-scale human land uses. When the stream data are placed in the context of historical Euro-American disturbances (Figure 27), it becomes clear that the hydraulic geometry relationships developed represent neither healthy, functioning streams in which the valley floors are the active floodplains nor pre- beaver trapping relationships. a) b) Pacific 0 c ea n 35 30 25 S 20 g 15 t::T' ~ 10 ~ 5 N= 104 Beaver trappmg ✓dl Oo /.p % ✓cf l1'o -✓-d't?i, -✓- 0.5 hectares (Johnston and Naiman 1990). Though the volume of water stored in these ponds was not calculated, similar sized ponds (0.2 to 0.48 hectares) from the Kuiu Island in southeast Alaska had water volumes ranging from 1063 to 3 3 7 5 m3, with pond volume generally increasing with increasing surface area (Beedle 1991). Forty-nine pond volumes were found in the literature and these values varied from 10 to 286,277 m 3 with 33 ponds having volumes between 100 and 3000 m3 (Grasse and Putman 1950; Butler 1989; Beedle 1991; Hillman 1998). Historically, the contribution of beavers to surface water storage appears to have been substantial. Hey and Phillipi (1995) estimated that in the upper Mississippi and Missouri River basins beaver ponds covered 20,679,886 hectares in 1600 and 206,799 hectares in 1990 and wetlands covered 18,089,842 hectares in 1780 and 7,648,725 hectares in 1980. Beaver ponds increase subsurface water in several ways. First, the beaver ponds trap sediment and water thereby decreasing the amount of space available in the geomorphic channel to transport and store water. The result is an increase in the frequency of over bank flows and an increase in the frequency and amount of water infiltrating into the valley sediments. Second, the ponds increase subsurface water by increasing the amount of stream bank-water interface (Parker et al. 1985) and therefore the potential for water to infiltrate into the stream banks. Finally, the elevated water levels in the ponds result in a decrease or reversal of the hydraulic gradient between the pond water levels and the valley-water table elevation. The reversal of the hydraulic 165 gradient occurs when the elevation of the pond water level is higher than the valley water table. The elevational difference between the two surfaces causes the water to flow from regions of higher (ponds) to lower (water table) head (Dunne and Leopold 1978) allowing the pond to contribute to the amount of water stored in the subsurface. The effectiveness of the beaver ponds at reducing available channel capacity was well documented on Price Creek in southwestern Montana (Figure 31, Chapter 2). Most Price Creek dam-controlled cross-sections had reductions in available channel capacity of 50 percent or more during the 1995 summer field season as a result of the ponds occupying a large portion of the available channel capacity. At one cross-section, the water overflowed the stream banks onto the valley floor. At another cross-section, water completely filled the channel and marshy areas were developing adjacent to the stream. Percent reduction in available channel capacity was a function of dam integrity. Variations in the amount of reduction reflected the condition of the dam not baseline cross-section area (Figure 31 a) or distance upstream from a dam (Figure 31 b ). Reductions were greatest when the dams were intact (1995). Available channel capacity increased as the dams failed and ponds drained (1998). The effectiveness of beaver ponds in reducing the available channel capacity is highlighted by the results from cross- sections 17 and 18 located downstream of the beaver-dam controlled reaches. Unlike the cross-sections in the beaver dam-controlled areas, percent reductions in available channel capacity from water in the channel at the two cross-sections were less than 25 percent and constant between the two years. Variations in percent reductions at these two cross- sections reflected variations in their baseline area because the discharge was the same. a. b. 166 I I Beaver dams present ----------1 No dams 125 .------------------------------, 100 75 - ■ ······II····································································· ■ ■ ■ ■ II 50 -- · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ■ ■ ■ - ■ 25 111111 18 17 ■ ■ 0 +-----+---+---+------+----+---+---+--+---+----+--f---t----+--'=--t 0.95 1.23 1.43 1.6 1.63 1.68 2.09 2.22 2.39 2.71 3.07 4.09 3.79 6.84 Baseline geomorphic channel cross-section area (sq. m) I I Beaver dams present ---------- 1 No dams 125 ~---------------------------~ ■ 100 - · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · • II ■ 1111 Ill ■ 1111 Ill ■ 1111 18 17 Ill ■ 0 +----+---+---+------+----+---+---+--+---+---+--f---t----+--' 3 3 3 9 11 12 15 16 19 22 27 35 Distance upstream from a beaver dam (m) Figure 31. Percent reduction in the available channel capacity in the beaver dam- controlled reaches as a function of the amount of channel occupied by water, Price Creek, Montana. Reductions evaluated as a function of a) the geomorphic baseline cross-section area and b) the distance upstream from a beaver dam. Cross-sections 17 and 18 are shown for comparison. Measurements from Summer 1995. 167 Evidence for a rise in the valley-floor water table and the expansion of subsurface waters as a result of beaver ponds includes 1) the development of wetlands (Bailey 1936; Johnston and Naiman 1990), 2) rapid willow regrowth in areas with ponds (Apple et al. 1984), 3) the shift from ephemeral to perennial flow downstream of the beaver ponds (Bailey 1936; Schaffer 1941), and 4) the increase in surface flow observed downstream of beaver dams as a result of subsurface inputs (Grasse and Putman 1950). Apple et al. (1984) observed extensive willow regrowth inside a cattle exclosure in Wyoming in those areas adjacent to the ponds but minimal regrowth in those areas without ponds. And Grasse and Putman (1950) observed a doubling of the surface flow within about 400 meters downstream of a 10. 5 hectare (25. 98-acre) beaver pond as a result of water percolating through the dam and through the earth under and downstream of the dam. The significance of the ponds in storing surface and subsurface water becomes particularly visible during times of short-term drought. Stream flows have been observed to continue downstream of beaver ponds during drought but cease in reaches without beaver ponds during droughts (Bailey 1936; Grasse and Putman 1950). In addition, vegetation on the valley floors remains riparian and does not shift to more drought- tolerant species (Bailey 1936; Schaffer 1941 ). Rates of Local Hydro logic and Vegetative Change Examples of how quickly vegetation and hydrologic conditions can change once beavers enter a watershed are provided in Table 11. These examples document the impact that ponds have at both the local and watershed scale. 168 Table 11. Examples of the speed at which hydro logic and vegetative conditions change in the presence of beaver ponds. Location Time Vegetation Change Total Source Interval Time Crane Creek, OR 1936 to Channel has incised 25 feet since 1925. Beavers 2 Schaffer 1938 reintroduced in 1936. Within 2 years the water table years 1941 has risen and hay meadow production has improved (fields being subirrigated again). 1939 is a drought year, but water is abundant on the ranch with beaver ponds, but absent downstream on the ranch without beaver ponds. Currant Creek, 1981 and Beavers reintroduced in 1981 and 1982 into a cattle 3 Apple et WY 1982 to exclosure. By end of third year (1984 or 1985) full years al. 1984 1984 or riparian recovery underway. Willow regrowth and 1985 resprouting averaged 1.6 to 2 m in height after three years ofrest in areas adjacent to beaver ponds. In areas rested, but without beaver ponds, willow regrowth was negligible. Cold Springs at 1920 to In 1914 the draw below the ranger station cabin was 11 Bailey Ranger Station, 1931 dry. 1920 beavers move into area and construct years 1936 Ochoco National dam near large spring. By 1931 more dams exist Forest, OR and there are approximately 0.8 hectares of wet beaver meadows and swamps. Springs have also developed 274 m below the wet meadow. "During the past season, driest on record, water was plentiful for a distance of a quarter mile [0.42 km] below the beaver dams, and springy places were increased all down the draw ... at least 20 acres [8.1 hectares] of land that were dry in the very wet season of 1914 are kept fairly moist." Near Little 1925 to Area was formerly full of beavers, but the last 4 Bailey Summit Ranger 1929 appear trapped out by 1925. "From that date to 1929 years 1936 Station area, OR ( 4 years) the old ditch and the entire meadow were fast becoming a dust bed. During 1928 and 1929 no water ran out at the lower end of the station (p. 222)." 1929 to "* * * Some beavers moved back in 1929 and by the 1 Bailey 1930 fall of 1930 the meadow in the pasture was 75 year 1936 percent irrigated (1 year). The old ditches were full of water and a nice stream was running at the lower end of the station (p. 222)." Kabetogama 1940 to Beavers re-enter area in 1940. Between 1940 and 41 Jolmston Peninsula, MN 1981 1986 the ponded area (includes open water and and areas with floating mats) increased from 20 to 1422 Naiman hectares, wet areas from 23 to 562 hectares, and 1990 moist areas from 214 to 1212 hectares. In terms of vegetation communities, the largest increases occurred for wet meadows ( 101 to 616 hectares, 169 Table 11 continued. Location Time Vegetation Change Total Source Interval Time shallow marsh (17 to 4 7 6 hectares) and wet deciduous shrubs (45 to 301 hectares). The amount of the peninsula that was affected by impoundment increased from one percent in 1940 to 10 percent in 1961 and 13 percent by 1986. Naiman et al. (1988) and Johnston and Naiman (1990) provide the best overall example of the speed of a watershed-wide transformation as beavers reenter and expand their range. The transition from a channel-dominated to a beaver-dominated drainage network in the Kabetogama Peninsula in Minnesota took about 46 years, with the greatest amount of change occurring within the first 21 years. Total area of impoundment rose from 1 to 10 percent of the study area between 1940 and 1960 and to 13 percent by 1986. This equals an increase in area affected by impoundments from 257 hectares to 3196 hectares. Wetland expansion accounted for the majority of the change. By 1986 73 percent of the impounded area (23 23 of 3196 hectares) was in the form of wetland vegetation with the remaining 27 percent (873 of 3196 hectares) occurring as open water (Johnston and Naiman 1990). Beavers altered an additional 12 to 15 percent of the uplands as they browsed the area for food and building material (Naiman et al. 1988). Whether this rate and extent of watershed change would occur in the West is uncertain given its drier condition. However, the results from the Kabetogama Peninsula provide a benchmark from which to evaluate watershed changes in the West as a result of beaver reintroductions. 170 The Scale of Beaver Influence in a Watershed The amount of a drainage network that is affected by the long-term presence of beavers varies with drainage basin and stream order. Several studies have found that the amount of first to fourth-order streams within a watershed potentially impacted by beaver activities to range from 20 to 87 percent (Retzer et al. 1956; Naiman et al. 1986, Johnson and Naiman 1990). Naiman et al. (1986) examined two nearly pristine watersheds with intact beaver populations. The Matamek River (673 km2) and Moisie River (19,871 km2) watersheds, both located in Quebec, Canada, have experienced only minimal historic trapping and no logging or road building. In these watersheds, only 30 percent of the total length of the second to fourth-order streams was considered unsuitable for beaver because of stream gradient or inadequate flood supply (Naiman et al. 1986). The Matamek River has about 322 km of second to fourth-order streams and about 225 km are suitable for beaver dam building and habitation. The density of intact dams on these streams ranged from 8.6 to 16 dams/km with an average of 10.6 dams/km (Naiman et al. 1986). This dam density translates into roughly 1935 to 3600 intact dams on 225 km of the Matamek River, each providing some pond storage and increased valley-floor access. Stream length was not listed for the Moisie River but the number is probably even larger given its greater drainage area. Retzer et al. (1950) examined 61 streams and 448 km of streams in western Colorado. The total drainage area of the study is 809 kni and average watershed of these streams is about 14 km2. Unlike the two watersheds in Quebec, these systems were 171 trapped. Beavers occupied 4 7 percent of the stream length studied, 22 percent had been abandoned, and 31 percent had never been occupied. This equates to about 69 percent of suitable stream habitat, an amount similar to that found in the Quebec study. Finally, the studies ofNamain et al. (1988) and Johnston and Naiman (1990) on the Kabetogams Peninsula (250 kni2) in Minnesota examined the influence of beavers returning to a drainage area over a 46-year period. A 38-km2 portion of the peninsula, containing 46.92 km of stream, was examined in detail. Johnston and Naiman (1990) found that 53 percent of the first-order streams (12.17 lan), 55.1 percent of the second- order streams (8.13 lan) and 87 percent (5.5 lan) of the fourth-order streams were impounded. The third-order streams were lobes of the lake and could not be impounded. These studies show that beavers can influence a large percentage of the drainage network and their dams can increase the valley-floor access during high flow along substantial portions of the drainage. The Drainage Network Pattern in the Presence of Abundant Beavers The above studies show that beavers can influence a considerable amount of first to fourth-order streams. The channelized drainage network becomes repeatedly interrupted with the ponds and wetlands that develop because of dam building across the channel. The drainage network that develops in the upper watershed is a complex mix of ponds, wetlands and channels sections and zones of open canopy (Naiman et al. 1986). 172 Pond Storage, Valley-Floor Detention Storage, and Reductions in Downstream Flood Magnitudes Beaver ponds have long been attributed with reducing downstream flood magnitudes and stream power through pond storage and/or valley-floor detention storage (Dobyns 1981; Parker et al. 1985; Naiman et al. 1988). Actual studies quantifying the influence of beaver ponds on flood magnitudes, however, are few and have focused on small headwater streams and only considered the role of pond storage in flood peak reductions. Burns and McDonnell (1998) compared the stream hydrographs of two small watersheds (0.4 and 0.61 krri2), one of which had a single 1.3-hectare beaver pond located at the downstream end of the small headwater stream. They found that this single pond provided minimal retention during several large runoff events. Another study explored how storm hydro graphs responded to increasing amounts of beaver pond storage as the numbers of ponds in series and their sizes increased (Beedle 1991). His study watersheds were 6.2 km2 or less and his maximum pond size was 0.6 hectares. He found that the amount of reductions varied with storm size, pond size, pond numbers, and pond storage capacity available prior to the flow event. His findings suggest that abundant beaver ponds could make a difference in the flood magnitude, but that the importance of the effect decreases with flood magnitude: A single full beaver pond was found to theoretically reduce peak flows by no more than 5.3 % regardless of the return interval or watershed size. The shape of the outflow hydrographs were the same as the inflow hydro graphs, with only a 10 or 15 minute delay in the time to peak and slightly increased duration. Reductions in peak flows became increasingly large as the number of ponds in a series increased. Five large-sized (0.6 hectare) beaver ponds in series reduced the storm peak flow by 14% for a 2-year event, but only 4% for a 50-year event (Beedle 1991, p. ii). 173 The two studies show that beaver ponds provide some flood storage directly, with the amount varying with pond size and numbers. However, the greatest contribution towards flood reductions occurs when flood waters access the valley floor where the detention storage is much greater. By reducing the available channel capacity, the ponds cause the flood flows moving downstream to overtop the stream banks onto the valley floors at lower discharges. The greater detention storage available on the valley floor means that flood magnitudes decrease in response to the temporarily detention of flood waters. Reductions of flood magnitudes as a result of valley-floor storage have been documented by a number of researchers (Campbell et al. 1972; Dunne and Leopold 1978; Osterkamp and Costa 1987; Shankman and Pugh 1992; Hillman 1998). Osterkamp and Costa (1987) estimated water depths at three valley cross-sections on Plum Creek in Colorado (850 km2) during a 900 to 1600-year recurrence interval flood. Depths averaged from 2.4 to 2.9 meters, but were as great as 5.8 meters. The computed velocities for the floodwaters ranged "from 1.3 m/sec over terraces at the valley sides to 5 .4 m/sec in deeper flows in the central parts of the valley (Osterkamp and Costa 1987)," reflecting the influence of depth and perhaps roughness on flow velocities. Dunne and Leopold (1978) examined runoff from four large drainage basins (19,194 to 525,770 km2) and found that the channel and valley floor detained 57 to 80 percent of the runoff generated by large storms (105 to 329 mm). The percent of the runoff detained decreased as the size of the precipitation event increased. Campbell et al. (1972) used two flood-routing methods to determine the effect of channel straightening on flood magnitudes, durations, and attenuation of the flood peak for 97 km (58 miles) of 174 the Boyer River in Tennessee (3,077 kni2). Channel straightening and the building of dikes were found to increase discharge downstream by limiting access to the valley floor and increasing the stream gradient. They then modeled stream hydrographs under a partial straightening scenario in which sections of the river were left unmodified. Campbell et al. (1972) found that the unmodified portions of the stream substantially reduced the magnitude of downstream flood peaks because as the flood passed through the unmodified stretch it overflowed onto the valley floor. The difference in the results of the two models is striking: The unmodified reach, even though short, provides tremendous storage, which can nullify the effects produced by the upstream straightening ... 16 miles ofunmodified river reduced the increase in peak discharge from 90 percent to 15 percent for the condition of high flood plain roughness coefficient. The increase in peak discharge at section 30 [the most downstream section] is 35 percent with high n and 30 percent with low n as compared with 190 percent and 90 percent respectively for complete straightening (Campbell et al 1972, p. 97). The :floodplain in this area averaged 2.1 km wide. Its :floodwater storage potential was substantial as was its contribution to flood peak reductions. This is born out by historical observations that describe long periods of standing water and swampy conditions on the valley floor because of periodic overflowing of the river (Campbell et al. 1972). Finally, Hillman (1998) observed a large reduction in a peak flows on Rocky Creek (18.7 km2) in central Alberta after the flood wave entered a 90-hectare wetland containing a sedge meadow, willows, a small lake, and several beaver ponds. By the time the flood had passed through the wetlands and reached the main gage, located about 6.5 km downstream of the failure, the flood peak was only 6 percent of the peak estimated to have entered the wetlands. Hillman (1998) concluded that wetlands, 175 especially when large, are very effective in regulating high flows, even more so than beaver dams because the dams often wash out during high floods. While the magnitude of the contribution of beaver ponds to flood storage is uncertain given the limited studies, their contribution towards reducing available channel capacity and therefore increasing valley-floor access is clear. And as the above discussion highlights, valley-floor storage is capable of significantly reducing flood peaks at all scales of drainage area and storm size. Conceptual Model Part 2: Watershed Response to Extensive Beaver Trapping after a Long-Term Presence The first half of the model (Figure 29) examined the hydro logic, vegetative and channel morphologic changes that would occur as a result of beavers entering a channelized drainage basin. The second half of the model examines the response of a drainage basin to beaver removal after a long-term presence (Figure 32). The significance of a rapid decrease in beaver populations is not the dam failures themselves, which occurs when beavers are present, but the fact that the dams are not repaired. The nomepair of the dams sets in motion a change in the character of the drainage network and in downstream flood magnitudes, frequencies, and durations, as well as initiates the severing of the hydrologic connection between a stream and its valley floor. In the absence of trapping, Tularemia, a contagious disease that affects beavers, is the other event most likely to rapidly decrease populations. In those cases where beaver colonies are infected with the disease, most of the population will be lost (USDI BLM 1992). 176 BEAVER TRAPPED OUT OR ABANDONED AN UPPER WATERSHED DRAINAGE Dam fail abruptly Dam fail over time Dams do not breach Foraging around pond stops Ponds drain abrnptly Possible down- 1 i stream scour Dam leaks and pond drains Sediments once under water now exposed Dams do NOT leak and ponds fill in Vegetation becomes more dense Localized chan- Sediment behind nelization and Tributary gullies form on pond sediments Pond sediments begin to vegetate dams erodes concentrated flow Sections down- stream of dam fail- ure aggrade due to scour material May sets in motion com- plex response of aggradation and degradation downstream of failure Incision crosses a tribu- tary junctions Tributary junc- tion experiences a base level drop and begins headcutting Discontinuous channels begin to coalese and drain- age network expands Increase in stream velocities Increase in speed at which water is tranferred from upper to lower watershed Incision does NOT cross a tributary junctions ~;~:~::~nt I Development of dis- continuous channels on main stem. Some widening I Old pond! ~----i:-. j Bog j pvi~adowj..J F;;-r~ted wetland I Fire, Disease I -./ I ~-------------~ Discontinuous channels 1-------..L do not coalese because , some reaches have high Drainage n-e-tw_o_r_k_a_r_n-ix_o_f_~ resistance to erosion channelized and nonchannel- ized reaches Downstream of a wetlands Downstream of channel- or unchannelized reach ized section Minimal change in flood magnitudes and frequencies Increase in flood magni- tudes and frequencies of large magnitude floods I DOWNSTREAM LOWER WATERSHED EFFECTS I I I Increase in flood magnitudes and frequency of large magnitude floods in lower watershed due to concentration of flows in upper watershed channels. I Decreased water quality (1.e. htgh sediment loads) / Figure 32. Conceptual model of how beaver trapping or site abandonment influence fluvial systems. The portion of the model in the box is from Naiman et al. (1988). Arrows used for clarification of direction only. 177 Forest Service investigations estimated that about half of the beaver population in Grant County, Oregon died in the winter 1941-1942 as a result of the disease (USDA Forest Service 1944), demonstrating its ability to rapidly decimate numbers. Dam Failures, Channel Formation, and the Expansion of the Drainage Network The development of a drainage network can be examined from two perspectives: 1) the controls and mechanisms leading to the development of the drainage network, and 2) the features in the drainage basin that inhibit the development of a channelized network. Both are important for predicting the drainage network that develops once beavers disappear from a drainage after a long-term presence. Three things happen when a beaver dam fails: 1) the pond drains, 2) the local base-level drops, and 3) a knickpoint forms (Figure 32). Beaver-dam failures can occur abruptly or over time with failures occurring at the ends, bottoms, and tops of beaver dams (Retzer et al. 1956; Figure 33). If the failure is abrupt, the sudden draining of the beaver pond will result in higher than normal stream discharges and velocities. In addition to creating a knickpoint at the point of failure (Retzer et al. 1956; this study), the abrupt failure can result in channel scour downstream of the failure (Retzer et al. 1956; Butler 1989; Kondolf et al. 1991; Hillman 1998). Over time the knickpoint will migrate upstream, creating or deepening a channel. Whether the channel that develops remains a local feature, spatially separated from other localized channels, or begins to a) b) Figure 33. Examples of two types of dam failures on Price Creek, Montana. a) End breach. b) Top breach. Dam heights are about 1.5 meters. - ....... --i 00 179 affect the tributaries and valley floor depends on 1) the location of the channel in the drainage network ( distant or near to a tributary junction) and 2) the erosional resistance of the channel bed, channel banks, and valley floor upstream and downstream of the developing channel (Hillman 1998; Kondolf et al. 1991; this study). Dam failures lead to increased available channel capacity as the fine sediments trapped behind the dams erode and the ponds drain. The depth to a resistant layer will determine how deeply a channel can incise before stabilizing, and therefore the potential elevational drop in the water table and likelihood of channel enlargement through channel widening (Schumm et al. 1984). At Price Creek (3.9 to 14.3 km2) channel incision ranged from zero to 0.8 m deep, and channel cross-section area increased from zero to 1.08 m2/yr between 1997 and 1998 (Figure 34). The initial rates of cross-section area change in the dam-controlled reaches varied with proximity to a dam, the length of time that the controlling dam had been in place prior to failure, and time. The annual rates of change are expected to drop eventually to zero as the creek incises down through the soft sediments to a more resistant channel-bed layer. The annual rates of cross-section area change at Price Creek sites with and without beaver dams are compared. In contrast to the high annual rates at most sites in the dam-controlled reaches, the eight cross-sections in the reaches without dams showed minimal change (Figure 34). As discussed in Chapter 2, this difference in rates of change is a function of bed erodability. The beaver dams had effectively captured the suspended sediment resulting in bed aggradation as the fine, easily eroded sediment settled. The absence of beaver dams or any other sediment-trapping mechanism (e.g. lush riparian 180 vegetation) in reaches without beavers allowed the suspended load to be transported through the reach. In these reaches the stream is left with eroding its more resistant channel bed. Cross-section 19, located in a dam-controlled reach, is identified in Figure 34 for comparison with results presented in Figure 3 5. (1) § 1.2 -5 ~ 0.8 § 0.6 ·.p ~ ij l 0.4 ~ &0,2 0 Ul ,_.___, ~ 0 0 (1) -0.2 ts! .... -0.4 "1 ;:l ! -0.6 Beaver dams present --------------- - - ------------ -- N= 12 ~ -x X X -- X X -- X X -- n X -~JL: 7 -I I I -· X XS 19 3 3 3 9 11 12 15 16 19 22 27 35 Distance upstream from a beaver dam (m) ! N=8 - I No dams ------------ - 1--- - ------ ll!ll 1995-1997 survey mterval □ 1997-1998 survey interval Figure 34. Annual rates of cross-section area change as a function of beaver-dam integrity in the Price Creek cattle exclosure, Montana. 'X' indicates the survey interval during which the dam failed. Some sites had multiple surveys that were post-failure. BLACK= 1995 to 1997 interval. WHITE= 1997 to 1998 interval. Annual rates for Price Creek cross-sections not influenced by beaver dams are shown for comparison. The influence of pond drainage on the channel capacity is obvious when comparing percent reductions in available channel capacity in 1995 with percent reductions in 1998 (Figure 35). In 1995 the majority of the cross-sections had reductions in available channel capacity of 50 percent or more. In 1998 the dams were failing or had failed and reductions in available channel capacity had decreased to less than 25 percent 181 of the geomorphic channel as the ponds drained. As the available channel capacity increased, the hydrologic connection between the stream and its valley floor decreased. Differences in the 1998 percent reductions in the dam-controlled reaches were a function of dam condition and not distance upstream of a dam, baseline channel area, or variations in discharge between the two years. This is evident in Figure 35a in which cross-sections with similar baseline areas (e.g. 1.6, 1.63 and 1.68 m2) had different percent reductions, and in Figure 3 5b in which cross-sections located at the same distance upstream of a beaver dams ( e.g. 3 m) also had different percent reductions. And as cross-sections 17 and 18 show, the changes in available channel capacity between 1995 and 1998 in the beaver-dam controlled reaches were not related to lower discharges in 1998. Cross-section 17 and 18 are located downstream of the dam-controlled reaches and downstream of the confluence of Price Creek and the West Fork of Price Creek. Minimal net change in cross-section area occurred at these two sites between 1995 and 1998 (0.06 m 2 , -0.01 m2) and the percent reductions in available channel capacity from water were the same (Figure 34). This supports the contention that discharge between the two years was similar and that the increase in available channel capacity in the dam-controlled reaches was a function of beaver-dam integrity. a. b. V :a fr 0,,-., s ~ 0~ ~ .c .s 'G t'd s:::: §< .8 u - 0 u ::s s:::: "O 8 ~ - ...s::: s:::: u 4 3 3 3 9 11 12 15 16 19 22 27 35 Distance upstream from a beaver dam (m) Beaver dams present _________ _ 182 No dams --------- -------- 18 ii 17 g 1111111995 o 1998 No dams 125 +------------------------------ XS19 HI 100 -----ii------------------------------------------------------ 75 11 50 . ------ -------- --+ --------I 0 r 25 18 0 .... 17 ii &I 0 0.95 1.23 1.43 1.6 1.63 1.68 2.09 2.22 2.39 2.71 3.07 4.09 3.79 6.84 Baseline channel cross-section area (sq. m) ----·~--~----··---~----- Figure 35. Changes in the percent reduction in available channel capacity as a result of beaver-dam failures and pond drainage post 1995, Price Creek, Montana. The dams were intact in 1995, though some were not being maintained. Dams had completely failed or were breaching by 1998. a) as a function of baseline channel cross-section area. b) as a function of distance upstream of a beaver dam. Cross-sections 17 and 18 are shown for comparison. 183 Both sediment erosion and pond drainage increase available channel capacity. The loss of the ponds, however, is more significant because water is seasonally abundant and can quickly reduce available channel capacity to zero even when sediment deposition is minimal. For example, cross-section 19, noted in Figures 34 and 35, had an annual reduction in the geomorphic channel capacity of 0.02 m2/yr due to sediment deposition, but a 100 percent reduction in available channel capacity because of water ponding behind an intact dam. The seasonal abundance of water, in conjunction with presence of the dams, allow for rapid restoration of the stream and the valley-floor hydrologic connection, and for its equally rapid disconnect upon dam failure and pond drainage. Rates of Channelization and Local Hydrologic and Vegetative Changes The response of vegetation, hydrology, and the drainage network to beaver trapping or abandonment varies depending on the condition of the watershed prior to disturbance, much in the same way that antecedent moisture conditions determine runoff rates, and thus stream discharge, after a precipitation event. Table 10 shows the speed at which extensive channelization can occur in response to the headward migration of knickpoints. Channels were observed to headcut from 23 meters in a single day up to 2.5 km in four days. Rates of channel widening also could be extreme with channels widening from averages of 15.2 m to 365.8 mover a 65-year period (Schdumm and Lichty 1963; Figure 28), from 91 meters to 610 meters in 12 years (Burkham 1972), and 184 14.9 meters to 167.6 meters in less than 36 years (Bryan 1927). The majority of the incision, widening and headcutting occurred in response to storm events. Table 12 shows the speed at which shifts in vegetation from water-dependent to drought-tolerant species can occur in response to channelization. Some of the vegetation changes were in response to the loss of beaver dams after a local area was trapped while others were the result of overgrazing such as in the case of Mountain Meadows in southern Utah (Cottam and Stewart 1940). Changes occurred in as short a time as four years (Bailey 1936) with major shifts in entire vegetation communities in less than 50 years. All of the examples listed in Tables 10 and 12 are post Euro-American settlement. The speed at which riparian and wetland vegetation shifts to more drought- tolerant species as a result of channelization varies as a function of climate, incision depth, groundwater depth, subsurface stratigraphy, vegetation requirements, and land use. This shift in species occurs for two reasons. First, channelization increases available channel capacity, thereby reducing the frequency of valley-floor flooding (Campbell et al. 1972; Schumm et al. 1984; Shankman and Pugh 1992) and consequently valley water- table recharge. Second, the hydraulic gradient between the valley-floor water table and the stream steepens as the channel incises and widens. This steepening of the hydraulic gradient enhances the flow of groundwater towards the channel (Knighton 1998 referencing Dunne 1980, 1990). These two changes result in an increase in the depth-to- water and a decrease in soil moisture that triggers the resulting shift from riparian species to more drought-tolerant species (Bryan 1928b ). 185 Table 12. Examples of the speed and character of vegetation changes as a result of channel incision. Unless beaver trapping or area abandonment is explicitly mentioned, the cause of the incision is Euro-American settlement activities. Location Time Interval Vegetation Change Total Source Time Santa Cruz 1880 to 1928 From area covered by sacaton grass with groves Less Bryan River near of mesquite and swampy areas of tule than 1928b Tucson (bulrushes) prior to 1880 to dense mesquite 48 forest by 1928. Arroyo forms in 1880. years Sonoita River pre-Aug 6 to From swampy area prior to August 6 1891 to a Less Bryan of Sonora 1928 dense mesquite forest by 1928. Arroyo forms in than 1928b August 6, 1891. 37 years Yancy 1903 or 1904 Beavers began to desert area in 1903 or 1904. 17 or Warren Meadows, to 1921 By 1912 the colony was abandoned. Changes 18 1926 Yellowstone from ponds to well formed meadows to solid years NP ground by 1921 with little evidence of the earlier beaver ponds. Crane Creek, 1925 to 1936 Beavers trapped out in 1924. Channel incises in 11 Schaffer OR 1925 and vegetation changes from meadows of years 1941 'stirrup-high native' grasses subirrigated by beaver ponds to meadows nearly gone, with clumps of new sagebrush and sparse remnants of the original grasses by 1936. Near Little 1925 to 1929 Area was formerly full of beavers, but the last 4 Bailey Summit Ranger appear trapped out by 1925. "From that date to years 1936 Station area, 1929 (4 years) the old ditch and the entire OR meadow were fast becoming a dust bed. During 1928 and 1929 no water ran out at the lower end of the station (p. 222)" Mountain 1884 to Channel incises into what was once a wet < 16 Cottam Meadows, sometime meadow during a series of storms and continues years and southern UT prior to 1900 to widen since 1884. Gullies fingering out to Stewart nearly all parts of meadow. Shift in vegetation 1940 as meadows drain from a wet wiregrass meadow surrounded by numerous springs and a dry grass meadow to desert shrub. 186 Climate and land use also exert a strong influence on the speed at which vegetation changes (Cooke and Reeves 1976). In areas where precipitation is distributed throughout the growing season, a decline in the water table may be partially compensated for by precipitation if its abundance and distribution are sufficient to maintain soil- moisture levels. In areas where precipitation is strongly seasonal, such as the Southwest, the decline in water table is not compensated for by precipitation, and wetland species respond more quickly to channelization and a drop in the water table (Table 12; Bryan 1928b ). Land uses such as grazing and agriculture also exert an influence on the rates of vegetation response to channelization by altering soil structure and removing vegetation. These two changes increase runoff and decrease stream-bank and valley-floor resistance to erosion, thereby facilitating channel widening during high flows. The reduction in infiltration rates into the soil due to soil compaction further accelerates vegetation changes as precipitation and floodwaters are impeded from recharging the water table and soil moisture. The degree to which a channelized-drainage network would have developed had trapping been the only Euro-American disturbance is unknown because Euro-American settlement and extensive livestock grazing occurred in most places 30 to 50 years after trapping. Historical observations suggest that channelization may have remained localized and the drainage continued to maintain a mix of channels, ponds and wetlands for a much longer period. For example, Peter Skene Ogden trapped the Crooked River and its tributaries in central Oregon between 1824 and 1830 (Ogden 1950; Buckley 1992). Three of his trapping expeditions were in the vicinity of Camp Creek, a tributary 187 to the Crooked River and his journals reference plentiful beavers, willows, and aspen (Buckley 1992). Later records from 1858 to 1865 note lush grasses, willows, swampy areas, and abundant beavers and beaver dams along Camp Creek. And the still later General Land Office surveys in 1876 also mention the presence of many swampy areas and narrow channels (Buckley 1992), but not beavers. The vegetation, channel descriptions, and swampy areas are reminiscent of the changes Warren (1926) observed in Yellowstone National Park after beavers had ceased to maintain a presence in a creek. The similarity in descriptions suggests that the historical observations from Camp Creek, and other places where similar features are noted, are reflecting watersheds adjusting to reduced beaver populations after a long-term presence in the drainages. There are limits to using present rates of hydro logic and vegetative change and channel formation as a proxy for historic post-trapping rates of change. Direct observations of the response of stream and riparian systems to historic Euro-American beaver trapping are absent except for a few references from New England in the 1600s (Cronon 1983). Estimating rates of channel and vegetation change during the period between trapping and the introduction of livestock grazing uses observations recorded post-Euro-American settlement as a starting point. In the case of channel widening, incision, and straightening, the rates after Euro-American settlement are probably a good proxy for channelization rates post-beaver trapping because the sediments trapped behind the beaver dams were at least as erodable as valley fill. I am less certain about the similarity between the pre- and post-settlement rates of vegetation change. Beavers create stable stream-riparian ecosystems that have a high 188 resistance to climatic variability and disturbance (Ives 1942; Naiman et al. 1986, 1988), and wetlands can have long residence times on the landscape when left undisturbed (Warren 1926; Ives 1942; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984; Naiman et al. 1988). As beavers existed in many watersheds for decades if not hundreds of years prior to Euro- American trapping, they would have been able to impart considerable stability to a watershed. The high water tables and stable surface flow downstream of intact wetlands likely initially compensated for the decrease in overbank flooding. The vegetation and hydrologic changes to the Kabetogama Peninsula in no1ihern Minnesota over a 46-year period after beavers reentered the drainage supports the above suggestion. Despite temporary abandonment and drainage, none of the impoundments established over this period the reverted back to forest, their original ecology before impoundment (Johnson and Naiman 1990). Most research examining how beavers influence drainages has been in Alaska, Canada, Minnesota, Montana, and Colorado. It is possible that streams in the Southwest and Intermountain West may have channelized, and dams failed, more quickly than those in the more northern areas. However, the numerous GLO descriptions of marshes, wet meadows, and swamps in areas that once had abundant beavers (see Hastings and Turner 1965; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984; Buckley 1992) indicate that wetlands persisted after beaver trapping even in the Southwest and Intermountain West. Therefore, it is highly likely that changes from wetland species to more drought- tolerant species post-trapping, but pre-Euro-American grazing, were initially slower than modern-day rates. 189 Current rates of dam failures also cannot be assumed to be a good measure of historic rates of dam failures after beaver trapping. Historically dam resistance to failure was probably higher because of willow growth on stable dams (Meentemeyer and Butler 1999) and repeated repairs. Reductions in upland vegetation and soil compaction would not have occurred for another 20 to 50 years or more, with the introduction ofEuro- American cattle and sheep. As a result, runoff rates from the uplands would not have increased during the period between trapping and the introduction of Euro-American livestock grazing. The Drainage Network Pattern Post-Beaver Trapping Beaver-dam failures throughout a watershed initiate the development of a channelized drainage network by removing base-level controls at multiple places within the watershed. The fine sediment behind the dams becomes exposed to the forces of running water as dams fail, ponds drain, and a knickpoint forms at the elevational difference between the channel bed upstream and downstream of the dam. As knickpoints erode headward through fine textured and unconsolidated sediment they eventually encounter resistant features that may impede any further migration. The result is the development of a drainage network pattern in which channelized reaches of stream are spatially separated by unchannelized reaches. Whether the discontinuous channels connect over time and form a continuous channelized network depends on the character of the resistant features encountered by the knickpoint (e.g. bedrock, wetland, or intact dam) and the feature's sensitivity to future failure or transformation as a result of climatic 190 variability or land uses (e.g. grazing or logging). For example, wetlands inhibit knickpoint migration 1) through enhanced roughness that reduces flow velocities (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984; Cooke and Reeves 1976), 2) through temporary storage that reduces flood peaks (Hillman 1998), and 3) through enhanced subsurface cohesion (Smith 1976; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). The presence of wetlands distributed along a stream prevents the discontinuous channels from coalescing into a single connected system. Streams with a long-term beaver presence develop abundant and complex wetland vegetation communities (Johnston and Naiman 1990). Upon the disappearance of beavers from a stream, but before the arrival of livestock, these wetlands would influence rates of channelization ending in drainages with channelized reaches spatially separated by non-channelized reaches. The most distinct difference between the equilibrium drainage networks of systems with beavers and beaver dams and those without (but prior to grazing) is the absence of the copious ponds. Historical Evidence Supporting the Post-Beaver Trapping Drainage Network Large areas exist in which the modern-day influence of abundant beavers on the drainage network, the local hydrology, and vegetation is visible and can be studied (Grasse and Putman 1950; Retzer et al. 1956; Naiman et al. 1986, 1988; Johnston and Naiman 1990). There are no similar modern-day analogs that can be studied to evaluate the correctness of the drainage network and the rates of vegetation and hydro logic change presented in this paper when beaver are abruptly eliminated from a drainage. However, 191 historical observations may support to the description of the proposed drainage network that developed after the period of intensive beaver trapping. The evidence consists of observations by early GLO surveyors and military and scientific expeditions to the Southwest and Colorado Plateau prior to Euro-American settlement and grazing. These expeditions noted in their records the simultaneous presence of recent tributary incision, discontinuous channels, and wetlands (Dellenbaugh 1912; Gregory 1917; Bryan 1928a; Gregory and Moore 1931; Hastings and Turner 1965; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). The juxtaposition of features indicative of a stable fluvial system (wetlands, wet meadows) and features indicative of a destabilized fluvial system ( discontinuous arroyos, incised tributaries) suggests that the destabilization of the fluvial systems had been fairly recent. The suggestion that the destabilization of fluvial systems was a recent occurrence is supported by the similarity in the channel morphology of these post-trapping, pre- settlement discontinuous arroyos and incised tributary channels and later post-Euro- American settlement arroyos. In addition, many of the vegetation communities were in the process of changing from wetland-dominated to drought-tolerant species at the time of these surveys. Later observations of rates of vegetative changes in response to channelization indicate that changes in species type from wetland to drought-tolerant species can occur in less than 50 years (Table 12), supporting the suggestion that the destabilization had happened sometime within the last 50 years. I tested the validity of the hypothesis that those early observations reflected watershed response to recent and widespread Euro-American beaver trapping using a 192 three-step process. The first step was to determine if beavers and beaver trapping occurred in the areas where discontinuous arroyos and incised tributary channels were observed. The second step was to compare the time intervals of channelization recorded post-Euro-American settlement with the time interval that existed between trapping and the first observation of discontinuous channels and incised tributaries. The third step was to qualitatively compare the character and magnitude of the channel incisions and channel widening noted by those early expeditions with the magnitude and character of the channel changes recorded post-Euro-American settlement. A relationship between historic beaver trapping, dam failures, and arroyo formation is considered suppo1ied or at least not disproved if 1) trapping occurred in the area, 2) the time interval between trapping and the next observation (i.e. 15 years) is longer than the time needed for substantial channel incision to have occurred (i.e.< 10 years), and 3) the magnitude of the observed channelization could have occurred within the intervening time ( comparison of Tables 10 and 12). In this case, it is highly probable that beaver trapping and dam failures and non-repair led to localized channelization and were partially responsible for the development of these pre-settlement incised tributaries and discontinuous arroyos. Under this scenario, climate variability or random frequency-magnitude variations are considered as playing only supporting roles, perhaps accelerating dam failures as a result of high intensity storms as has been observed by several researchers (Bulter 1989; Kondolf et al. 1991; Meetenmeyer and Bulter 1999). This scenario is in contrast to earlier scenarios whereby that climatic variability and random-frequency events are the likely driving forces behind the early channelization 193 (Dellenbaugh 1912; Bryan 1928a; Bull 1964; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Balling and Wells 1990). If the time interval between trapping and the next observation (i.e. 15 years) is less than that observed for channelization of a similar magnitude (i.e. 25 years), this does not discount the contribution of beaver-dam failures and non-repair towards initiating channelization. Rather it suggests that climatic events may have accelerated rates of dam failures and channelization. In both cases, dam failures provide a mechanism for locally dropping base level, creating knickpoints, and initiating channelization. Testing The Hypothesis of a Historical Watershed Response to Beaver Trapping The General Land Office surveys and early military and scientific expeditions observed discontinuous arroyos and/or incised tributary streams on the San Pedro River in Arizona (Cooke and Reeves 1976), on the Rio Puerco in New Mexico (Bryan 1928a), in the Diablo Range in California (Bull 1964), and on some tributaries to the Colorado River (Dellenbaugh 1912) that pre-date Euro-American settlement. The timing of the baseline General Land Office (GLO) surveys with respect to beaver trapping is important because the GLO notes are frequently used as baseline data on stream and riparian conditions prior to extensive Euro-American settlement activities (Cooke and Reeves 197 6; Knox 1977; and others). The baseline surveys focused first on those areas that were about to be settled or were in the process of being settled by Euro-Americans (White 1996) leaving large portions of each state left unsurveyed until later (Clements 1985). Much of what was left unsurveyed was located in the upper watersheds where the impact of beaver trapping and dam failures would have been most noticeable and 194 influential on the drainage network. In addition, some surveys post-date extensive non- Euro-Americans settlement (e.g. along the Rio Grande River valley in New Mexico, Santa Fe area in New Mexico along the Santa Cruz River in Arizona) and Euro-American activities such as mining ( e.g. 1849 California gold rush). Therefore it was important to determine 1) if beaver trapping had occurred in the area and 2) the temporal relationships between trapping and the GLO, military and scientific observations. A review of the published literature found either specific references to the above rivers or areas being trapped or references indicating that trapping had occurred in the vicinity. Once it was confirmed that trapping had occurred at a location, the timing of beaver trapping, the next recorded observation, and the GLO surveys were determined (Table 13). The time intervals in Table 13 were then compared against the rates and distances ofknickpoint migrations presented in Table 10. The first recorded observations of stream conditions and characteristics after the period of widespread Euro-American beaver trapping occur 9 to 47 years later. As Table 10 documents, rates of channel widening, incision and headward migration of knickpoints can be rapid with substantial changes taking place within a single storm event. The amount of time between trapping and the later expeditions would, it appears, have been sufficient time for discontinuous arroyos and incised tributary channels to develop in response to Euro-American beaver trapping, dam failures, and non-repair. Table 13. The estimated timing of beaver trapping, the next observation, and the baseline General Land Office surveys for areas discontinuous arroyos and incised tributaries prior to Euro-American settlement and cattle grazing. Location Dates Comments Date of Next Comments Estimated Baseline Area Observation time between GLO Trapped the two survey observations San Pedro 1826- Pattie and his party trap the river Military 1846 description of vegetation 19 to 20 years 1851, 1865, River, AZ4' 18271 in March 1826 and take 200 expeditions: patterns in area (Johnston 1847)3 18678 7 beavers. They trap the river again 1846, 1852, in October 1827. No numbers 18593 1852 near Pomerene: the stream given for the second time 1 banks not less than 8 to 10 feet high (Bartlett 1854)3 1859 - there is a discontinuous gully near Pomerene. The river has a "width of about twelve feet and a depth of twelve inches [water depth], flowing between clay banks ten or twelve feet deep, but below it widens out and from beaver dams and other obstructions overflows a large extent of bottom land, forming marshes densely timbered with cottonwood and ash Hutton (1859)." 3 Diablo 1829 to Hudson's Bay Company trapped GLO surveys GLO surveyors noted the 9 to 25 years 1852 to Range, CA 1843 in California beginning in 1829 1852 to 1854 existence of traces of older gullies 18547 (17 to 25 until 1843, returning "every year 7,8 on some of alluvial fans on the km west of to trap the Sacramento-San Diablo Range 5 _. \0 Vl Table 13 continued. Location Dates Comments Area Trapped the San Joaquin River systems and the Joaquin area around the San Francisco River) 5 Bay (p. 544)." The company took from the Bay area alone 10,860 beaver between 1830 and 1839. 2 Rio Puerco, 1823 to "In 1823, however the fur trade NM about from New Mexico had scarcely (tributary to 18389 begun .... most trappers certainly the Rio centered their operations on the 4 virgin streams of the Pecos and Grande) Rio Grande valleys. The beaver supply in this convenient area was already being depleted" and by 1824 trappers were heading west. In 1827 American fur trappers were floating down the Rio Grande trapping as they went. 1832 to 183 8 trapping occurs around the settlements along the Rio Grande valley. 9 Non- 1824 to All the major tributaries of the specified probably Colorado River were trapped 1 o tributary in late 1830s the 2, 10 Colorado River r Date ofNext Comments Observation Military Abert (1847): banks were 10 or expedition 12 feet high and vertical at a point 1846-1847, west of Albuquerque. Banks 1849 4 were 3 0 feet further upstream near a ruined town. Simpson (1849): channel was 100 feet wide, contained stagnant pools of water; banks were 20 to 30 feet high about 5 miles above Cabezon (small village on the river). Late 1880s: many settlers testify that in many places the river had no banks or only small ones and in flood the river spread out over the entire valley floor. 4 The Powell "I noted the same characteristics expedition of [ trenching of stream beds] ( and 1871 or 18726 others probably also noted) years ago in places where there were no cattle and never had been (p. 656)." Estimated time between the two observations 9 to 23 years 33 to 47 years Baseline GLO survey 18554 1869 (NM), Post-1867 (AZ), Post 1855 (UT), Post 1880 (CO) 8 ,__... \0 O'\ Table 13 continued. Location Dates Comments Area Trapped . () reg10n 1 Pattie (1831) 0Dellenbaugh (1912) L Phillips (1961) 1Cooke and Reeves (1976) jLeopold (1951) 11White (1996) 4Bryan (1928) ~weber (1971) 'Bull (1964) 10Chittenden (1954) Date of Next Comments Observation "I have seen earth-cliffs 30 to 40 feet high with all the characteristics of a rock-cliff erosion (p.657)." 6 Estimated time between the two observations Baseline GLO survey >-' \0 -.._) 198 While the time intervals between trapping and the next observation were sufficient to allow a change in the character of the drainage network as a result of dam failures, the rates of knickpoint migration and expansiori of the drainage network could have been accelerated by periods of higher precipitation. Two periods of above-average precipitation, in fact, have been identified in the tree-ring data from northern New Mexico (D' Arrigo and Jacoby 1991) and from central Montana to southern New Mexico (Meko 1990): 1835 to 1849 and 1905 to 1928. Meko's (1990) study showed the strongest correlations in climate across the Intermountain West occurred in 1905 to 1917 period, suggesting a more localized region of above-average winter precipitation from 1835 to 1849 in the Southwest. The first period of above-average winter precipitation occurred post-beaver trapping (183 5 to 1849), though this period was interspersed with years of drought (Meko et al. 1991 ). The second period of above-average winter precipitation occurred post-trapping and after the initiation of livestock grazing (1905 to 1928). As the largest floods recorded after the installation of stream gages on the Gila River in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico occurred in response to winter storms (Burkham 1970), it is probable that the period of above-average precipitation accelerated the rate of dam failures. The Response of Stream Hydrographs to Channelization Beaver dams increase the frequency of overbank flooding because the ponds decrease available channel capacity (Figure 31 ). The degree to which overbank flooding decreases flood magnitudes and increases flood durations varies as a function of valley- 199 floor roughness (Campbell et al. 1972; Shankman and Pugh 1992), the amount of storage area (Leopold and Maddock 1954; Campbell et al. 1972; Osterkamp and Costa 1987), and the location of unmodified sections of river with respect to the flood wave (Campbell et al. 1972; Hillman 1998). Even once dams fail and portions of the drainage network channelize, the remaining unmodified reaches will continue to store flood waters and dampen flood magnitudes (Campbell et al. 1972; Hillman 1998). The mix of channelized and nonchannelized reaches results in a similar discontinuity in flood magnitudes, durations and frequencies as a flow moves downstream. Some areas will experience increased flooding while others ( e.g. downstream of a wetland) will show minimal changes for the same precipitation or dam-bursting event. Placing the Beaver-Dominated Conceptual Model in its Historical Context The beaver-dominated conceptual model is placed in a historical context in Table 14, which summarizes the relative temporal relationships between Euro-American disturbances and subsequent changes in watershed hydrology and geomorphology. This summary underscores the complexity and magnitude of Euro-American impacts on the lower 48 states since their arrival in the early 1600s. Table 14 indicates two waves of large-scale Euro-American disturbances, one that pre-dates a lot of documentation of channel response (beaver trapping) and one that post-dates settlement and thus has a much greater amount of documentation of channel response to various land-use activities (e.g. grazing, road building, agriculture). The specific dates of the watershed disturbances and changes are not given in Table 14 because the dates vary depending on when 200 trapping, settlement, and various climatic events occurred (for examples see: Hastings and Turner 1965; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Knox 1977). I included the timing of stream- gage installations because its inclusion places the stream-gage data in their historical and landscape disturbance context. This placement is important because, as discussed earlier, many researchers have used this data to develop hydraulic geometry relationships and conceptual models of fluvial processes and systems (see Leopold and Maddock 1953; Knighton 1998) that have then been used when designing restoration projects. Table 14. Summary of the relative temporal relationships of various events related to Euro-American disturbances and their impact on watershed hydrology and geomorphology. Focus is on the changes to the upper watershed. Beaver enter a pre-Euro-American Upper watershed: Channel-dominated. Well-vegetated stream banks. Channel is resistant to stream erosion. disturbance watershed Upper watershed: Dams built across the channels and ponds develop. Drainage network shifts from channel dominated to pond-wetland-channel mix. Rapid expansion of the riparian/wetland vegetation communities DRAINAGE NETWORK on the valley floors and along the stream banks. TRANSITION I Upper watershed: drainage network pattern is a mix of ponds, wetlands and channels. Complex mosaic of riparian vegetation. Stream-valley floor hydrologic connection excellent and the valley floors are flooded Long-term presence of beavers in a frequently. Stream ecosystem has low sensitivity to climatic variability, high resistance to disturbance and watershed recovers rapidly after a disturbance. Lower watershed: Flood magnitudes and the frequency of large magnitude floods decreases and flood durations increase. FIRST WA VE OF LARGE-SCALE EURO-AMERICAN DISTURBANCES Widespread, temporally concentrated, and systematic removal of beaver from upper and lower watersheds. Historic Euro-American beaver trapping Upper watershed: Dams fail, ponds drain and stream incises into fine sediments trapped behind the dams. Drainage network shifts to an increasingly channel dominated network. Stream-valley floor hydrologic DRAINAGE NETWORK connection decreases as channels incise and widen. Wetland and riparian vegetation patterns begin to change TRANSITION II in location and abundance in response to localized channelization, dropping water table, decreased valley floor flooding and beaver forage and exposure of pond sediments. Portions of system continue to have low sensitivity to climatic variability but in other areas the sensitivity is increasing due to channelization. Decreasing resistance to climatic variability and disturbance. Increased N 0 _. Table 14 continued. channelization in the upper watershed results in more rapid transfer of water from the upper to lower watershed. Drainage network is a mix of discontinuous channelized and nonchannelized reaches. Lower watershed: The channel morphology may remain unchanged as valley floor and stream bank vegetation still abundant and dams were located on the floodplains and backwater areas. However, floodplain complexity and vegetation communities are changing as a result of beaver removal. Possible increases in flood peaks and decreases in flood durations as a result of greater channelization in upper watershed and periodic abrupt dam failures. SECOND WA VE OF LARGE-SCALE EURO-AMERICAN DISTURBANCES Euro-American settlement activities (e.g. grazing, logging, road building, farming, ditch and canal building) DRAINAGE NETWORK TRANSITION III Final condition. Upper and Lower watershed: Vegetation removed from uplands, valley floor and stream banks. Wetlands drained deliberately or incise due to land use activities. Creation of points of flow convergence (roads, canals). Result is large increases in runoff and decreases the resistance of uplands, valley floors, and stream banks to erosion. Upper watershed: Channelization expands and discontinuous channels begin to coalesce. Upper and Lower watershed: Rapid increases in channel incision and widening and therefore increases in channel capacity. The speed of water transfers from upper to lower watershed during a storm event increases. Streams and valley floors hydrologically disconnecting. The frequency of valley floor flooding in upper watershed decreases while the magnitude and frequency of flooding in the lower watershed increases. Stream ecosystem sensitivity to climatic variability increases, resistance to disturbance decreases and recovery rates after a disturbance slower. Upper and Lower watershed: Channel-dominated. Streams and valley floors hydrologically disconnected. Reduced the complexity, abundance and extent of the riparian zone. Loss of wetlands. Stream ecosystem sensitivity to climatic variability high, resistance to disturbance low and recovery after disturbance low. Lower watershed: Increased flood magnitudes and increased frequency of higher magnitude floods. Stream gages installed during this period. N 0 N 203 Discussion The beaver-dominated conceptual model presented in this chapter has two parts. The model examined the processes and sequence of events that would occur in a watershed as beavers re-entered a drainage and established a long-term presence (Figure 29) and then as beavers disappeared from a drainage and dams failed and were not repaired (Figure 32). The conceptual model and the literature review suggest that the changes in the drainage network pattern and in the hydrologic behavior of stream ecosystems, as a result of beaver trapping, were probably much greater and more complex than previously thought. Trapping and dam failures were not simply events that led to channels widening, incising, and straightening but rather events that transformed the appearance and hydrologic behavior of drainage networks. The combination of the beaver-dominated conceptual model and the summary of historical Euro-American land uses (Table 14) present an opportunity to reexamine historic observations in the context of beavers and beaver trapping and reconsider the implications of these observations on our understanding of fluvial geomorphologic processes. This section, therefore, uses the conceptual model as a starting point to explore three areas. First, I will present an explanation of why beavers and beaver trapping as controls on fluvial processes, watershed hydrology, and drainage network evolution are absent from the discipline of fluvial geomorphology. Second, I will discuss some of the implications for fluvial geomorphology of incorporating beavers and beaver trapping into our discussions and research into the causes and controls on channel morphology and watershed hydrology. Other implications will suggest themselves to the 204 readers that are worthy of further investigation. Finally, I will discuss some areas for future research. Explaining the Absence of Beavers in the Discipline of Fluvial Geomorphology Current research and observations of stream response to beavers and beaver trapping (Bailey 1936; Apple et al. 1984; Naiman et al. 1986, 1988; Johnson and Naiman 1990; Chapter 2) document the enormous influence that beavers and trapping exert on stream and riparian systems. However, their influence is not discussed in the discipline offluvial geomorphology (Dunne and Leopold 1978; Rosgen 1996; Knighton 1998). I suggest that this omission is the result of a complex set of factors that masked the magnitude of influence that beavers and trapping had on the character of fluvial systems and its hydrologic response to climatic events. I have identified four contributing factors that likely contributed to the omission: 1) the timing and spatial geographies of beaver trapping with respect to the later military and scientific expeditions, General Land Office (GLO) surveys, Euro-American settlement, and geomorphic studies, 2) the availability and quality of the records and observations of fluvial systems and channel changes pre- versus post-trapping, 3) the speed at which watersheds adjusted to beaver removal, and 4) the continued presence of beavers in the landscape post-trapping. The timing and spatial geographies, the speed of watershed adjustment and the continued presence of beavers on the landscape are discussed in depth. The factors are discussed separately, but it was their combination that made the magnitude of the influence of exerted by beavers and 205 beaver trapping on fluvial systems invisible. Any factor alone would not have been so effective. Temporal and Spatial Geographies of Beaver Trapping and the Later Pre-settlement Surveys Trappers were the vanguard of the move westward (Phillips 1961). Their arrival predates most scientific and military surveys and settlement by at least several decades, with a few exceptions. One exception occurs on the East Coast where settlement and trapping co-existed in time (Cronon 1983) and numerous writings exist from the 1600s and 1700s on the local natural history of those areas (Meisel 1924). The other exceptions are the earliest expeditions into the West. The Lewis and Clark expedition (1804 to 1806), the Long expedition (1819 to 1820) and the Pike expedition (1805 to 1807) all predate extensive trapping in the West (Phillips 1961). Their written observations (Burroughs 1961), along with the writings of the early East Coast naturalists (Meisel 1924; Cronon 1983) and later trappers (Pattie 1831; Work 1945; Ogden 1950), combined with the records from the fur companies (Phillips 1961) reveal complex, multi-channeled rivers abundant with beavers and beaver dams. July 30, 1805 (Jefferson River, a few miles above Three Forks in Montana) ... saw a vast number of beaver in many large dams which they had maid in various bayoes of the river which are distributed to a distance of three or four miles on this side of the rivers over an extensive bottom of timbered and meadow lands intermixed. in order to avoid these bayoes and beaver dams which I found difficult to pass, I directed my course to the high plain to the right which I gained after some time with much difficulty and waiding many beaver dams to my waist in mud and water. - Lewis (Burroughs 1961, p. 111). July 18, 1805 (Vic. Of Ordway's Creek, above Great Falls, Montana) Capt. Clark ascended the river on the Star' d side ... in the evening he passed over a mountain by which means he cut off many miles of the rivers circuitous rout .... he passed two streams of water, the branches ofOrdway's Creek, on which he saw a number of beaver dams succeeding each other in close order and extending as far up those streams as he could discover them in their course towards the mountains. - Lewis (Burroughs 1961, p. 110). March 25, 1826 (San Pedro River, Arizona) On the 25th we returned to Beaver river [San Pedro], and dug up the furs that we had buried, or cached as the phrase is, and concluded to ascend it, trapping towards its head .. . About six miles up the river we stopped to set our traps ... We pitched our camp near the bank of the river, in a thick grove of timber, extending about a hundred yards in width. Behind the timber was a narrow plain of about the same width, and still further on was a high hill, to which I repaired ... Immediately back of the hill I discovered a small lake, by the noise made by the ducks and geese in it. Looking more intently I remarked what gave me much more satisfaction, that is to say, three beaver lodges (Pattie 1831, p. 59). 206 Yet, it is not these earliest observations, but the later GLO surveys and the post-trapping expeditions into the Southwest that form our baseline image and understanding of the riparian ecology and stream character of the West prior to Euro-American settlement. The reliance on the GLO notes for baseline information on the geomorphic and ecological character of watersheds and imagery of pre-settlement conditions has embedded in it an unspoken assumption that "the public land surveys were carried forward in virgin territory - unexplored and unmapped - in advance of settlement (Clements 1985, p. 106)." However, trapping predated the GLO surveys by 20 to 40 years. While some researchers acknowledge the occurrence of beaver trapping in their area (Gregory and Moore 1931; Leopold 1951; Dobyns 1981; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984), in most cases (Dobyns is an exception) they treat beaver trapping as a local disturbance rather than one with regional significance. 207 The time between trapping and the later GLO surveys, and what it means for our use of the GLO notes, is worth examining. Systematic land surveys began in 1785 with the passage of the Land Ordinance. The first survey took place in Ohio in 1785 with subsequent GLO surveys proceeding westward in response to pending settlement (Clements 1985; White 1996). Yet even by 1785 the area east of the Missouri and lower Mississippi Rivers had been heavily trapped for at least 100 years (Phillips 1961 ), and beavers had ceased to be a dominant feature in the New England landscape as early as the late 1600s (Cronon 1983). West of the Missouri and lower Mississippi Rivers, trapping and the GLO surveys were more coincident in time but trapping still preceded the surveys by several decades (Table 13). In addition to the temporal differences between trapping and the GLO surveys, there is also the difference in their spatial geographies. The trappers followed non-linear streams in their search for beavers. In contrast, the GLO surveyors recorded information about the land and its resources along linear grid lines spaced one mile apart and focused on those areas being settled (Clements 1985). The GLO method thus missed capturing the broad residual stream-riparian patterns that might have set us to wonder about the impact of beavers and beaver trapping on stream ecosystems. A similar problem exists with the spatial geographies of the military and scientific expeditions that post-date trapping but pre-date Euro-American settlement in the West. These early expeditions, like the baseline GLO surveys, bypassed most of the headwater areas yet it is in the headwaters where beaver trapping would have had left its most visible mark, that being the shear abundance of failing dams. As previously mentioned, the early military 208 expeditions along the Gila River entered the drainage from southern New Mexico via the Lordsburg Plain (Leopold 1951 ). Observations of any pre-settlement channel incision on the tributaries to the Gila River were therefore restricted to the middle and lower Gila River (e.g. San Pedro River, the Santa Cruz River), while changes in upper Gila River (e.g. San Francisco River, East and West Forks of the Gila River) went unnoticed and unrecorded. All of these tributaries were trapped between 1826 and 1834 (Pattie 1831; Weber 1971). The observations of discontinuous arroyos on the San Pedro River in 1846 suggest that discontinuous arroyos and incised tributaries also existed on the San Francisco River, the East and West Forks of the Gila River and other tributaries to the Gila River. The Speed of Watershed Adjustment to the Loss of Beavers The lack of recognition regarding the influence of beaver trapping on the streams may be also be indicative of the speed at which fluvial systems of first through fourth- order streams adjusted to the widespread removal of beavers. With the loss of beavers, dams failed and were not repaired throughout countless tributary streams. Each failure contributed to further dam failures as knickpoint developed at the point of failure and migrated headward, creating channels that conveyed water more rapidly downstream. Tree-ring data from California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico indicate a period of above-average precipitation from 1835 to 1849 or shortly after extensive trapping ceased in the Southwest (Meko 1990; D'Arrigo and Jacoby 1991; Meko et al. 1991 ). Unusually large rainfalls or high spring runoff flood discharges have 209 been known to trigger abrupt beaver dam failures (Butler 1989; Kondolf et al. 1991; Meentemeyer and Butler 1999) suggesting that this period of above-average winter precipitation post-trapping likely accelerated the rates of dam failures and knickpoint migration. Discontinuous arroyos and incised tributary channels were observed in all these areas prior to Euro-American settlement (Table 13). A second period of above-average winter precipitation noted in the tree-ring data, and the one more commonly referenced, occurred from 1905 to 1920 or 1928 depending on the tree-ring chronology used (Meko 1990; D'Arrigo and Jacoby 1991). The 1905 to 1920/1928 interval is post-trapping, settlement, and livestock grazing, and also during the time interval when large floods widened many streams in the West (Burkham 1972; Cooke and Reeves 1976). Researchers studying Southwestern streams have focused on channel response to this second period of above-average precipitation as they sought a causal mechanism to explain both pre- and post-settlement changes in channel morphology and hydrology (Bryan 1928a; Burkham 1972; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Balling and Wells 1990). The publication of the tree-ring data identifying the earlier period of above-average precipitation post-dates these earlier publications and explains the absence of any analysis regarding how the period of above-average precipitation from 1835 to 1849 interval may have impacted channel morphology, hydrology, and drainage network development. 210 A Continued Presence The continued presence of beavers in the West may be another reason why the impact of beaver trapping on watershed hydrology, channel morphology, and stream ecosystem stability were not considered as causal mechanism to explain the pre- settlement discontinuous arroyos in the Southwest. Beavers had somewhat recovered from near extinction in the time between the intensive Euro-American trapping and subsequent exploration and settlement and were observed on the San Pedro River (Hastings and Turner 1965), the San Carlos River (Leopold 1951 ), the Little Colorado River (Colton 193 7), and on tributaries to the Santa Cruz River (Cooke and Reeves 1976) during the late 1840s and 1850s. Hastings and Turner (1965) noted that before the Civil War the San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers and their tributaries "wound sluggishly along for much of their course through grass-choked valleys dotted with cienagas and pools. In spite of the onslaught by the mountain men, beaver dams were still numerous, and as late as 1882 a settler on the San Pedro River could report that: "Our ditch was just above a beaver dam and if the water was low and we tried to irrigate at night the beaver would stop up our ditch so that the water would run into their dam. (Hastings and Turner 1965, p. 35)." If, however, the San Pedro River is representative of channel changes that post- date trapping, then considerable changes had indeed occurred since James Pattie trapped the river in 1826. Observations from the late 1840s and 1850s recorded discontinuous channels on the San Pedro (Cooke and Reeves 1976) and the following spacing of beaver dams in 1858: The San pedro river as they Call it-is a stream one foot deep six feet wide and runs a mile and half an hour and in ten minutes fishing we Could Catch as many fish as we Could use and about ever 5 miles is a beaver dam this is a great Country for them - (Hastings and Turner 1965, p. 35). 211 Frequent is in the eye of the beholder. Comparisons of the 5 mile (8 km) dam spacing on the San Pedro River with recent studies of drainage basins that contained relatively unexploited beaver populations found much closer dam spacing. Naiman et al (1986) found an average of 10.6 dams/km in their study of two drainage basins in Quebec. Naiman et al. (1988) found an average of 2.5 dams/km in their study of the Kabetogama Peninsula in Northern Minnesota. Both studies are further north and ecologically different than the San Pedro River, but they provide a point of comparison with the 8 km single-dam spacing noted on the San Pedro River in 1858. In addition, beaver densities in the present day average one to two colonies per mile on streams with suitable habitat and often two or three dams per colony (Olson and Hubert 1994). Based on Pattie's description of the San Pedro and the 200 beavers trapped in 1826 (Pattie 1831 ), it seems likely that the dam spacing on the San Pedro River was smaller and dams more abundant prior to trapping. When the GLO surveys and early military expeditions arrived in the West, the signature of a long-term beaver presence was still visible in the swamps, cienegas, wet meadows and narrow channels they recorded in their notes. However, research attention quickly focused on trying to understand the causes of pre- and post-settlement arroyos and incised channels because of the speed and magnitude of the post-settlement arroyo formation and its impact on settlements. As a result the significance of the odd juxtaposition of wetlands and recent channel incision in the pre-settlement period was left 212 unexamined. East of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, signature of a beaver influence was even less visible than in the West because the time interval between beaver trapping and the GLO surveys was greater. Trapping had been ongoing in some areas since the mid-l 500s (Phillips 1961 ). Therefore, while the hillslopes and valley floors remained well vegetated and runoff volumes unchanged at the time of the GLO surveys and subsequent settlement, the character of the drainage networks had undergone a transformation in response to the loss of beavers and subsequent dam failures. It was into this changing landscape that the field of geomorphology emerged in the 1870s. It was not, however, until the 1940s that fieldwork and quantification of field data took hold in the discipline (Morisawa 1985), and by then most streams in the lower 48 states had undergone multiple adjustments in channel morphology and hydrology in response to various land uses and climatic events. The baseline from which future fluvial geomorphologists would come to asses rates, magnitudes, and processes of channel change would consist of data collected at stream gages installed in the early 1900s, the GLO notes, and the post-trapping expeditions to the Southwest and Intermountain West. The contribution of beavers to stream ecosystems was already becoming a fragmented and fading influence by the 1850s when the GLO surveyors began collecting data in the West and by the 1940s it had become invisible. The continued presence of beavers and their perceived abundance fostered the impression that though locally important, their ecological and hydrologic significance at the watershed and regional scale was minimal because the settlers and early expeditions lacked information on pre-trapping numbers, distributions, and the appearance of stream 213 ecosystems. The speed of the dam failures, the linear methodology of the GLO surveys, and the geographies of the GLO and military surveys versus the trapping expeditions resulted in the beaver story going unnoticed at a time when their signature was still visible. However, the records from the GLO surveys ancl early expeditions contain a wealth of information. It is now time to reexamine those observations with beavers in mind and begin to integrate beavers and beaver trapping into our conceptual models of fluvial systems and their response to this massive disturbance. Implications for Pluvial Geomorphology The beaver-dominated conceptual model presented in this chapter had two parts. The model examined the processes and sequence of events that would occur in a watershed as beavers re-entered a drainage and established a long-term presence (Figure 29) and then as beavers disappeared from a drainage and dams failed and were not repaired (Figure 32). The conceptual model and the literature review suggest that the changes in the drainage network pattern and in the hydrologic behavior of stream ecosystems, as a result of beaver trapping, were probably much greater and more complex than previously thought. Trapping and dam failures were not simply events that led to localized channel widening, incising, and straightening but rather were events that transformed the appearance and hydrologic behavior of drainage networks. The combination of the beaver-dominated conceptual model and the summary of historical Euro-American land uses (Table 14) present an opportunity to reexamine the 214 underpinnings of fluvial geomorphology and some of its many facets. Other implications will suggest themselves to the readers that are worthy of further investigation. The Role of Beavers in Wetland Development in Southwestern Fluvial Systems Prior to Euro-American Settlement The early military and scientific expeditions and GLO surveys observed wetlands, wet meadows and ponds in the Southwest and Colorado Plateau prior to Euro-American grazing and settlement ( Gregory 1917; Gregory and Moore 1931; Leopold 1951; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). Several factors contributed to their presence: 1) the existence of local geologic, geomorphic or biologic features that determine groundwater intersects the surface (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984) and 2) check dams built by Native Peoples (Reagan 1924). A third contributor, and one briefly mentioned by Hendrickson and Minckley (1984), is beaver dams. The factors leading to wetland development are discussed below and beavers placed within the context of the other causes. Hendrickson and Minckley (1984) found that cienegas (mid-elevation wetlands characterized by permanently saturated, highly organic reducing soils) occurred where 1) groundwater intersected the surface, 2) discharges were stable, and 3) flood peaks were low thus minimizing the potential for scouring flows and channel incision. The features they identified causing groundwater to intersect the surface included upfaulted bedrock, changes in base level of the receiving stream, stream impoundments by landslides, and the development of a concave-convex profile. In their discussion of the concave-convex 215 profile they identified two mechanisms leading to profile development: the deposition of coarse sediments and the placement of beaver dams along the stream (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). While Hendrickson and Minckley (1984) consider beaver dams as a mechanism for creating the concave-convex profile and contributing to the formation of cienegas, it is only briefly mentioned. However, the influence of beaver dams extends beyond simply the creation of the profile. Like landslides, beaver dams also impound streams, though on a smaller scale, raise the base level of the channel bed as they pond water and trap sediment, and provide a local base-level control. Though not as stable as bedrock, as long as beavers are present in the system to repair the dams, the dams will operate as a "continuously renewed, erosionally resistant substrate (Parker et al. 1985)." The potential contribution of beavers to cienega development is most visible on San Pedro River in southern Arizona. Here beavers, beaver trapping, abundant cienegas, and discontinuous arroyos were contemporaneous in time and space. The San Pedro River was trapped during the period from 1826 to 1834 (Pattie 1831; Weber 1971). James Pattie, a beaver trapper, and his party found beavers so abundant that they named the river the Beaver River and took 200 beavers in 1826 (Pattie 1831 ). His descriptions of the river and surrounding landscape indicate a water-lush environment. Twelve to 20 years later (1846), disconttnuous arroyos were noted on the San Pedro along with large cienegas (Hastings and Turner 1965; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). With the loss of beavers from the river the dams would have ceased to act as "continuously renewed, erosionally resistant substrate" akin to bedrock becoming instead points of base-level drop and knickpoint initiation. The connection between 216 beaver trapping and the development of discontinuous arroyos will be discussed in depth in the next section. In evaluating the potential contribution of beavers to wetland development in the Southwest, the two other requirements for their development were examined: stable discharge and low flood peaks. Both requirements are met in the presence of intact and maintained beaver dams. The beaver ponds that develop behind the dams stabilize surface discharges and decrease flood peaks largely by decreasing available channel capacity resulting in more rapid access of flood waters to the valley floor during times of high runoff where detention storage and roughness are greater. The contribution of subsurface water to stabilizing stream flows can be considerable and in a few places large ponds in the headwaters have been observed to effectively dampen the effects of both large runoff events and prolonged drought (Grasse and Putman 1956). The contribution of Native Peoples has also been suggested. Reagan (1924) observed that "Every side-wash, canyon and flat had its village or villages, its dams, ditches and reservoirs, as is readily seen by examining the region (Reagan 1924; p. 341)." He argued that irrigation systems and check dams built by Native Peoples were responsible for the development of ponds, wetlands, and aggrading surfaces. The loss of Native Peoples due to contact with Euro-American diseases and conflicts would have led to dam failures, nomepair, and channel incision. One point of interest is that Reagan's (1924) description of dam heights, composition and locations of the check dams is similar to characteristics of beaver dams. The dams were made of earth and about 1. 5 m tall and, like beaver dams, the check dams would have required constant maintenance. It is 217 possible, therefore, that some of the dams he attributed to being built by Native Peoples were beaver dams. This is probable given the wide distribution of beavers in the West prior to Euro-American trapping. In conclusion, cienegas, wet meadows, and the ponds observed in the Southwest prior to Euro-American settlement developed from multiple causes, beaver activity one important factor in their development and stability. Present day studies show that beaver activity can rapidly lead to the development of wetlands and introduce stability into fluvial system capable ofresisting short-term climatic variability (Bailey 1936; Ruedemann and Schoonmaker 1936; Apple et al. 1984; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984; Naiman et al. 1988; Johnson and Niaman 1990) suggesting that their contribution to wetland development prior to trapping was much greater than previously thought. Beaver Trapping as a Mechanism Leading to the Development of Discontinuous Arroyos and Incised Tributary Streams Prior to Euro-American Settlement The prior section discussed the potential contribution of beavers to the development of extensive cienegas/wetlands in the Southwest and Intermountain West. However, in addition to observing cienegas/wetlands and ponds, the early military and scientific expeditions and GLO surveys also observed discontinuous arroyos and incised channels that pre-date Euro-American livestock grazing and settlement (Dellenbaugh 1912; Bryan1928a; Bull 1964; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Balling and Wells 1990, Table 13), some of which occurred just downstream of cienegas. This section explores the question of arroyo formation and as well as the juxtaposition of cienegas and arroyos in 218 the context of beaver trapping and subsequent dam failures. The influence of the large livestock herds of Spanish and Mexicans in the Southwest from 1750 to 1825 on channel morphology is discussed in Chapter 4. Prior to about 1865 observations of arroyos by Euro-Americans were few in number and their scattered geographic distribution has been interpreted as indicting that they were rare and insignificant prior to Euro-American settlement and grazing (Cooke and Reeves 1976). I suggest another explanation for the apparent scarcity of these features. I suggest that, rather than a rare occurrence, the early military and scientific expeditions and GLO surveys simply missed those areas where arroyos and entrenched tributaries were relatively abundant. The influence of beavers on channel morphology and drainage network characteristics would have been greatest in the upper watershed prior to trapping and the impact of trapping would have also been greatest. These areas were not, however, the areas initially explored by the GLO surveys or early military expeditions. For example, the Gila River watershed was trapped between 1826 and 1834 and specific references are made to removing beavers from the San Pedro and San Francisco Rivers, the West and East Forks of the Gila River, and the lower Gila (Pattie 1831; Weber 1971 ). However, when the early military expeditions (1848 to 1852) entered the Gila River drainage they did so from southern New Mexico via the Lordsburg Plain (Leopold 1951 ), thereby restricting observations of pre-settlement channel incision to the middle and lower tributaries to the Gila River. The observation of discontinuous entrenchment on the San Pedro River in 1846, a lower tributary to the Gila River and trapped, suggests that 219 discontinuous arroyos and tributary entrenchment would have existed on the West and East Forks of the Gila River, San Francisco River and other headwater tributaries. As these streams were not explored, any evidence of recent incision went unrecorded. The baseline GLO survey in Oregon is another good example of how location and timing influence what is observed and recorded. The baseline GLO survey for Oregon occurred in 1851 in the Willamette Valley area (White 1996), while the Crooked River area in eastern Oregon was not surveyed until 1876 (Buckley 1992) or about 50 years after the streams of the Crooked River drainage had been trapped. Beaver dams are mentioned in early trapper journals and in the military journals of 1858. They are not mentioned in the GLO survey notes of 1876, though there is frequent reference to swampy areas and wet meadows (Buckley 1992), the signature of past beaver activity. Other examples comparing the timing of the early expeditions, GLO surveys, and beaver trapping are presented in Table 13. The GLO surveys post-dated beaver trapping everywhere as well as activities such as the California gold rush and non-Euro-American settlement along the Rio Grande River valley in New Mexico. Baseline surveys were site-specific, focusing first on those areas that were about to be settled or in the process of being settled by Euro-Americans (White 1996) leaving large portions of each state unsurveyed until sometime later (Clements 1985). By the 1860's, the surveys had been extended across the Mississippi and embraced practically all of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, and southern Minnesota; ... large areas in California and Oregon had been surveyed to accommodate the settlement following the gold rush of 1849 and the migration to the Oregon Territory. The map accompanying the report of 1865 shows surveys in eastern Kansas and Nebraska and along the old Santa Fe Trail in New Mexico in advance of settlement in that area. That map also shows limited surveys in Utah to accommodate the influx of Mormons. Vast areas comprising the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, much of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and all of Oklahoma (then Indian Territory) and Arizona were entirely unsurveyed at this time (Clement 19.85, p. 106). 220 This limited exploration prior to Euro-American settlement and grazing resulted in what Graf (1984) refers to as a "spatial bias." He sees this bias as "a major hazard in geomorphic theory development because of the relatively small size of the geomorphic research community." The limited number ofresearchers means that "individual scientists can affect the development of theory with relatively few publications, and therefore the field origins [ emphasis addedJ of those few publications [ or observations] assume disproportionate importance (Graf 1984, p. 78)." The assignment of disproportionate importance has indeed occurred in the case of the scattered pre- settlement arroyos and tributary entrenchments. Their presence has been central to the debate about whether Euro-American livestock grazing or climate change or variability was the dominant causal mechanism leading to widespread arroyo development after Euro-American settlement (Cooke and Reeves 1976). The presence of pre-historic arroyos (Love 1979; Balling and Wells 1990) and the pre-settlement, but clearly recently formed an-oyos, has led some to suggest that climate was the dominant causal mechanism and Euro-American livestock grazing merely a "trigger pull which timed a change about to take place. (Bryanl 928a, p. 281 ). " These pre-settlement arroyos have also be used as evidence of the sensitivity of Southwestern streams to climatic variability. Yet when one considers the temporal and spatial distribution of the early expeditions and GLO surveys with respect to beaver trapping, different conclusions emerge regarding the fluvial and ecological significance of those early observations and the stability of the fluvial systems. 221 Cooke and Reeves (1976) provide an excellent conceptual model of the various morphological, biological, and climatic random frequency-magnitude events that could have led to isolated arroyo formation in pre-Euro-American settlement times. They do not however, include beaver trapping and dam failures as a potential causal mechanism leading to channel entrenchment in their model. One intriguing spatial relationship they note that is suggestive of a beaver influence is the presence of discontinuous arroyos downstream of cienegas in southern Arizona. They considered whether the incisions downstream of the cienegas were the result of a slightly steeper valley slope downstream of the cienegas but concluded that the evidence of a cause and effect relationship was inconclusive. They offered no other explanation for the pattern. However, the abrupt reduction in beaver activity and dam maintenance would explain the spatial relationship. The juxtaposition of the cienegas (indicative of stable fluvial systems) and arroyos (indicative of unstable or destabilizing fluvial systems) would occur in a watershed recently depopulated of beavers (Figure 32) after a long-term presence (Figure 29). The long-term beaver presence would result in the development of stable and extensive wetlands (Ruedemann and Schoonmaker 1938; Henderickson and Minckley 1984; Naiman et al. 1986; 1988). The greater resistance of the cienegas to incision, compared to the valley-fill sediment or dam sediments, would effectively halt the headward migration of a knick.point generated by a base-level drop downstream, due perhaps to dam failure. The result would be the development of the observed spatially separated or discontinuous zones of erosion. Discontinuous arroyos occurred downstream of cienegas on the San Pedro River and on the Santa Cruz River and some of 222 its tributaries. Both rivers were trapped between 1826 and 1834. The next observation is not occur until the late 1840s and early 1850s. As Table 12 shows, 12 to 20 years is plenty of time for substantial channel incision, widening and headward migration to occur. Other places where pre-Euro-American tributary incisions, headcutting, and arroyos have been observed, though not in conjunction with cienegas, are on the Colorado Plateau, the Zuni River in Arizona, the Rio Puerco in New Mexico, and the Diablo Mountains in California. In the early 1870s, Dellenbaugh (1912) noted earth- cliffs bordering unnamed tributaries in the Colorado River area that were 9 to 12 meters high. He stated that Euro-American livestock grazing had not yet reached this area and suggested that the tributaries were responding to a drop in base level on the main stem that had occurred for some unknown reason. The Colorado Plateau had been trapped in the 1820s and perhaps as late as the 1840s (Phillips 1961 ), and Dellenbaugh' s observations (30 to 50 years later) are consistent with beaver-dam failures on the main stem triggering multiple points of base-level lowering. Drops in the base level of the main stem would have set in motion tributary entrenchment with the initiation point at the confluence between the main stem and the tributary stream (Schumm et al. 1984). The Zuni River is a special case because documentation exists of arroyos that pre- date both Spanish and Euro-American activity. These early arroyos date from about 1680 and tree-ring dates indicate that the Zuni River had eroded to its present level by 1776 when Fray Dominguez observed an arroyo adjacent to the Zuni Pueblo as well as arroyos upstream of the pueblo (Balling and Wells 1990). Balling and Wells (1990) analyzed the 223 morphology and potential causes of arroyo formation in this area using modern precipitation records and post-settlement arroyo development and identified links between arroyo formation and changes in local precipitation patterns, particularly precipitation intensities. However, several factors suggest that their link between arroyo formation and changes in local precipitation bears further consideration. First, variability in precipitation patterns and intensities are the norm for the Southwest (D' Arrigo and Jacoby 1991; Meko et al. 1991). Second, these early arroyos occurred in the vicinity of a pueblo. Native Peoples may have deliberately or unintentionally altered some feature of the landscape that caused the initiation of arroyos, such as the failure of a check dam. Third, there may have been a change in beaver activity due to disease, fluctuations in flood supply, or reductions in numbers by Native Peoples that resulted in dam failures and the initiation of arroyo formation. Finally, the transfer of modern relationships between arroyo formation and changes in precipitation patterns back to pre-Euro- American settlement times ignores the fact that the current relationships are occurring on highly altered and disturbed systems. Consequently, linking arroyo formation to climatic variability as the cause of the arroyo formation in 1600s is more fraught with ambiguity than previously considered. The role of beaver-dam failures in the arroyo formation in the 1600s is uncertain, but becomes a more probable contributor in the mid-1800s. The majority of the observations identifying arroyos that pre-date Euro-American grazing and settlement arroyos in the Zuni River area begin in 1849. The 1849 observation describes incised channels in the tributaries and main valley of the Zuni River. Based on the summary 224 provided by Balling and Wells (1990), arroyos expanded in range after 1849. Beaver trapping post-dates these observations. The Zuni River is a tributary to the Little Colorado River, a river basin that was trapped for beavers in the 1820s and 1830s (Gregory and Moore 1931; Phillips 1961 ). References exist of beaver lodges in 1852 located slightly upstream from the town of Holbrook, or located about 58 linear kilometers downstream of the confluence of the Zuni River and the Little Colorado River. Beaver also were noted as abundant in places along the Little Colorado River in the 1880s (Colton 1937). In addition, the 1852 expedition observed a beaver dam on the Zuni River below the village of Zuni in an area that is now a dry wash. I observed in but one place a few populars (populus augustifolia,) and near these trees was a beaver-dam, in which was growing cat-tail (Leopold 1951 citing Stigreaves 1853). While this quote suggests that the observation of populars and beaver dams in this area may have been a rare sight in 1852, it indicates that beavers were or had been present in the area. The loss of beavers would have made streams more susceptible to channelization during the period of above-average precipitation from 1835 to 1849 (Meko 1990; D 'Arrigo and Jaco by 1991 ; Meko et al. 1991) that pre-dates Euro-American settlement and grazing. As the arroyos dating from the late 1600s to mid-l 700s are few, a localized loss of beavers from select drainages or changes as a result of Native Peoples' land use practices are other viable explanations in addition to the proposed climate-driven explanation. 225 The above discussion highlights the importance of considering the temporal and spatial location of the GLO and early military and scientific explorations as they pertain to the observations of discontinuous arroyos and entrenched tributaries that pre-date Euro-American settlement and livestock grazing, and later interpretations of their fluvial and ecological significance. Based on a comparison of their timing of beaver trapping and the early observations of pre-settlement arroyos, I suggest that primary cause of the pre-settlement entrenchment was the loss of beavers due to trapping and the subsequent dam failures, augmented to some degree by climatic factors. I conclude this section with an observation from Cooke and Reeves (1976) at the end of their book Arroyos and Environmental Change in the American South-West. "The final conclusion from this brief comparison is perhaps the simplest and most obvious: apparently similar arroyos can be formed in different areas as a result of different combinations of initial conditions and environmental changes. (Cooke and Reeves 1976, 189)." The addition of beaver trapping to the list of Euro-American disturbances and the recognition of its timing adds another piece to the story and provides a very plausible explanation for presence of active arroyo formation just prior to Euro-American grazing and settlement. 226 Explaining the Absence of Arroyo Formation from 1750 to 1825 Despite Large Herds of Spanish and Mexican Livestock The relative contributions of livestock grazing versus climate in causing widespread arroyo formation in the Southwest post-Euro-American settlement has been debated for nearly three quarters of a century. One reason that climate has been considered the overriding control on arroyo formation, and livestock simply the trigger, is that large livestock herds have existed twice in the Southwest (1750 to 1825 and 1870 to 1905) but a period of extensive arroyo formation occurred only once and that during the latter period (Cooke and Reeves 1976; Denevan 1967). Both periods had below-normal seasonal precipitation. Possible explanations for this discrepancy in landscape response to livestock grazing include 1) a gradual, long-period of change in climate that altered vegetation to a point where watersheds in the late 1800s were more sensitive to livestock grazing, 2) the coincidence in time of the overstocking of the range and severe summer drought in the late 1800s but not in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and 3) some combination of the two (Denevan 1967; Cooke and Reeves 1976). The discrepancy in landscape response to the two periods of large-scale grazing could also be explained by that fact that beavers were abundant in the late 1700s and early 1800s, but largely absent by the late 1800s due to Euro-American trapping in the 1820s and 1830s. In other words, the Spanish and Mexican sheep and cattle pre-date Euro-American beaver trapping while the Euro-American cattle herds post-date trapping. The presence of abundant beavers during the time of Spanish and Mexican settlement and sheep and cattle grazing would have mitigated any potential impact as a 227 result of increased runoff. The dams would have kept channel capacities low and effectively captured the increased runoff and distributed it onto the valley floor where its erosive power was less. Wetlands would have provided stability to the fluvial systems in the presence of both drought and heavy rainfall (Bailey 1936; Grasse and Putman 1950; Hendrickson and Minckley 1984; Johnson and Naiman 1990; Hillman 1998). When dams failures did occur, they were rapidly repaired, preventing the development of permanent discontinuous arroyos or a channelized drainage network in this pre-trapping period despite heavy sheep and cattle grazing. With the removal of beavers, these compensating mechanisms would have been lost and dam failures and nomepair would have set in motion channelization into the fine sediment trapped behind the dams. When the large Euro-American livestock herd arrived in the 1870s the buffering effect of beavers and intact beaver dams was gone and the increased runoff and decreased stream bank resistance to erosion that occurred in this second period of overgrazing and settlement resulted in the development of extensive arroyos. Areas for Future Research The conceptual model and supporting research presented in this chapter indicates that beavers and beaver trapping likely had a major influence on the character and stability of stream and riparian ecosystems. Additional research is needed however to verify the model and in the process improve our understanding of the connections between beavers, streams, riparian zones, and fisheries and wildlife populations as well as the time scales required for stream and riparian restoration and the factors limiting that 228 restoration. Some areas for future research include examining how abundant beaver dams distributed throughout watersheds alter the storm hydrographs, local hydrology and stream-riparian ecosystems locally and along the drainage. Umaveling their real rather than their hypothetical impact on stream hydrology will likely required approaching the questions from two different, but complimentary avenues. First, the hydrologic impact of beavers on stream hydrology can be explored by modeling flood peak responses to abundant beaver dams. The modeling would expand on Beedle's (1991) study by examining how flood peaks change if valley floor storage is incorporated into the model. Beedle ( 1991) only considered the impact of pond storage on flood peaks, but reductions in peak flows have been considerable when flood flows access their valley floors (Campbell et al. 1972; Shankman and Pugh 1992; Hillman 1998). The second approach involves the selection of permanent study reaches and long- term monitoring of beaver-induced changes to stream-riparian ecosystems as beavers enter a system and expand their range. Paired watershed experiments could be set up in which beaver are reintroduced into one of the watershed. Stream gages would be established to record a variety of storm hydro graphs under the two scenarios. One limitation of this approach is that beavers tend to migrate and could easily end up in the control watershed. Therefore, another approach would be to select paired watersheds with good baseline hydro graphs and then re-establish beavers in both. · In both scenarios, changes in the distributions of beaver dams need to be monitored in order to identify the threshold, storm conditions, and drainage areas under which their influence on the stream hydrographs become visible. 229 Another research area is to explore how quickly beavers can hydrologically reconnect and stabilize fragmented and degraded stream-riparian-valley-floor ecosystems in lower-order streams. Features of interest would be rates and locations of valley water- table rises, changes in the frequency of valley-floor flooding and its impact on storm hydrographs, changes in valley-floor vegetation communities, and the degree to which stream and riparian sensitivity to climatic variability decreases. Because many of the stream and riparian ecosystems are fragmented and lacking in willows, cottonwoods, and aspen, tracking the changes would help identify the factors limiting the successful reintroduction of beavers and the maintenance of their populations. In the process, we would develop strategies for circumventing the lack of vegetation, such as those used by Apple et al. (1984) in Wyoming. In their study they jumpstarted the restoration process by initially supplying beavers with the vegetation needed to build their dams until the willow population had expanded sufficiently to meet their needs. A final area of research would to be to quantify the contribution of beavers to stream restoration in post-fire environments. The fires in summer 2000 in the Intermountain West may be indicating what lies ahead as global climate change and past land-use practices begin to converge. As fires of this magnitude will occur again, it is critical that we evaluate post-fire treatments as they relate to streams and fisheries habitat and identify which treatments yield the quickest and best restoration results. Large-scale fire tends to result in a period of accelerated sediment erosion ( e.g. multiple debris/mud flows and hillslope erosion) in the steeper watersheds. A major concern is the potential timing, magnitude, and distribution of these sediment inputs into 230 streams that contain endangered and threatened fisheries. A large number of streams could be affected simultaneously and numerous fisheries wiped out. As most low- gradient streams are not ecologically healthy or functioning properly because of past channel incision and/or widening, these ecosystems are particularly sensitive to large- scale disturbances. Prior attempts at riparian and fisheries-habitat restoration have been only marginally successful because the importance of the stream and valley floor hydrologic connection has been ignored and factors limiting its reconnection have not been addressed. The ability to reconnect hydrologically streams to their valley floor is cmTently limited by 1) the lack of sediment needed to build banks and narrow the channel, 2) the lack of mechanisms capable of trapping and storing sediment in an ecologically and financially sustainable manner, and 3) continued beaver trapping and livestock grazing. The post-fire erosion that is anticipated after events such as the fires in Montana in 2000 offers an opportunity to restore the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connection by using beaver dams to trap and store the anticipated influx of large volumes of sediment. If beavers are used in conjunction with other watershed and land-use treatments, beavers can enhance fisheries restoration and help mitigate the impact of accelerated post-fire erosion by providing sediment detention reservoirs for fine sediment that would otherwise be flushed through the system or cover spawning gravels. The study would compare the effectiveness of beavers against other watershed and riparian treatments in addressing the sediment erosion problem, accelerating the long-term ecological restoration of the entire stream-riparian system, and minimizing fisheries impacts. Such a 231 study would provide land managers the information they need to plan effectively when faces with future post-fire conditions. In conclusion, this two-pronged approach towards identifying beaver influences on watershed characteristics (modeling and long-term field studies) would further illuminate how Euro-American trapping altered watersheds throughout North America, the magnitude of that alteration, and its long-term implications for fluvial geomorphology and streams and riparian ecosystems. Conclusions In this chapter I presented a conceptual model of the geomorphic, hydro logic, and vegetative effects of beavers and beaver trapping on fluvial systems based on a literature review and my own fieldwork. Beaver trapping by Euro-Americans was a regional disturbance similar to grazing, logging, and agriculture. Cause and effect were, however, reversed. Beaver trapping and dam failures lea to channel incision and eventually changes in vegetation communities and stream hydrographs. Grazing, logging, and agriculture on the other hand altered vegetation that led to increased runoff, decreased resistance of sediments to erosion, increased stream discharges, and eventually channel incision. This distinction is critical when interpreting historic landscapes that post-date trapping, but pre-date grazing, logging and other settlement activities. In this way my model adds to the Cooke and Reeves (1976) conceptual model of arroyo formation by describing the processes and sequence of events that occurred in watersheds prior to where their model begins, but still as a result of Euro-American disturbance. 232 The model provides a possible explanation for the discontinuous channels (beaver trapping) and wetlands (long-term beaver presence) observed by many of the early expeditions in the 1840s and 1850s in the Southwest that pre-date grazing. A long-term presence of beavers in these watersheds would have contributed to the development of abundant wetlands and complex vegetation communities. Euro-American beaver trapping led to dam failures and to the creation of multiple knickpoints in the drainage. Erosion of the fine sediment, once trapped behind the dams, led to channel formation while wetlands and bedrock outcrops resisted erosion and prevented the development of integrated channelized drainage networks, at least until Euro-American livestock grazing appeared on the landscape. The tributary incisions observed at confluences with other streams reflected tributary adjustments to the lowered base level on the main stem as a knickpoint triggered at a dam failure migrated past the confluence. The development of channelized flow set in motion local and regional feedback loops that decreased the distribution and abundance of water in watersheds as dams failed, ponds drained, and the valley groundwater table began to drain into the new channels. Locally, vegetation communities in the channelized reaches probably shifted to more drought-tolerant vegetation as water tables dropped and the frequency of valley- floor :flooding decreased. Where wetlands existed, however, the changes were probably minimal as current research indicates that wetlands can have a long residence time on the landscape when left undisturbed by human activity (Ruedemann and Schoonmaker 1938; Ives 1942; Naiman et al. 1988). As channelization of the drainage network increased, water would have been transferred more rapidly from the upper to lower watershed 233 leading to increased flood magnitudes with greater frequencies. The speed of that transfer, and its impact on flood magnitudes downstream, would have varied as a function of the location and size of the unmodified reaches (Campbell et al. 1972; Hillman 1998). Thus overall, increases in flood magnitudes and frequencies may have remained overall small (Campbell et al. 1972; Schumm et al. 1984; Shankman and Pugh 1992; Hillman 1998) prior to the advent of Euro-American livestock grazing and logging, though local areas would have occasionally experienced unusually large flows as dams abruptly failed in response to large storm events (Butler 1989; Kondolf et al., 1991; Meentemeyer and Butler 1999) or from other unknown causes not related to precipitation events (Hillman 1998). The model presented here reveals several limits in our understanding of fluvial systems and demonstrates the importance of taking a longer historic and geographic perspective. The notes of the GLO surveyors and later expeditions have been our principle baseline for interpreting and quantifying landscape changes pre- and post- settlement (Bryan 1928a; Leopold 1951; Bull 1964; Hastings and Turner 1965; Burkham 1972; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Knox 1977). Because these observations post-date beaver trapping by 20 to more than 100 years, we have missed the contributions of beavers and beaver trapping on the development of current drainage network patterns and stream ecosystems, and therefore a potential causal mechanism that can explain the discontinuous channels, incised tributaries, and wetlands observed prior to Euro- American settlement. As a result of their missed presence in our analysis of fluvial systems, it would appear that we have overstated the sensitivity of stream-riparian 234 ecosystems in arid and semi-arid regions to climatic variability. Similarly, we have not recognized that the sensitivity to climatic variability is probably more a post-trapping and post-grazing phenomena rather than an inherent feature of functioning Southwestern streams. In conclusion, fluvial geomorphologists can play a critical role in advancing the science of stream ecosystem restoration by beginning to incorporate beavers into our conceptual and empirical models of fluvial systems and making explicit the links between stream-riparian restoration and beaver reintroductions and how beavers, vegetation, and channel morphology interact in time and space to create ecosystems. By linking fluvial geomorphology with biology and ecology, we will begin to better understand the complexity of these systems. By including beavers and beaver trapping in our models and research we should be able to explain certain features of the historical landscape whose causes have remained elusive and to improve our success rate when attempting ecosystem restoration. 235 CHAPTER IV IMPLICATIONS FOR FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY Introduction Fluvial geomorphologists are in a unique position to make explicit the links between historical and recent channel changes, current rates and processes of stream- riparian restoration, and how human disturbances have interacted synergistically to destabilize landscapes. By linking fluvial geomorphology with biology, ecology, and human disturbance the complexity of fluvial systems becomes better represented and more understandable, and the ability to predict future channel changes improves. A more integrated approach has the potential to explain certain features of the historical landscape whose causes have remained elusive and to improve our success rate when attempting ecosystem restoration. Two large-scale Euro-American disturbances that influence current and historic channel morphology and watershed hydrology are Euro-American beaver trapping and livestock grazing and were discussed in chapters 2 and 3. These chapters revealed the importance of placing conceptual models, current channel changes, and any comparison of past and present changes into as broad a historical context as possible. Two implications of placing those models, relationships, and changes in a historical context are discussed below. Placing Current Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Fluvial Concepts in their Historical Context 236 Leopold and Maddock's (1953) hydraulic geometry relations have been a cornerstone of fluvial geomorphology and a starting point for refinements to those relationships. However, 70 to 250 years exist between the period of extensive beaver trapping and the installation of the stream gages used by Leopold and Maddock (1953) to determine their hydraulic geometry relationships (Figure 27). The result was probably some increase in downstream flood magnitudes as upper watersheds became more channelized. A second wave of Euro-American disturbances (i.e. large-scale grazing, settlement, mining, agriculture, and logging) furthered altered watershed hydrology and channel morphology (Table 14). Thus when the current conceptual models of fluvial systems (Love 1979; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Knighton 1998) and hydraulic geometry relationships (Leopold and Maddock 1953; Knighton 1998) are placed in their historical context, the models and relationships are revealed to describe processes, relationships, and rates of change that reflect highly altered and degraded fluvial systems. The watersheds they describe are devoid of the stabilizing influences of beavers and abundant watershed vegetation in the upper watersheds ( < 5th order streams) and abundant stream and valley floor vegetation, complex, multi-channeled streams, and hydrologically connected stream and valley floors in the lower watersheds. Instead, the relationships and models capture channelized watersheds in which the streams are largely single- thread, entrenched and wide, have minimal stream bank vegetation, and are hydrologically disconnected from their valley floors. Recognition of the above, and the 237 results and analyses presented in Chapters 2 and 3, leads to two questions that have implications for how we interpret current and historic channel changes and predict future channel changes. 1. Is the sensitivity of streams and riparian areas to climatic variability in the arid and semi-arid West a real feature of these systems or simply an artifact of historic Euro-American disturbances? 2. How does incorporating Euro-American beaver trapping and livestock grazing into our examination of large-scale historic channel widening alter our analysis of cause-and-effect relationships? Stream and Riparian Zone Sensitivity to Climatic Variability -- A Reality or an Artifact of Euro-American Disturbances? The question of whether the current sensitivity of Southwestern streams to climatic variability is an inherent characteristic of arid and semi-arid streams or an artifact of Euro-American disturbance was discussed briefly in Chapter 3. The apparent sensitivity of Southwestern streams to climatic variability is based on the following events and observations: 1. modern-day channel responses to climatic variability in this region, 2. the occurrence of major channel widening in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the Southwest (Burkham 1972; Cooke and Reeves 1976) coincident in time with the most abrupt shift from severe sustained drought to above-average precipitation in the last 1000 years (D 'Arrigo and Jacoby 1991; Meko et al. 1991) 238 3. the presence of discontinuous arroyos and incised tributaries in the Southwest and on the Colorado Plateau prior to Euro-American settlement and grazing (Dellenbaugh 1912; Bryan 1928a; Bull 1964; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Balling and Wells 1990), 4. the existence of two periods oflarge livestock herds in the Southwest -- the Spanish and Mexican herds in 1750 to 1825 and the Euro-American herds in 1870 to 1905 (Cooke and Reeves 1976; Denevan 1967), but only one period of arroyo formation and that during the later period, and 5. the presence of pre-historic cut-and-fill sequences, many of which show multiple periods of wet meadow development and/or valley-floor aggradation ( Gregory 191 7; Cottam and Stewart 1940; Love 197 6). Recent tree-ring studies have begun to provide information on pre-settlement climatic variability that helps place climate over the last 150 years into a broader and longer-term context. A review of the tree-ring research indicates that shifts in the abundance of precipitation have been the norm for the Southwest and Intermountain West over the last 1000 years (D' Arrigo and Jacoby 1991; Meko et al. 1991) (Figure 36). D' Arrigo and Jacoby (1991) identified five periods of substantial drought and five periods of above-average winter precipitation over the last 1000 years in tree-ring data from northern New Mexico. The droughts varied in length from nine to 21 years and the periods of above-average precipitation ranged from 11 to 23 years. Of the five droughts, 239 RECONSTRUCTED NORTHWESTERN PU\ TEAU, NIEW MEXICO . NOVEMBER-MAY PRECIPITATION 25 20 U) a: 1 5 ~ ~ F di 1 0 0 5 0 900 1 1 0 0 1300 1500 1700 1900 YEARS Figure 36. Reconstruction of November to May precipitation for the Northwestern Plateau Climatic Division of New Mexico for AD 985-1970; year-to-year values. Figure and text from D' Arrigo and Jacoby 1990, p. 98. 240 the drought that occurred in the Southwest from 1895 to 1904 (9 years) was third in severity and length after the droughts of 1577 to 1598 (21 years) and 1955 to 1964 (9 years). Of the five periods of above-average precipitation, the interval from 1905 to 1928 (23 years) was second in magnitude after the 1835 to 1849 period (14 years). Therefore, neither the drought nor the above-average precipitation in the late 1800s and early 1900s is unique over the last 1000 years. The abruptness of the shift from severe sustained drought to above-average precipitation in the early 1900s, however, is unique (D 'Arrigo and Jacoby 1991 ). This combination of climatic events has suggested to some that Southwestern streams are particularly sensitive to climatic variability and that climate was sufficient to explained the channel widening, drainage network expansion, and increased flood frequencies and magnitudes that occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Even those who consider overgrazing by Euro-American cattle as the driving force consider climate an integral part of the story (Cooke and Reeves 1976). My results and analyses suggest, however, that the apparent stream sensitivity to short-term climatic variability (10 to 30 years) in the Southwest and Intermountain West is a recent development, and is the direct result of the removal of beavers and upland and valley floor vegetation -- features that imparted considerable stability fluvial systems. Evidence supporting the contribution of beavers in creating and maintaining stream and riparian stability comes from published studies. These studies document the effectiveness of large ponds in mitigating the effects of drought and floods on stream flow (Grasse and Putman 1950), the continued presence of wetlands, wet meadows, and stream flow during periods of drought (Bailey 1936; Schaffer 1940), and the long 241 residence times of wetlands across a range of climatic regions in the absence of human disturbance (Ruedemann and Schoonmaker 1938 (New York); Ives 1942 (Colorado); Hendrickson and Minckley 1984 (southern Arizona); Naiman et al. 1986 (Quebec); Johnson and Naiman 1990 (Minnesota)). Cooke and Reeves (1976) provide an excellent discussion of the various hypotheses and evidence used to explain arroyo formation. However, they did not consider the impact of rapid reductions in beaver numbers on channel stability, nor did others examining the causes of arroyo formation (Bryan 1928a, b; Bull 1964; Hastings and Turner 1965; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Bull 1997). Under the scenario of 1) increased channelization in the upper watershed as a result of beaver dam failures and nonrepair (Figure 32, Chapter 3), and 2) large reductions in riparian and upland vegetation due to livestock grazing, even a minor precipitation event could initiate a large flood and trigger channel incision or widening. Schumm (1973) captured the increased potential for destabilization over time in his conceptual model of thresholds in geomorphic systems (Figure 37). In his model, valley-floor slope was his variable of interest. However, the concept of decreasing stability and thresholds of change applies to a range of geomorphic features, including channel width - the factors causing destabilization simply varying as a function of feature examined. In Schumm's (1973) case, as the valley-floor slope steepens the slope becomes increasingly unstable and the magnitude of the flood required to initiate channel incision decreases. The result is an increase in the number of potential destabilizing events and therefore the increased probability that channel incision will occur. While a large flood is the apparent cause of incision in his example, the incision could have occurred at lower discharge (Figure 37). 242 Changes in stream-channel stability can easily be substituted for valley-floor stability. The result of increasing instability and therefore greater sensitivity to climatic variability or flooding is the same -- channel widening and incision -- but the causes of increased instability are different. In the case of stream channels the increased instability occurred because trapping, livestock grazing, and cultivation had removed the stabilizing forces of riparian and upland vegetation and beavers from the watersheds. The reduction in upland vegetation resulted in increased storm runoff while the loss of riparian vegetation from the stream banks and valley floor resulted in decreased roughness and channel resistance to stream erosion. The loss of beavers meant that when beaver dams failed they were not repaired and local points of base level lowering and knickpoint initiation were created (Figure 32). As a channelized drainage network developed, water would have been more rapidly transferred from the upper to lower watershed and flood magnitudes increased for a given storm event. 1 1 Q) 0. » 0 ui .0 ~ 0 0 ~ 2 C LL - >- >- OJ OJ 0 0 > > 2 . . --- ~--- Time A --:: t I I I B 243 Figure 3 7. Hypothetical relation between valley-floor gradient and valley-floor instability with time. Superimposed on line 1, representing an increase of valley-floor slope, are vertical lines representing instability of the valley floor as related to flood events. When the ascending line of valley-floor slope intersects line 2 representing the maximum slope at which the valley is stable, failure or trenching of the valley alluvium will occur at time B. However, failure occurs at time A, as the apparent direct result of a major storm or flood event. (Figure and text from Schumm 1973, p. 302). 244 Reexamining the Causes of Large-Scale Historic Channel Widening in Light of Beaver Trapping and Livestock Grazing This section presents an example to demonstrate how interpretations of causal mechanisms of change in watershed hydrology and stream-channel morphology can vary once an event is placed in a historical context that includes beaver trapping. The example involves the Gila River in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona and was selected for analysis because of the relative abundance of information on the timing of key events in this watershed. This analysis builds on an earlier study by Burkham (1972) in which he analyzed the causes and timing of the channel widening of the Gila River between 1905 and 1917. He drew on U.S. Geological Survey gage data, diaries and journals written in 1540, 1846 to 1874, cadastral surveys made during 1875-1894, soil surveys (1904), photographs (1909-1917) and topographic maps of the Safford Valley (1914-1915), Senate document 436 (Olmsteadl919) and U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply paper 450-A (Schwennesen 1921), cross-sections (established in 1937 and in 1943), aerial photos (1935 is first year), tree ring data (Stockton and Fritts 1968) and post-settlement precipitation data from rainfall stations in the headwaters (1893 on, Burkham 1970). Major changes in channel widths took place in the early 20th century on the Gila River in the Safford Valley of Arizona (Burkham 1972). The average channel width increased from less than 46 meters in 187 5 to an average width of about 610 meters between 1905 and 1917 during several large magnitude winter floods (Burkham 1972). The bulk of the widening occurred in 1905 and 1906 though floods in 1891 and 1916 also 245 contributed. The large floods had their source in the mountainous headwaters of the Gila River (Burkham 1972). These floods were coincident in time with one of the wettest periods in the last 1000 years according to tree-ring data (Burkham 1972 citing Stockton and Fritts 1968; D' Arrigo and Jacoby 1991; Meko et al. 1991). Examination of stream discharge and precipitation data available after 1910 shows a strong correlation between large magnitude floods in the Gila River and rain-on- snow events and high-intensity, long-duration storm events (Burkham 1970). Based on the tree-ring data of Stockton and Fritts (1968) and data from stream and precipitation gages, Burkham (1972) concluded that the large flood magnitudes in 1905 and 1906 were the result of precipitation events in the headwaters. The implied assumption in his analysis is that the precipitation events were unusual. However, by 1900 the Gila River watershed was an altered system having been trapped, overgrazed and, to a smaller degree, cultivated. Burkham (1972) considered the influence oflivestock grazing and valley-floor cultivation on both the magnitude of the floods and the susceptibility of the channel banks to erosion. He concluded that the contribution of valley-floor cultivation to the channel widening was minor because only about 3.5 percent of the 20 km by 125 km long valley was under cultivation at the time of the flooding and channel-widening events (Burkham 1972). However, the location of those cultivated acres is important because their location determines the potential effect of that cultivation on stream-bank stability. Burkham (1972) cites Lapham and Neill (1904) when discussing the amount of area under cultivation " ... a small portion of the Pecos sand is at present cultivated, mainly because of the difficulty and expense of clearing off the willow, cottonwood, and mesquite, and leveling the land for irrigation (Lapham and Neill 1904, p. 1059)," but 246 does not provide specific locations. However, the reference to willows, cottonwoods, and mesquite removal and irrigation suggests that the plots were in close proximity to the channel. As large portions of the stream banks of the Gila River are composed of sands and silts (pers. observation 1994), the removal ofriparian vegetation would have contributed to local reductions in stream-bank stability and may have been of greater consequence then Burkham (1972) surmised based on the numeric amount cultivated, especially when considered in conjunction with intensive livestock grazing in the valley. With respect to livestock grazing, Burkham (1972) concluded that grazing did not enhance flood magnitudes between 1905 and 1917, though grazing may have somewhat increased the sensitivity of the stream banks to erosion by removing vegetation. He based his conclusions on his understanding that livestock grazing appeared to be largely restricted to the lower watershed while the floodwaters had their source in the mountainous headwaters . . . . the lack of precipitation and the extensive grazing prior to 1905 may have contributed to the susceptibility of the alluvial valleys to erosion during high flows. The period 1870- 1889 was one of the driest periods of comparable length since 1650, and 1895-1904 was another period having very little precipitation. The years having small amounts of precipitation coincided with the years in which large numbers of cattle were brought into the area. The combination of very little precipitation and extensive grazing caused a deterioration in the vegetation of the valley, which may have made the alluvium more susceptible to erosion (Burkham 1972, G12-13). 247 Swift ( 1926), a Forest Service employee in the Safford Valley area during that time, was more definite about the impact of livestock grazing in the Safford Valley on the channel widening: During the drought, which started in 1899 and extended to the late summer of 1904, large numbers of cattle were forced to browse on shrubs of all kinds and large herds came to the river to drink. As a result, the willows, shrubs, etc., along the banks of the streams, were practically killed off. Large numbers of cattle died from starvation, and when the drought broke the unprotected banks of the streams melted away like sugar, until the channel reached the mammoth proportions of today (Swift 1926, p. 71). A review of the published literature suggests that Burkham (1972) may have underestimated the presence of livestock grazing in the upper watershed, and therefore their potential contribution towards increasing volumes and rates of storm runoff in the upper watershed and flood magnitudes in the lower watershed. Swift (1926) noted livestock grazing on Bonita Creek, a tributary to the Gila River upstream of the Safford Valley, as early as 1884. Winn (1926) noted livestock grazing in the West Fork of the Gila River in the 1880s. A 1993 environmental impact statement for a cattle allotment on the East Fork of the Gila River stated that the area was severely overgrazed by 1908 (Department of Agriculture 1993). While the Gila National Forest was not created until the early 1900s, and data on livestock numbers are absent, the reference to overgrazing in the area by 1908 indicates that grazing was occurring prior to this date in this drainage. In addition, there is no reason to assume that the West Fork would have been grazed in the 1880s but the East Fork ignored by early livestock owners. The topography and valley floor of the East Fork of the Gila River are conducive to grazing (pers. observation 1993) and the area continued to be grazed up until the late 1990s. 248 One disturbance that Burkham (1972) did not discuss was the impact of beaver trapping on flood magnitudes. Extensive Euro-American beaver trapping occurred in the Gila River watershed from 1826 to 1834 (Pattie 1831; Weber 1971, Figure 3 8). The beaver-dominated conceptual model presented in Chapter 3 (Figure 32) and laboratory studies (Schumm et al. 1984) indicate that Euro-American beaver trapping in the upper watershed would have contributed to channelization because as dams failed and were not repaired they created points of base-level drop. The rate of dam failures and channelization would have been accelerated by the period of above-average precipitation from 1835 to 1849 (D'Arrigo and Jacoby 1991). Increased channelization of the drainage network would transfer water from the upper to lower watershed more rapidly, potentially amplifying flood magnitudes from even small events and thereby increasing the frequency of downstream flooding. This scenario is suggested by historical newspaper accounts and the oral history of the Gila River Pima Indians of floods on the Gila River in 1833, 1869, 1880, 1884, 1889, 1891, 1895, and 1896 (Dobyns 1981; Burkham 1970). Information on the actual discharges of those floods is absent until 1910 when two stream gages are installed on the Gila River -- one on the Gila River near Clifton (09442000) and one on the San Francisco River at Clifton (09444500). Pattie (1825-1826) - Young (1826) - Young (1827) • • ■ Yount (1827) - 0 1 249 50 km Figure 38. Known location, dates, and movement of trappers in the Gila River drainage basin. Data sources: Pattie (1831); Weber (1971). Map by author. 250 These pre-1905 floods were not coincident in time with a period of above-average precipitation. Their occurrences suggest a change in the flood regime beginning in the mid-1800s, or post-trapping. The floods of 1833, 1895, and 1896 are of particular interest. The 1833 flood was the first major downstream flood recorded in Gila River Pima oral history (Dobyns 1981 ). Trapping had been ongoing in the upper watershed since 1826 and Dobyns (1981) suggests that this flood may have been the result of the abrupt collapse of beaver dams destroyed in the preceding decade. This scenario is reasonable and large discharges have been documented occurring in response to abrupt dams failures (Butler 1989; Hillman 1998). The floods of 1895 and 1896 are of interest because they occurred during the third most severe drought in the Southwest in the last 1000 years (DArrigo and Jacoby 1990). The large flow events between 1833 and 1905 suggests that the character of the upper watershed had changed, or was in the process of changing, in such a way as to cause an increase in flood frequencies and magnitudes. The most logical explanation is the removal of beavers from the upper watershed. Later, intensive grazing in the upper watershed would have further amplified flood magnitudes by increasing the storm runoff volumes and rates. At the same time that conditions were increasingly favorable to generating large floods, the stream-bank resistance to erosion in the lower watershed was decreasing as cattle grazing removed riparian vegetation from the stream banks. The "trigger" for channel widening became the period of above-average precipitation from 1905 to 1923 (D'Arrigo and Jacoby 1991) that now fell onto an increasingly channelized watershed with reduced vegetative cover. This combination of events represents a 251 variation of Schumm's (1973) conceptual model of thresholds (Figure 37), in which he held the variability of the flood events constant and altered only the stability of the valley-floor slope. In the case of the Gila River, however, the floods were increasing in magnitude at the same time stream-bank stability was decreasing. The consequence would be to move the time of failure to the left of Line A in Figure 37, or back in time. The analysis of channel widening on the Gila River reveals how different Euro- American disturbances in a watershed can interact synergistically to destabilize the river even though the actual disturbances are spatially (upper versus lower watershed) and temporally (early versus mid to late 1800s) separated. The question of whether the large flood magnitudes between 1905 and 1917 were the result of extraordinary or only average precipitation events operating on a degraded landscape will go unanswered because the precipitation gages in the headwaters are not installed until 1893 (Clifton), 1912 (Alpine) and 1917 (Reserve Range Station) (Burkham 1970). However, when beaver trapping and livestock grazing in the upper watershed and two, rather than just one, period of above-average precipitation in the region are included in the history of the Gila River watershed, the analysis reveals complex relationships between climate, Euro- American disturbances, and channel response -- relationships that apply not only to the Gila River, but to rivers throughout the Southwest and Intermountain West. 252 Conclusions Separating out cause-and-effect relationships in fluvial systems is challenging because changes to the form and character of these systems are the result of a number of factors interacting over time and space. I have sought to integrate this complexity into my study design by examining how different cattle and elk grazing pressures and levels of beaver activity interacted over time and space, separately and in combination, to influence stream-channel morphology and hydrology. The results of the study provide insights into the directions, processes, and rates of channel change as well as the factors that limit channel-area reductions and the restoration of the stream and valley-floor hydrologic connection. The study provides a starting point from which to evaluate future channel changes as a function of treatment, allowing us to better understand the time scales of change and factors limiting the restoration of stream and riparian ecosystems. The study also underscores the magnitude of the watershed changes that have occurred since the arrival of Euro-American, beaver trapping being but the first of several large-scale human disturbances. Restoration of the stream and valley-floor hydro logic connection, and the ecological systems that depend on that connection, is complex. The amount of historical stream channel enlargement has been great and, in many cases, may be permanent because sufficient sediment does not exist in the watershed, under current erosion rates, to decrease channel area to its predisturbance area. Upland erosion, mass wasting, and stream-bank erosion are all potential sources of sediment to the channel. However, except in extreme mass wasting events, the volume contributed by each is small, local, 253 and episodic. The situation is further compromised by the fact that sediment-trapping mechanisms are absent in many places along the river as a result of historical and cmrent beaver trapping and livestock grazing. Thus, what sediment does enter a stream is usually transported out of the watershed. The removal or reduction of cattle from the riparian zone is the first critical step. This single step will result in the expansion of riparian vegetation, stabilization of stream banks and channel bars, and the cessation of channel widening and further hydrologic disconnection between the stream and valley floor. However, it is but the first step and restoration will require multiple approaches. The lack of sufficient sediment under current erosion rates and the lack of sediment trapping mechanisms is a problem when the desired future condition is the restoration and expansion of stream and riparian ecosystems. In larger-order streams (> 4th order), reduction in channel cross-section area and the recovery of the stream-valley floor hydrologic connection is unlikely without massive human assistance and capital given the volume of channel enlargement. In these streams, restoration may be limited to the stream banks and channel bars rather than the valley floor. However, the expansion of channel bars, development of multiple smaller channels in a larger river, and the establishment of riparian vegetation on the bars and banks contributes to ecological restoration and bank stabilization and are, therefore, important components of watershed restoration. The potential for restoration of the stream and valley floor hydro logic connections, and its attendant changes, is more hopeful in first through fourth-order streams because beavers are capable of reducing available channel capacity by building darns that trap sediment and water. A review of the historical literature reveals that beavers were abundant prior to Euro-American beaver trapping and exerted a strong influence on the character and stability of fluvial systems. They remain an important component when attempting large-scale stream and riparian restoration in lower-order streams. 254 Beaver ponds effectively trap and store both water and sediment. Therefore, channels will experience a reduction in available channel capacity as a result of the ponds, even when sediment inputs are limited. The increased frequency of overbank flooding and the maintenance of elevated water tables as a result of beaver ponds facilitate riparian restoration by eliminating two of the three factors that currently hinder the expansion of riparian ecosystems -- low soil moisture and low water tables. The third limitation, livestock grazing pressure, is a more challenging problem. Cottonwoods, willows, and aspen are important food and building materials for beavers. However, these plant species are heavily utilized by cattle and elk and are limited in the West as a result of long-term and extensive cattle grazing. Without the recovery of riparian vegetation, streams and riparian areas will remain in degraded conditions with marginal value for fish, wildlife, and plant communities and for human communities concerned about water quality, quantity, and flooding. Beavers are our natural allies in the effort to restore stream and riparian ecosystems. They build and maintain dams for free or, one might say, in exchange for abundant cottonwoods, willow, and aspen. Beavers and their dams are a cost-effective and an efficient way to hydrologically reconnect many lower-order streams to their valley floors, reduce flood magnitudes, and restore critical wildlife and fisheries habitat. 255 However, the impact of grazing pressure in riparian areas must be addressed because cattle, and in a few places elk, consume the willows, cottonwoods, and aspen preferred by beavers for food and building material and required for bank stabilization. An alternative to beaver dams is check dams, but these are built only at great initial financial costs and have a history of being rarely maintained (Heede 1966; Gellis et al. 1995; Shields et al. 1995). Given the limited amounts of capital available for structural alterations of stream channels and the importance of stream and riparian ecosystems to a variety of human communities and wild species, beavers and the removal or reduction of cattle grazing in the riparian zone represent perhaps the only way to ecologically and economically restore these vital stream and riparian systems on a regional scale. 256 APPENDIX A GEOMORPHIC CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY DIMENSIONS FOR EACH CROSS-SECTION 257 Basin Creek, Montana 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Baseline Creek XS Channel Treatment Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1995 Main Basin 1 Straight New EE 1.59 4.1 0.74 0.39 11 1995 Main Basin 2 Straight New EE 3.29 7.77 0.96 0.42 19 1995 Main Basin 3 Straight New EE 2.69 6.48 0.88 0.42 15 1995 Main Basin 14 RB = inside RG 5.57 8.34 1.24 0.67 12 1995 Main Basin 15 Straight RG 3.12 4.11 1.12 0.76 5 1995 Main Basin 16 LB = inside RG 3 5.99 0.78 0.5 12 1995 Main Basin 27 Straight RG 1.91 4.35 0.91 0.44 10 1995 Main Basin 28 RB = inside RG 2.16 4.14 0.9 0.52 8 1995 N. Basin 4 LB = inside New EE 1.35 4.71 0.64 0.29 16 1995 N. Basin 5 Straight New EE 0.38 2.58 0.54 0.15 17 1995 N. Basin 6 LB = inside New EE 1.81 6.95 0.69 0.26 27 1995 N. Basin 17 Straight RG 2.12 5.85 1.09 0.36 16 1995 N. Basin 18 Straight RG 0.87 3.24 0.42 0.27 12 1995 N. Basin 19 Straight RG 1.08 2.3 0.93 0.47 5 1995 N. Basin 20 Straight RG 2.35 5.12 0.9 0.46 11 1995 N. Basin 21 Straight RG 1.17 5.25 0.66 0.22 24 1995 N. Basin 22 Straight RG 1.37 2.62 0.77 0.52 5 1995 N. Basin 25 Straight New EE 1.36 6.39 0.44 0.21 30 1995 N. Basin 26 LB = inside RG 3.19 5.53 1 0.58 10 1995 S. Basin 7 Straight New CE 1.35 4.85 0.86 0.28 17 1995 S. Basin 8 RB = inside New CE 10.25 11.68 1.32 0.88 13 1995 S. Basin 9 Straight New CE 6.69 11.21 0.93 0.6 19 1995 S. Basin 10 LB = inside RG 7.99 12.07 1.09 0.66 18 1995 S. Basin 11 Straight RG 7.21 11.69 1.32 0.62 19 1995 S. Basin 12 Straight RG 4.42 6.9 1.27 0.64 11 1995 S. Basin 13 Straight RG 2.32 4.55 1.19 0.51 9 1995 S. Basin 23 Straight New CE 1.97 6.31 0.77 0.31 20 1995 S. Basin 24 LB = inside New CE 5.39 9.32 1.06 0.58 16 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 258 Basin Creek, Montana 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 Baseline Creek XS Channel Treatment Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1995 Main Basin 1 Straight New EE 1.45 3.76 0.71 0.39 10 1995 Main Basin 2 Straight New EE 3.04 7.77 0.86 0.39 20 1995 Main Basin 3 Straight New EE 2.44 6.23 0.86 0.39 16 1995 Main Basin 14 RB = inside RG 5.44 8.34 1.26 0.65 13 1995 Main Basin 15 Straight RG 3.07 4.16 1.17 0.74 6 1995 Main Basin 16 LB = inside RG 2.96 6.14 0.77 0.48 13 1995 Main Basin 27 Straight RG 1.92 4.35 0.92 0.44 10 1995 Main Basin 28 RB = inside RG 2.41 4.71 0.93 0.51 9 1995 N. Basin 4 LB = inside New EE 1.34 5.74 0.68 0.23 25 1995 N. Basin 5 Straight New EE 0.19 1.17 0.23 0.16 7 1995 N. Basin 6 LB = inside New EE 1.6 6.95 0.63 0.23 30 1995 N. Basin 17 Straight RG 2.33 5.85 1.11 0.4 15 1995 N. Basin 18 Straight RG 0.95 3.82 0.48 0.25 15 1995 N. Basin 19 Straight RG 1.26 2.42 1.15 0.52 5 1995 N. Basin 20 Straight RG 2.39 5.4 0.78 0.44 12 1995 N. Basin 21 Straight RG 1.15 5.29 0.64 0.22 24 1995 N. Basin 22 Straight RG 1.38 2.77 0.8 0.5 6 1995 N. Basin 25 Straight New EE 1.11 6.51 0.44 0.17 38 1995 N. Basin 26 LB = inside RG 2.98 5.3 0.995 0.56 9 1995 S. Basin 7 Straight New CE 1.26 4.85 1.05 0.26 19 1995 S. Basin 8 RB = inside New CE 9.95 11.86 1.28 0.84 14 1995 S. Basin 9 Straight New CE 6.33 11.35 0.94 0.56 20 1995 S. Basin 10 LB = inside RG 8.16 12.24 1.15 0.67 18 1995 S. Basin 11 Straight RG 7.05 11.43 1.26 0.62 18 1995 S. Basin 12 Straight RG 4.37 6.86 1.23 0.64 11 1995 S. Basin 13 Straight RG 2.34 4.57 1.08 0.51 9 1995 S. Basin 23 Straight New CE 1.9 6.4 0.82 0.3 21 1995 S. Basin 24 LB = inside New CE 5.59 9.69 1.04 0.58 17 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 259 Muddy Creek, Montana 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Baseline Creek XS Channel Treatment Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1993 Muddy 1 RB = inside Old CE 4.27 7.07 1.38 0.6 12 1993 Muddy 2 Straight Old CE 3.91 6.59 1.13 0.59 11 1995 Muddy 3 Straight RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 4 LB = inside RG 1.29 3.22 0.88 0.4 8 1993 Muddy 5 Straight RG 0.81 2.42 0.94 0.33 7 1993 Muddy 6 RB = inside RG 1.66 4.43 1.06 0.37 12 1993 Muddy 7 RB = inside RG 3.21 4.93 1.26 0.65 8 1993 Muddy 8 LB = inside RG 2.00 4.93 1.1 0.41 12 1993 Muddy 9 Straight RG 1.21 3.32 1.13 0.36 9 1993 Muddy 10 LB = inside RG 1.44 3.78 0.76 0.38 10 1993 Muddy 11 RB = inside RG 1.80 3.56 0.96 0.51 7 1993 Muddy 12 RB = inside Old CE 2.58 3.46 1.44 0.75 5 1993 Muddy 13 Straight Old CE 1.63 3.02 1.41 0.54 6 1993 Muddy 14 RB = inside RG 1.02 2.62 0.82 0.39 7 1993 Muddy 15 Straight RG 0.76 2.10 0.62 0.36 6 1993 Muddy 16 Straight RG 2.18 3.94 1.39 0.55 7 1993 Muddy 17 LB = inside RG 2.20 3.25 1.11 0.68 5 1993 Muddy 18 Straight RG 1.37 2.91 0.88 0.47 6 1993 Muddy 19 RB = inside RG 1.84 3.26 1.04 0.56 6 1993 Muddy 22 Straight New CE 1.13 2.74 0.59 0.41 7 1993 Muddy 23 Straight New CE 0.98 4.31 0.50 0.23 19 1993 Muddy 24 Straight New CE 0.14 1.26 0.19 0.11 11 1995 Muddy 25 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Muddy 26 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1996 Muddy 30 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1996 Muddy 31 2 RB = inside Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1996 Muddy 32 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 2 Cross-section 31: this cross-section crossed the downstream channel and the upstream channel of a bend. There was a problem with the upstream channel survey so this is the downstream channel only. 260 Muddy Creek, Montana 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Baseline Creek XS Channel Treatment Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1993 Muddy 1 RB = inside Old CE 4.23 7.15 1.4 0.59 12 1993 Muddy 2 Straight Old CE 4.05 6.7 1.34 0.6 11 1995 Muddy 3 Straight RG 1.96 3.5 1.11 0.56 6 1993 Muddy 4 LB = inside RG 1.33 3.04 0.93 0.44 7 1993 Muddy 5 Straight RG 0.72 2.07 0.93 0.35 6 1993 Muddy 6 RB = inside RG 1.55 4.02 1.28 0.39 10 1993 Muddy 7 RB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 8 LB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 9 Straight RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 10 LB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 11 RB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 12 RB = inside Old CE 3.20 4.71 1.54 0.68 7 1993 Muddy 13 Straight Old CE 1.77 3.02 1.46 0.59 5 1993 Muddy 14 RB = inside RG 0.95 2.52 0.87 0.38 7 1993 Muddy 15 Straight RG 0.69 2.06 0.61 0.33 6 1993 Muddy 16 Straight RG 2.26 4.18 1.5 0.54 8 1993 Muddy 17 LB = inside RG 2.50 3.85 1.18 0.65 6 1993 Muddy 18 Straight RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 19 RB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 22 Straight New CE 1.08 2.79 0.57 0.39 7 1993 Muddy 23 Straight New CE 0.75 3.83 0.61 0.2 19 1993 Muddy 24 Straight New CE 0.18 1.26 0.25 0.14 9 1995 Muddy 25 Straight Old CE 2.54 5 1.05 0.51 10 1995 Muddy 26 Straight Old CE 1.04 1.95 0.78 0.53 4 1996 Muddy 30 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1996 Muddy 31 2 RB = inside Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1996 Muddy 32 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 2 Cross-section 31: this cross-section crossed the downstream channel and the upstream channel of a bend. There was a problem with the upstream channel survey so this is the downstream channel only. 261 Muddy Creek, Montana 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Baseline Creek XS Channel Treatment Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1993 Muddy 1 RB = inside Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 2 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Muddy 3 Straight RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 4 LB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 5 Straight RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 6 RB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 7 RB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 8 LB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 9 Straight RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 10 LB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 11 RB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 12 RB = inside Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 13 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 14 RB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 15 Straight RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 16 Straight RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 17 LB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 18 Straight RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 19 RB = inside RG ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 22 Straight New CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 23 Straight New CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1993 Muddy 24 Straight New CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Muddy 25 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Muddy 26 Straight Old CE ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1996 Muddy 30 Straight Old CE 0.53 1.16 0.58 0.46 3 1996 Muddy 31 2 RB = inside Old CE 1.00 2.80 0.63 0.36 8 1996 Muddy 32 Straight Old CE 3.45 6.93 0.81 0.5 14 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 2 Cross-section 31: this cross-section crossed the downstream channel and the upstream channel of a bend. There was a problem with the upstream channel survey so this is the downstream channel only. 262 Muddy Creek, Montana 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Baseline Creek XS Channel Treatment Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1993 Muddy 1 RB = inside Old CE 4.24 7.25 1.4 0.58 13 1993 Muddy 2 Straight Old CE 3.86 6.7 1.3 0.58 12 1995 Muddy 3 Straight RG 1.91 3.97 1.12 0.48 8 1993 Muddy 4 LB = inside RG 1.19 2.83 0.93 0.42 7 1993 Muddy 5 Straight RG 0.74 1.97 0.94 0.38 5 1993 Muddy 6 RB = inside RG 1.40 4.08 1.28 0.34 12 1993 Muddy 7 RB = inside RG 3.20 4.85 1.2 0.66 7 1993 Muddy 8 LB = inside RG 1.92 4.8 1.17 0.4 12 1993 Muddy 9 Straight RG 1.12 3.32 1.18 0.34 10 1993 Muddy 10 LB = inside RG 1.21 3.16 0.82 0.38 8 1993 Muddy 11 RB = inside RG 1.51 3.06 0.86 0.49 6 1993 Muddy 12 RB = inside Old CE 3.37 4.91 0.97 0.69 7 1993 Muddy 13 Straight Old CE 1.84 3.02 1.37 0.61 5 1993 Muddy 14 RB = inside RG 0.93 2.44 0.92 0.38 6 1993 Muddy 15 Straight RG 0.63 1.93 0.63 0.33 6 1993 Muddy 16 Straight RG 2.32 4.18 1.52 0.56 7 1993 Muddy 17 LB = inside RG 3.15 4.51 1.18 0.7 6 1993 Muddy 18 Straight RG 1.19 2.87 0.86 0.41 7 1993 Muddy 19 RB = inside RG 2.06 3.16 1.16 0.65 5 1993 Muddy 22 Straight New CE 0.85 2.83 0.51 0.3 9 1993 Muddy 23 Straight New CE 0.73 4.35 0.62 0.17 26 1993 Muddy 24 Straight New CE 0.15 1.26 0.27 0.12 11 1995 Muddy 25 Straight Old CE 2.54 5 1.1 0.51 10 1995 Muddy 26 Straight Old CE 1.02 1.92 0.77 0.53 4 1996 Muddy 30 Straight Old CE 0.63 1.61 0.59 0.39 4 1996 Muddy 31 2 RB = inside Old CE 1.05 2.76 0.71 0.38 7 1996 Muddy 32 Straight Old CE 3.46 6.84 0.82 0.51 13 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 2 Cross-section 31: this cross-section crossed the downstream channel and the upstream channel of a bend. There was a problem with the upstream channel survey so this is the downstream channel only. 263 Price Creek, Montana 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Baseline Creek XS Treatment Channel Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1994 Price (lower) 2 RG/BD controlled RB = inside 4.66 7.31 1.43 0.64 11 1994 Price (lower) 16 RG/BD controlled Straight 4.39 6.36 1.1 0.69 9 1994 Price (lower) 17 RG Straight 6.9 7.47 1.33 0.92 8 1994 Price (lower) 18 RG/BD controlled Straight 3.63 4.63 1.37 0.78 6 1994 Price (upper) 13 New EE/BD controlled RB = inside 1.54 2.65 0.905 0.58 5 1994 Price (upper) 14 New EE/BD controlled Straight 1.35 4.09 0.505 0.33 12 1994 Price (upper) 15 New EE/BD controlled Straight 1.87 5.56 0.68 0.34 16 1995 Price (upper) 19 New CE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 20 New CE/BD controlled RB = inside ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 21 New CE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 22 New CE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 23 New CE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 24 New CE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 25 New CE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 26 New CE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 27 New CE/BD controlled LB = inside ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 28 New CE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 29 New CE/BD controlled LB = inside ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 264 Price Creek, Montana 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Baseline Creek XS Treatment Channel Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D 1995 Price (upper) 30 New CE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1997 Price (upper) 33 New EE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 4 RG Straight 0.203 0.96 0.48 0.21 5 1994 W. Fk Price 5 RG Straight 0.745 1.65 0.725 0.45 4 1994 W. Fk Price 6 RG Straight 0.465 2.17 0.54 0.21 10 1994 W. Fk Price 7 RG Straight 0.472 1.24 0.685 0.38 3 1994 W. Fk Price 31 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 32 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 265 Price Creek, Montana 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Baseline Creek XS Treatment Channel Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1994 Price (lower) 2 RG/BD controlled RB = inside ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 Price (lower) 16 RG/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 Price (lower) 17 RG Straight 6.84 7.46 1.35 0.92 8 1994 Price (lower) 18 RG/BD controlled Straight 3.79 4.63 1.45 0.82 6 1994 Price (upper) 13 New EE/BD controlled RB = inside ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 Price (upper) 14 New EE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 Price (upper) 15 New EE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1995 Price (upper) 19 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.23 2.92 0.72 0.42 7 1995 Price (upper) 20 New CE/BD controlled RB = inside 3.07 5.84 1.1 0.53 11 1995 Price (upper) 21 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.09 2.65 1.32 0.79 3 1995 Price (upper) 22 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.22 4.07 0.97 0.55 7 1995 Price (upper) 23 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.68 3.51 0.88 0.48 7 1995 Price (upper) 24 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.39 4.71 0.76 0.51 9 1995 Price (upper) 25 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.6 2.25 1.3 0.71 3 1995 Price (upper) 26 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.71 4.09 1.57 0.66 6 1995 Price (upper) 27 New CE/BD controlled LB = inside 4.09 3.98 1.3 1.03 4 1995 Price (upper) 28 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.43 2.94 1.06 0.49 6 1995 Price (upper) 29 New CE/BD controlled LB = inside 0.95 3.31 0.49 0.29 11 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 266 Price Creek, Montana 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 Baseline Creek XS Treatment Channel Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D 1995 Price (upper) 30 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.63 5.77 0.51 0.28 21 1997 Price (upper) 33 New EE/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 4 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 5 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 6 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 7 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 31 RG Straight 0.11 0.42 0.52 0.26 2 1994 W. Fk Price 32 RG Straight 0.31 2.1 0.36 0.15 14 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 267 Price Creek, Montana 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 Baseline Creek XS Treatment Channel Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1994 Price (lower) 2 RG/BD controlled RB = inside ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 Price (lower) 16 RG/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 Price (lower) 17 RG Straight 6.9 7.52 1.35 0.92 8 1994 Price (lower) 18 RG/BD controlled Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 Price (upper) 13 New EE/BD controlled RB = inside 0.87 1.93 0.82 0.45 4 1994 Price (upper) 14 New EE/BD controlled Straight 0.72 3.28 0.38 0.22 15 1994 Price (upper) 15 New EE/BD controlled Straight 0.12 2.19 0.075 0.05 44 1995 Price (upper) 19 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.19 3.35 0.77 0.36 9 1995 Price (upper) 20 New CE/BD controlled RB = inside 2.3 5.68 0.89 0.4 14 1995 Price (upper) 21 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.81 2.58 1.13 0.7 4 1995 Price (upper) 22 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.25 4.07 1 0.55 7 1995 Price (upper) 23 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.49 3.64 0.74 0.41 9 1995 Price (upper) 24 New CE/BD controlled Straight 3.65 4.81 1.13 0.76 6 1995 Price (upper) 25 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.64 2.57 1.18 0.64 4 1995 Price (upper) 26 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.44 4.17 1.19 0.59 7 1995 Price (upper) 27 New CE/BD controlled LB = inside 3.69 4.27 1.29 0.86 5 1995 Price (upper) 28 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.49 3.57 1.01 0.42 9 1995 Price (upper) 29 New CE/BD controlled LB = inside 2.19 3.92 0.85 0.56 7 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 268 Price Creek, Montana 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 Baseline Creek XS Treatment Channel Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D 1995 Price (upper) 30 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.56 5.72 0.83 0.45 13 1997 Price (upper) 33 New EE/BD controlled Straight 1.18 3.71 0.5 0.32 12 1994 W. Fk Price 4 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 5 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 6 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 7 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 31 RG Straight 0.17 0.59 0.57 0.29 2 1994 W. Fk Price 32 RG Straight 0.3 1.35 0.35 0.22 6 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 269 Price Creek, Montana 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Baseline Creek XS Treatment Channel Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1994 Price (lower) 2 RG/BD controlled RB = inside 6.05 7.56 1.53 0.8 9 1994 Price (lower) 16 RG/BD controlled Straight 5.34 6.39 1.37 0.84 8 1994 Price (lower) 17 RG Straight 6.9 7.48 1.35 0.92 8 1994 Price (lower) 18 RG/BD controlled Straight 3.78 4.62 1.445 0.82 6 1994 Price (upper) 13 New EE/BD controlled RB = inside 1.11 2.41 0.85 0.46 5 1994 Price (upper) 14 New EE/BD controlled Straight 0.87 3.486 0.385 0.25 14 1994 Price (upper) 15 New EE/BD controlled Straight 0.65 2.95 0.42 0.22 13 1995 Price (upper) 19 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.17 3.03 0.74 0.39 8 1995 Price (upper) 20 New CE/BD controlled RB = inside 3.36 5.94 1.07 0.57 10 1995 Price (upper) 21 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.02 2.65 1.185 0.76 3 1995 Price (upper) 22 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.29 4.26 1.06 0.54 8 1995 Price (upper) 23 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.02 3.75 0.925 0.54 7 1995 Price (upper) 24 New CE/BD controlled Straight 3.63 5.08 1.195 0.71 7 1995 Price (upper) 25 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.61 2.77 1.16 0.58 5 1995 Price (upper) 26 New CE/BD controlled Straight 2.71 4.15 1.355 0.65 6 1995 Price (upper) 27 New CE/BD controlled LB = inside 4.08 4.49 1.305 0.91 5 1995 Price (upper) 28 New CE/BD controlled Straight 1.52 3.89 1.04 0.39 10 1995 Price (upper) 29 New CE/BD controlled LB = inside 2.29 3.97 0.85 0.58 7 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 270 Price Creek, Montana 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Baseline Creek XS Treatment Channel Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D 1995 Price (upper) 30 New CE/BD controlled Straight 3.49 5.77 1.21 0.6 10 1997 Price (upper) 33 New EE/BD controlled Straight 2.26 3.93 0.89 0.58 7 1994 W. Fk Price 4 RG Straight 0.175 0.76 0.59 0.23 3 1994 W. Fk Price 5 RG Straight 0.864 2.7 0.725 0.32 8 1994 W. Fk Price 6 RG Straight 0.44 2.664 0.6 0.17 16 1994 W. Fk Price 7 RG Straight 0.424 1.2 0.705 0.35 3 1994 W. Fk Price 31 RG Straight ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 1994 W. Fk Price 32 RG Straight 0.32 1.83 0.38 0.17 11 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 271 White Mountains, Arizona 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Baseline Creek XS Channel Treatment Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1994 Hayground 1 Straight SEMA 1.427 6.37 0.45 0.22 29 1994 Hayground 2 Straight SEMA 0.93 2.88 0.53 0.32 9 1994 Hayground 3 RB = inside SEMA 1 7.14 0.39 0.14 51 1994 Hayground 4 RB = inside New EE 1.64 8.23 0.51 0.2 41 1994 Hayground 5 Straight New EE 0.59 2.69 0.43 0.22 12 1994 Hayground 6 Straight New EE 2.62 8.12 0.68 0.32 25 1994 Hayground 7 RB = inside New CE 0.72 2.7 0.42 0.27 10 1994 Hayground 8 RB = inside New CE 0.66 3.41 0.32 0.19 18 1994 Hayground 9 Straight New CE 0.58 1.85 0.56 0.31 6 1994 Home 1 LB = inside New CE 0.56 2.47 0.38 0.23 11 1994 Home 2 Straight New CE 0.495 1.89 0.63 0.26 7 1994 L. Burro 1 Straight SEMA 2.01 4.08 0.81 0.49 8 1994 L. Burro 2 Straight SEMA 1.086 3.53 0.46 0.31 11 1994 L. Burro 3 Straight SEMA 1.46 5.43 0.51 0.27 20 1994 L. Burro 4 RB = inside SEMA 2.02 5.5 0.65 0.37 15 1994 L. Burro 5 Straight SEMA 1.395 5.74 0.49 0.24 24 1994 L. Stinky 1 Straight New CE 0.99 3.26 0.49 0.3 11 1994 L. Stinky 2 Straight New CE 0.86 4.37 0.50 0.2 22 1994 L. Stinky 3 RB = inside New CE 0.53 2.29 0.48 0.23 10 1994 L. Stinky 4 LB = inside New CE 1.56 3.14 0.81 0.5 6 1994 L. Stinky 5 Straight New CE 0.505 3.06 0.28 0.17 18 1994 Mandan 1 Straight SEMA 0.68 1.74 0.48 0.39 4 1994 Mandan 2 Straight SEMA 0.84 3.16 0.53 0.27 12 1994 Mandan 3 Straight SEMA 1.68 3.14 0.80 0.54 6 1994 Mandan 4 RB = inside SEMA 1.47 7.5 0.51 0.2 38 1994 Mandan 5 Straight SEMA 1.1 5.15 0.86 0.21 25 1994 Mandan 6 Straight SEMA 0.266 2.35 0.21 0.11 21 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 272 White Mountains, Arizona 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 Baseline Creek XS Channel Treatment Ch. Ch. Max. Mean W/Mean D Survey segment XS area Width Depth Depth ratio Year (sq. m) 1 (m) (m) (m) 1994 Hayground 1 Straight SEMA 1.52 6.93 0.49 0.22 32 1994 Hayground 2 Straight SEMA 0.98 2.83 0.5 0.35 8 1994 Hayground 3 RB = inside SEMA 0.89 7.45 0.39 0.12 62 1994 Hayground 4 RB = inside New EE 1.34 8.13 0.5 0.16 51 1994 Hayground 5 Straight New EE 0.68 2.67 0.45 0.25 11 1994 Hayground 6 Straight New EE 2.67 8.29 0.71 0.32 26 1994 Hayground 7 RB = inside New CE 0.7 2.68 0.495 0.26 10 1994 Hayground 8 RB = inside New CE 0.75 3.68 0.35 0.2 18 1994 Hayground 9 Straight New CE 0.56 1.85 0.58 0.3 6 1994 Home 1 LB = inside New CE 0.5 2.19 0.385 0.23 10 1994 Home 2 Straight New CE 0.474 1.89 0.6 0.25 8 1994 L. Burro 1 Straight SEMA 1.91 4.08 0.81 0.47 9 1994 L. Burro 2 Straight SEMA 1.12 3.53 0.49 0.32 11 1994 L. Burro 3 Straight SEMA 1.51 5.46 0.56 0.28 20 1994 L. Burro 4 RB = inside SEMA 1.885 5.58 0.59 0.34 16 1994 L. Burro 5 Straight SEMA 1.539 5.74 0.52 0.27 21 1994 L. Stinky 1 Straight New CE 0.8 3.18 0.45 0.25 13 1994 L. Stinky 2 Straight New CE 0.95 4.93 0.53 0.19 26 1994 L. Stinky 3 RB = inside New CE 0.6 2.35 0.47 0.26 9 1994 L. Stinky 4 LB = inside New CE 1.468 3.08 0.83 0.48 6 1994 L. Stinky 5 Straight New CE 0.508 2.89 0.26 0.18 16 1994 Mandan 1 Straight SEMA 0.67 1.68 0.43 0.4 4 1994 Mandan 2 Straight SEMA 0.824 3.16 0.54 0.26 12 1994 Mandan 3 Straight SEMA 1.53 3.29 0.64 0.47 7 1994 Mandan 4 RB = inside SEMA 1.61 7.81 0.495 0.21 37 1994 Mandan 5 Straight SEMA 1.39 5.38 0.835 0.26 21 1994 Mandan 6 Straight SEMA 0.35 2.7 0.29 0.13 21 1 The channel cross-section area values presented in this table were calculated use the Sigma Plot computer program and not by multiplying Cross-section Width x Mean cross-section depth. Values are very similar, but not the same. 273 APPENDIXB CROSS-SECTION GRAPHS, LOCATION INFORMATION, AND THE RELATIVE LOCATION OF THE CROSS-SECTIONS WITHIN EACH CREEK 274 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREAS Creek Topographic Latitude Longitude Township, Maps (7.5 Range, minute quads) Section BasinCk,MT Eureka Basin 44°50'00" to 112°00' to 111 ° TllS, R3W, Quad,MT 44°52'30" 57'30" Sec 20, 21, 27,28 Muddy Creek, Dixon 44°37'30" to 112°45'30" to Tl3S,R9W; MT Mountain 44°52'30" 112°57'00" Tl3S, RlOW; Quad, Graphite T14S, RllW; Quad, Kidd Tl3S, RllW; Quad T12S, RllW; T12S, RIOW Price Creek, Corral Creek 44°32'30" to 112°07'30" to T14S,R4W MT Quad, Big 44°37'30" 112°00' Table Mountain Quad White Big Lake South 33°47'30" to 109°22'30" to T5N, R27E; Mountains, AZ Quad, Big Lake 34°00' 190°30' T6N, R27E; North Quad T7N, R28E; TS N, R28E; T6N,R28E Basin Creek, Montana Relative location of cross-sections with respect to each other. 22 21 19 New elk exclosure New cattle exclosure 275 10 Basin Creek cross-section 1 New Elk Exclosure 1995 and 1997 6 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 4 3 2 ,......_ 1 "' ... Q.) .... 0 Q.) s '-' -1 i::: 0 -~ -2 ;> -3 Q.) w -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1995 and 1997 Channel area only -1 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section -2 'v.i' -3 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 .... ~ 5 rock J i::: I 0 "i -4 rock ;> Q.) w -5 Survey Years -+- 1995 -6 ---- 1997 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 276 7 6 5 4 3 'u,' 2 ... ~ I g 0 § -1 -~ > -2 Q) ~ -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 0 -1 'ii' -2 ~ g i::: 0 "i -3 > Q) ~ -4 -5 Basin Creek cross-section 2 New Elk Exclosure 1995 and 1997 Vertical exaggeration= 0 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) old channel? swale? cow trail? Straight section 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1995 and 1997 Channel area only Vertical exaggeration= 0 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull - - - - - - Survey year --f- 1995 --- 1997 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 277 Basin Creek cross-section 3 New Elk Exclosure 1995 and 1997 2 Vertical exaggeration = 0 0 ,--_ ~ -1 * g -2 i::: 0 -~ -3 ~ ~ -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 1995 and 1997 5 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 6 7 8 9 10 Channel area only Straight section II 12 13 14 15 16 0-.----.-----r-----...----...------r-----r-----,----.....-----, -1 ,--_ "' -2 .... ~ OJ g i::: 0 -~ -3 ;,.. ~ ~ -4 -5 Vertical exaggeration = 0 The aggradation seen is probably real. Cross-section 3 is just downstream of the confluence between Main and North Basin Creeks and the elk exclosure fence. The left bank is trapping sediment when Main Basin overflows its banks. I Geomorphic bankfull --i----~-~-~-~-~----------- Survey Year -+- 1995 --- 1997 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 Straight section 10 11 278 Basin Creek cross-section 4 New Elk Exclosure 1995 and 1997 5 0 8 7 6 4 3 2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 Vertical exaggeration= 0 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) old channel Bend Left Bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0-...-----.----.----""T"""----r-----,-----.----""T"""----.-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 13 Vertical exaggeration= 0 Survey Year --f-- 1995 --- 1997 14 15 Bend Left Bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 L_ pointbar 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 279 Basin Creek cross-section 5 New Elk Exclosure 1995 and 1997 5 4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 3 2 ,....._ 0 "' .... 0) +-> -1 0) E '-' -2 i:: 0 -3 -~ ;> -4 0) w -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Narrow straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 --,,------.-----,-----.-----,,------.-----,-----.----.------, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Narrow straight section -1 ,....._ ~ -2 0) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 0 5 i:: L _J .Sl -3 t;j sedge bar ;> 0) w -4 Survey Year --+- 1995 -5 --- 1997 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 280 Basin Creek cross-section 6 New Elk Exclosure 1995 and 1997 9 8 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 7 6 5 4 ,-.._ 3 "' 2 ... Cl) ...... Cl) 8 0 .__,, ~ 0 -1 ·.g -2 1i; ~ -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Bend Left Bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 --,r-----r----~----.-----,-----,----r----~----.-----, -1 -4 -5 20 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Year --f- 1995 ------ 1997 21 22 Bend Left Bank = inside low area Geomorphic bankfull 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 281 Basin Creek cross-section 7 New Cattle Exclosure 1995 and 1997 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 ,__ -1 "' .... cu ..... cu -2 s '-' \'.Cl 0 -3 -~ ;> cu -4 w -5 -6 -7 -8 0 2 3 4 1995 and 1997 -1 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -2 ,__ "' -3 .... cu ..... cu s '-' \'.Cl 0 ·.g -4 ~ w -5 Survey Year -+- 1995 -6 --- 1997 5 6 7 5 6 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geommphic bankfull 1995 7 8 9 10 11 12 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1995 - - - - - 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 282 Straight section 13 14 15 16 17 18 Straight section 12 13 14 283 Basin Creek cross-section 7 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure Undercut removed for clarity. 1995 and 1997 'oo' .... ~ µ.l Entire cross-section 199 5 (Baseline year) 4 3 Vertical exaggeration= 0 Bend Right Bank= inside 2 1 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 - - - - - - - - - -2 -3 L unvegetated bar _J -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Distance from Left Pin (meters) The length of the channel area for cross-section 8 required that it be split into two sections in order to maintain the same scale as the other channel-area plots. See next page for the cross-section 8 channel-area-only plots. 284 24 Basin Creek cross-section 8 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure 1995 and 1997 1995 and 1997 Channel area only (Left half) 0 ---,,-----,----....-----..------r-----r-----r----..------.------, -1 -4 -5 5 Vertical exaggeration = 0 Survey Year _.__ 1995 --- 1997 6 1995 and 1997 7 Bend Right Bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 unvegetated bar 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Channel area only (Right half) 0 ---,.----------....... ---~------~---~---.------.----. -1 -3 -4 -5 13 Vertical exaggeration = 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- unvegetated bar Survey Year _.__ 1995 --- 1997 14 15 16 17 18 19 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Bend Right Bank= inside 20 21 22 285 Basin Creek cross-section 9 New Cattle Exclosure 1995 and 1997 ,....__ "' ... E (!) g f:'l 0 "+:j {,l t &:i Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 4 -.--....---..----,....---T---r---,---.--....--.----,---T---r---.----.--....------. 0 3 2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 Vertical exaggeration= 0 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 gravel bar 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Distance from Left Pin (meters) The length of the channel area for cross-section 9 required that it be split into two sections in order to maintain the same scale as the other channel area plots. See next page for the cross-section 9 channel-area-only plots. 286 Basin Creek cross-section 9 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure 1995 and 1997 1995 and 1997 Channel area only (Left half) 0 -.--------.-----r----...-----.--------.-----r----,------,,-----, Vertical exaggeration = 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -2 -3 gravel bar -4 Survey Year -I- 1995 -5 --- 1997 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1995 and 1997 Channel area only (Right half) 0 --,---,-----,,----,----,----~---...----T-----r----, -1 ,__ i -2 11). 5 i::: 0 ·.g -3 > 11) iiS -4 -5 7 Vertical exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 199 5 Survey Year -I- 1995 --- 1997 8 9 gravel bar 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Straight section 14 15 16 287 Basin Creek cross-section 10 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 6 5 4 3 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Bend Left bank= inside ,-_ "' .... 0 0 0 8 '-" -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 i::: 0 -~ ,. 0 w -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 L sand and gravel bar J 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Distance from Left Pin (meters) The length of the channel area for cross-section 10 required that it be split into two sections in order to maintain the same scale as the other channel area plots.· See next page for the cross-section 10 channel-area-only plots. 288 Basin Creek cross-section 10 continued Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 1995 and 1997 Channel area only (Left half) Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Left bank= inside 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -3 sand and gravel bar --- Survey Year -+- 1995 -4 --- 1997 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1995 and 1997 Channel area only (Right half) 13 0 --,--,-----r-----,r----r---..------.---......----~--~-- -1 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 sand and gravel bar ________ _, Survey Year -+- 1995 --- 1997 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Bend Left bank= inside 18 19 20 289 Basin Creek cross-section 11 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 6 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 4 3 2 ,,-., "' .... ~ µ:) -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 0 2 3 4 5 6 1995 and 1997 7 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Straight section 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Channel area only o----~---~---~---------------------~ Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section -I -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -3 -4 Suvery year -+-- 1995 -5 ---- 1997 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 290 Basin Creek cross-section 12 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 3 ---...----.---.-----...---....---,----,,---...---....---.----,--...---.---. 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section ,,..__ 0 "' .... 0 ~ -1 5 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 ~ 0 -~ -2 t ~ -3 tension crack Lsedge barJ -4 -5 -6 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1995 and 1997 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section 0 ,,..__ "' -1 .... 0 tension crack ~ Geomorphic bankfull 1995 s .__,, - - - - - - - - ~ 0 ·.g -2 t '- sedge bar _J ~ -3 Survey Year -+-, 1995 -4 --- 1997 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 291 Basin Creek cross-section 13 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 4 3 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 2 ,--_ "' 0 .... <1) 0 E -1 '-' i:: Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 0 ·-g -2 ~-----------.. ~ ~ -3 -4 -5 -6 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1995 and 1997 Channel area only Straight section 14 15 16 17 18 0 -,,-----.-----~----,------r-----,,-----.-----~----,.----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -4 Survey Year -f-- 1995 -5 ---- 1997 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 292 Basin Creek cross-section 14 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 ,--._, t/l .... ~ s ~ I'.:: 0 ·.g !) w 0 4 3 2 -I -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 Vertical exaggeration= 0 0 2 3 4 5 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) beaver dam remnant? old channel Geomorphic bankfull 1995 L moderately I well-vegetated bar Bend Right Bank= inside beaver dam [ remnant? 1 6 7 8 9 IO I I 12 13 14 15 16 I 7 I 8 19 20 21 22 Distance from Left Pin (meters) The length of the channel area for cross-section 14 required that it be split into two sections in order to maintain the same scale as that other channel-area plots. See next page for the cross-section 14 channel-area-only plots. 6/02/03 -- Upon review of this cross-section I noted that the geomorphic bankfull location was incorrectly placed. The geomorphic bankfull width should be flush with the valley floor rather then at the top of what may be a beaver dam. A review of the cross-sections from the two years suggests that the net change would be closer to 0 sq. m rather than -0.13 sq. m. This would change the annual rate of change from -0.07 to 0 sq. m/yr and amplify the differences between the Riparian Guidelines and the New Cattle Exclosure. See page 69, Figure 11. It does not however, change the results and conclusions because the sample size for the Riparian Guidelines is large (n = 39). 293 Basin Creek cross-section 14 (continued) Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 1995 and 1997 Channel area only (Left half) Vertical exaggeration= 0 0 beaver darn remnant? -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Bend Right Bank = inside L moderately well-vegetated barj -3 -4 0 -3 -4 Survey Year --+- 1995 ---- 1997 8 1995 and 1997 9 Vertical exaggeration= 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Channel area only (Right halt) Bend Right Bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 I beaver darn remnant? 7 13 moderately well- _J vegetated bar Survey Year --+- 1995 ---- 1997 14 15 16 17 18 19 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 20 21 294 22 Basin Creek cross-section 15 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 6 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 4 3 2 ,-_ Ul ~ +-- 0 E '-' 0 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Straight section A 0 -1 ·.g -...._----------+-+,-Geomorphic bankfull 199:_5 _____ .,._,.........~, ~ -2 ra -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 -1 I E ";;' -2 0 -~ ~ ra -3 -4 0 2 3 4 5 6 1995 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 9 Survey Year ~ 1995 ------ 1997 10 11 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Channel area only Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 295 Basin Creek cross-section 16 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 10 9 8 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 7 6 5 4 ,,--. 3 "' .... bar -- 1997 ~ !:ii -3 Survey Year -+- 1995 -4 ------ 1997 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 299 Basin Creek cross-section 19 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 ~ .... -2 V ~ -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 Straight section 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 212223 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 313233 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 2 .....-----.....-----.....------r-----.------.----...----..----..-----, -2 -3 4 Vertical exaggeration = 0 Data points okay. Elevational differences on the terrace may be surface topography or variations due to a thick mat of vegetation. Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Survey Year -r- 1995 ---- 1997 5 6 7 IO Distance from Left Pin (meters) 8 9 ~ rock 1997 Straight section 11 12 13 301 Basin Creek cross-section 21 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 6 5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 4 3 2 ,,...._ U'.l .... Q) 0 ~ a -l .__, Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Straight section ~ 0 -2 ·:g ;,- -3 ~----G_.,e,..om~rp:~~ic:~:ank:-~fu:~~l:9:95:------------------~ Q) w -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0--.-----.-----.----~------~---~----------~ Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -4 Survey Year -+- 1995 -5 ---- 1997 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 302 Basin Creek cross-section 22 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 ,-._ "' .... 0 3 2 -1 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Straight section (1) - (1) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 s -2 ~--+++--.... .__,, Q -3 0 -g ;> -4 (1) ~ -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section -1 Deposition at the base of the terrace only. ,-._ ":°"'.'."::' "."'."~'"".' ~ -"' -2 .... -2:! (1) g Q 0 ·.g -3 ;> (1) ~ --4 Survey Year -t- 1995 -5 --- 1997 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 303 Basin Creek cross-section 23 New Cattle Exclosure 1995 and 1997 0 Vertical exaggeration= 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) overflow channel overflow channel Geomorphic bankfull 1995 I -6 Overflow channels likely pre-incision channels. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1995 and 1997 Channel area only Straight section 11 12 13 0 -.---.------,-----,,---"""T-----..-----r----r------r------r---, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical exaggeration= 0 Survey Year -f-- 1995 ---- 1997 3 overflow channel 4 5 6 Straight section overflow channel Geomorphic bankfull 1995 7 -...... "" 8 Differences in the right undercut location due to elevation chosen. Location varies from year to year as the undercut is underwater making choosing the same place difficult. 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 304 305 Basin Creek cross-section 23 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure Undercuts removed for clarity. 1995 and 1997 0 Vertical exaggeration =O -1 -2 -3--r------- -4 -5 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) overflow channel overflow channel Geomorphic bankfull 1995 I Straight section Right undercut removed for clarity. -6 Overflow channels likely pre-incision channels. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 13 o--.--.-----r---r---.----.---,-----,r---r----.-, -1 -4 -5 Vertical exaggeration = 0 Survey Year -t-- 1995 --- 1997 3 4 overflow channel 5 6 overflow channel Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Basin Creek cross-section 24 New Cattle Exclosure 1995 and 1997 6 5 Vertical exaggeration= 0 4 3 2 ,--, u:, ~ ~ 8 '-' 0 A 0 -1 -~ t -2 w -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 1995 and 1997 7 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 overflow channel Bend Left Bank= inside 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Channel area only 0 --,----,.----.----"?"""----.----~---~---,-------,.---~-~ Vertical exaggeration = 0 Bend Left Bank= inside -1 ,-,_ overflow channel u:, -2 .... ~ - - - ~ - - - Geomorphic bankfull 1995 8 - - - - '-' A 0 -~ -3 ;> gravel bar 0 w -4 Survey Year -+-- 1995 -5 ---- 1997 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 306 Basin Creek cross-section 25 New Elk Exclosure 1995 and 1997 7 6 5 4 3 i 2 g Vertical exaggeration = 0 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) § overflow channel 0 -~ t ~ -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 Straight section 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1995 and 1997 Channel area only I ""'T""----.-----,.-----.------r----....-------~-----r------. Vertical exaggeration= 0 Straight section 0 overflow chanriel Geommphic bankfull 1995 I -3 Ledge barJ sedge bar Survey Year --+- 1995 -4 _._ 1997 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 307 Basin Creek cross-section 26 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 4 ....... --.-...--.--.----.---.--r--r----,.---r-~-..---..---.--r-~-.--....... --.-..---,--.--, ,__ ti) .... 8 .___, i::: 0 -~ [i ~ Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank= inside 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0 ---------r----...----.------.-----..----,------,,-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Undercut removed for clarity. Survey Years -+- 1993 ---- 1998 6 7 Bend Right bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1993 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 314 315 Muddy Creek cross-section 1 ( continued) Old Cattle Exclosure Undercut removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 I i:: 0 1993 and 1995 0 __,.'..:.:::.=:~:::_--.----.----,----r---.----ir-----.----, Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank = inside -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 ·-g -3 ~ 53 -4 -5 5 Survey Years -+- 1993 --e- 1995 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Channel area only 1995 and 1998 o-:.~.=..::;..:___.....---.--_,..,---,----.---.---,---, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank = inside -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -3 Undercut removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years -+- 1995 -5 --e- 1998 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Muddy Creek cross-section 2 Old Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 3 ""T""-r--.---r---.--r--...----,---r---.--.--...----,---r-----.---~-~--~ 2 0 ,-. -1 U) 1u ...... -2 Q) s .._, 1::1 -3 0 -~ -4 ;> ~ -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section This is an earlier, older channel. It is a meander bend. Geomorphic bankfull 1993 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0 -----.----.--------...------,----~---------- -1 I -2 g .§ ti! -3 ~ ~ -4 -5 3 Vertical Exaggeration =0 Bend Right bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1993 No undercut in 1993 sedge bar Survey Years -I-- 1993 ----- 1998 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 316 Muddy Creek cross-section 2 ( continued) Old Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only 0 --,---~---.-------r---..---"""'T----.------.-----.------. g = -~ > "' 6l ,___ rn .... ~ El ._, i::: 0 ·.g > <1) ~ Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -2 -3 -4 Survey Years ~ 1993 -5 --- 1995 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 Channel area only 1995 and 1998 0 -,------.----.-----,----r----"""'T---'"T""---,------,----, -I -3 -4 -5 3 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years ~ 1995 --- 1998 4 5 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 6 7 8 Straight sec ti on Undercut possibly missed in 1995 or may be new feature. 9 10 II Distance from Left Pin (meters) 12 317 318 Muddy Creek cross-section 2 ( continued) Old Cattle Exclosure Undercut removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 ,-.. "' .... (!) ... (!) g i:: 0 ·-g ;;. (!) ~ Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 3 ""T""-..---,---r---,r----r--,---,---r---,.----r--..---r-,---,--,--,---.---r--,.---, 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section This is an earlier, older channel. It is a meander bend. Geomorphic bankfull 1993 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0 --------..----,-----r-----.----,-----,,-----,------, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 3 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Survey Years ~ 1993 --- 1998 4 5 sedge bar 6 7 8 Bend Right bank= inside Undercut removed for clarity 9 IO 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 12 319 Muddy Creek cross-section 2 (continued) Old Cattle Exclosure Undercut removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 0 _.,:..:...:__ _ _,;.. ______ -,-___ ----..-----r------.-----r-----, Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -2 g = -~ > -3 ..!.l µ.) -4 Survey Years -+- 1993 -5 ------ 1995 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Channel area only 0 __,;l,.:..9,;_95'--'-an,;_d_l...:.9..-9_8 __ ---, ___ -r-___ ~----,----.----r----.----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 '""' "' ~ +-' '1) Ei __, .:: 0 -~ -3 ~ Undercut removed for clarity. ra -4 Survey Years -+- 1995 -5 ------ 1998 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Muddy Creek cross-section 3 Riparian Guidelines 1995 and 1998 5 4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 3 2 1 0 g -1 i:: -2 .9 t;j > -3 "' 1il -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1995 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 I Straight section 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Channel area only 0 --,-----.------,,-----,----r----r-----,------,------r-----, Vertical Exaggeration = 0 -1 -4 Survey Years -f-- 1995 -5 --- 1998 13 14 15 Geomorphic bankfull I 995 16 17 18 Straight section Undercuts possibly missed in 1995. 19 20 21 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 22 320 321 Muddy Creek cross-section 3 (continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1995 and 1998 ,-.. ti) ... <1) 0 s .__, i::: 0 -~ ;:, <1) ~ 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 I Straight section 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Channel area only 1995 and 1998 0 --,-----..------r---~---.---.---...... ----,,----,---7 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 13 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years --I- 1995 ---- 1998 14 15 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 16 17 18 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. 19 20 21 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 22 Muddy Creek cross-section 4 Riparian Guidelines 1993, 1995, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 2 -r----,,---,--~---r----.----,--,---,---,----r-----.---.---.----, ,-.. "' .... (!) -3 ~ -4 -5 -6 0 I -1 g § ·-g -2 \'; ~ -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1993 and 1998 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Geomm:phic bankfull ,-----'-------;;;;;;;;!:;,..__ 1993 Straight section 10 11 12 13 14 15 Straight section Bank undercuts just missed in 1993. Survey Years -+- 1993 ---- 1998 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 16 12 326 Muddy Creek cross-section 5 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines 1993, 1995, and 1998 0 -3 -4 0 1993 and 1995 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 3 Survey Years -I-- 1993 -e- 1995 4 1995 and 1998 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Channel area only 6 7 8 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Straight section 9 10 11 Straight section Undercuts were just missed in 1995. -3 -4 3 Survey Years -I-- 1995 -e- 1998 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 327 12 12 328 Muddy Creek cross-section 5 (continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 3 -r-""T"-""T"_""T"_""T"_""T"_""T"_""T"_""T"_""T"_--r---r---r---r---..---..--, 2 0 ----"' ... (l) ~ -1 s '--' ~ -2 0 -~ :,. (l) -3 w -4 -5 -6 0 -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 2 3 4 1993 and 1998 3 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -f- 1993 ---- 1998 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1993 10 Straight section 11 12 13 14 15 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 16 12 Muddy Creek cross-section 5 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -----~---==- -3 -4 0 -1 -2 3 Survey Years ~ 1993 --- 1995 4 1995 and 1998 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 6 7 8 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1995 329 Undercuts removed for clarity. Straight section 9 10 11 12 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. -3 -4 3 Survey Years ~ 1995 --- 1998 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Muddy Creek cross-section 6 Riparian Guidelines 1993, 1995, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 3 ~----.-----,---,....--~-..---~-....---,-----.--~----,---,....--..--- 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank= inside 0 ,,-... tll 1u ..... -1 al ~ 4 3 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 0 2 3 4 5 6 1993 and 1998 7 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Bend Right bank = inside 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Channel area only 0-.---..------r---~---,-----,-----r----,---.----, -I -2 -3 -4 -5 5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Differences in surface elevations due to the shortage of points taken on the terrace in 1993. I Undercut removed for clarity. Survey Years --f- 1993 --- 1998 6 7 8 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 9 10 II Distance from Left Pin (meters) Bend Right bank = inside 12 13 14 Muddy Creek cross-section 8 Riparian Guidelines 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 0 --,,-----,---.---,,---'--r---,--r-~--,--r-~--,--r-~--,---r---,----r---r---ir--, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Left bank = inside -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -3 -4 -5 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1993 and 1998 Channel area only 0 --,,-----r---...---~---...-----.----,-----,,----....,..----, -1 I -2 g § ·.g -3 ~ ~ -4 -5 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years --f- 1993 ---- 1998 6 7 Geomorphic baokfull 1993 8 9 Bend Left bank= inside Differences in terrace surfaces is a function of the scarity of data points in 1993. Undercuts just missed in 1993. 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 14 336 337 Muddy Creek cross-section 8 (continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 0 --.---r--r---r-...----.--.--r--r-...----,-.,...-r---r--.---,.---,---.---.--.---, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Left bank = inside -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -3 -4 -5 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1993 and 1998 Channel area only o----~---~---~------~---~---~------- Vertical Exaggeration = 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Survey Years -f-- 1993 -5 --- 1998 5 6 7 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 8 9 Bend Left bank= inside Differences in terrace surfaces is a function of the scarity of data points in 1993. Undercuts removed for clarity. 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 14 Muddy Creek cross-section 9 Riparian Guidelines 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 3 .....--...---,---,---,--~-~-~-.---.---.---.---.---.---.---.-----,,----, 2 Vertical Exaggeration =0 Straight section 0 ,-.__ ~ -I ~ Q) 5 -2 i::: Geomorphic bankfull 1993 0 -~ -3 > Q) ~ -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1993 and 1998 Channel area only 0 --,,-----.-----.----.-------,,-----.-----.----~---,------, -1 -2 0 ·-g -3 tiJ ~ -4 -5 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -I-- 1993 --- 1998 6 7 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Undercuts just missed in 1993. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 338 339 Muddy Creek cross-section 9 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 3 --~~-........ -....--..-----.---,---,----,c---,--,--.----.--r---,---,----, 2 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section 0 ,-._ ~ -1 !l 0 s .__, -2 Q 0 Geommphic bankfull 1993 ·-g -3 > 0 ~ -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1993 and 1998 Channel area only o~---...-----.-----r-----.-----,---.----.---.----, -1 w -2 I 0 ·.g -3 ;; ~ -4 -5 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years --f-- 1993 __._ 1998 6 7 Straight section Geommphkbankfull 1993 Undercuts removed for clarity. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Muddy Creek cross-section 10 Riparian Guidelines 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 3 -.--~-~-~-~--.---.---.----,----,----,----,------,------,----,-~ -----"' .... (l) ~ s .___, .::: 0 .i ;, (l) i] 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 1993 and 1998 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Very tight bend Left bank = inside _____ ____..-- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Channel area only 17 o-----------~---~--------------,-----.----. -1 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Undercut just missed in 1993. Survey Years -+-- 1993 ----- 1998 3 4 5 6 7 8 Distance from Right Pin (meters) Very tight bend Left bank = inside 9 10 340 341 Muddy Creek cross-section 10 (continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercut removed for clarity. 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 3 --.----r--.----.--,--,---,-.---,--.-r--.--~-,--r-.----, 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 ,-__ "' ..... -1 (!) ts g -2 s:: 0 -~ -3 t w -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 1993 and 1998 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 ,;;- i g s:: 0 -~ -3 ;;,- (!) w -4 Survey Years ~ 1993 -5 -e- 1998 3 4 5 5 Geomm:phic bankfull 1993 Very tight bend Left bank = inside -------- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1993 13 14 15 16 Very tight bend Left bank= inside Undercut removed for clarity. 6 7 8 9 10 Distance from Right Pin (meters) 17 Muddy Creek cross-section 11 Riparian Guidelines 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 0 --,----,----""T""----.-----,-------,------.-----.-----,------, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend. Right bank = inside -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -4 -5 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Channel area only 1993 and 1998 0 --,,----~------.-----.-----.------,,-----,----""T""----,-----, -1 i -2 0 g ~ 0 ·.g -3 6) ~ -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend. Right bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Undercuts just missed in 1993. Survey Years -+- 1993 ---- 1998 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Distance from Right Pin (meters) 342 343 Muddy Creek cross-section 11 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 0----...----.----.----,.----r----.----.---r----, Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Bend. Right bank = inside -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -4 -5 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Channel area only 1993 and 1998 0 _.:.;:.;:.::..::::::...:..;.;;,.;:___--,,----r----.----r-----.---,---,----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend. Right bank = inside -l -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -3 Undercuts removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years --f- 1993 -5 ----- 1998 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Distance from Right Pin (meters) Muddy Creek cross-section 12 Old Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 2 .....------.----.----,.---..---,---,---.-----.--~---.--.---..----,----.-----.--~ ~ "' .... * E '-' I:: .9 ~ ~ ra Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank = inside 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0 --,.---'-----.-----.-----,----,------,---,-----.------.-----,-----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Survey Years --+- 1993 -5 --- 1998 4 5 6 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 7 8 Bend Right bank= inside Undercut possibly missed in 1993 or it may be a new feature in 1998. 9 10 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 13 344 Muddy Creek cross-section 12 (continued) Old Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only o~----------.----~---~----------~-------- -1 g s::: 0 -~ -3 5) ~ -4 -5 4 0 -1 -3 -4 -5 4 Vertical Exaggeration =O Survey Years ~ 1993 --- 1995 5 6 1995 and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Survey Years ~ 1995 --- 1998 5 6 Bend Right bank =inside Geomorphic bankfull 1993 7 8 Possibly just missed measuring the right bank undeJCut in 1993 and probably in 1995. 9 10 11 Channel area only Bend 12 Right bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 7 8 Probably just missed measuring the right undercut in 1995. 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 12 13 13 345 346 Muddy Creek cross-section 12 (continued) Old Cattle Exclosure Undercut removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 ,,-.. "' .... <1.l 0 s .__, t:::: 0 -~ > <1.l r.iS Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 2 .....---r---r--..---,---r---r---,r--,---,---.---.--.--.-.--,---, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank = inside 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) 0 ~---..--_:_-........ _;_---.---r-----,----,----,r---.----, Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank = inside -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -3 Undercut removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years --f- 1993 -5 --- 1998 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 347 Muddy Creek cross-section 12 (continued) Old Cattle Exclosure Undercut removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 g d 0 ·~ t GS. d .9 ti.i t GS 1993 and 1995 0 _;.::.:.::...::.::..:..:.;...:___-r---.---.---r---.---.------.----, Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank= inside -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -3 -4 Survey Years -+- 1993 -5 --- 1995 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 Channel area only 1995 and 1998 o---.----r----r---.----,--~,----.---.-~----.----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank= inside -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -3 Undercut removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years --i,-;. 1995 -5 --- 1998 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 348 Muddy Creek cross-section 13 ( continued) Old Cattle Exclosure Undercuts removed for clarity 1993, 1995, and 1998 ,-__ Ul .... (!) 0 g i::: .8 1s! :> (!) ~ I § Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 2 -,---,---.---~--.----.--.---~--.----r--.---~---,---,---r---, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0-------------------~-----------..------, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -2 -~ -3 [; ~ -4 -5 14 Survey Years -f- 1993 --- 1998 15 16 Undercuts removed for clarity. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 349 Muddy Creek cross-section 13 ( continued) Old Cattle Exclosure Undercuts removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only o----r-----r----r---.---r-----.---.---~r----, Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Undercuts removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years -i- 1993 -5 ---- 1995 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1995 and 1998 Channel area only 0 ----...----.-----T----,,----,------.---,---,---, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull !995 Undercuts removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years -i- 1995 -5 ---- 1998 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Muddy Creek cross-section 13 Old Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 2 ....-----.--.---"T"---r----r--.---"T"---r----r--.---~--r----r---- Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section 0 ,,...__ -1 "' Geomorphic bankfull 1993 .... Q} ..... Q} -2 s ___, i::: 0 ·-g -3 > Q} ii5 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0 --,----.----.....----..-----,,-----.----.....----~---.------. Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull l 993 Undercuts just missed in 1993. -4 Survey Years -j-- 1993 -5 --- 1998 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 350 Muddy Creek cross-section 13 ( continued) Old Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only 0-...---....... ----.-----...----.-------.----.----...----~--~ -1 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 14 Survey Years ~ 1993 --- 1995 15 1995 and 1998 16 17 Undercuts were just missed in 1993. 18 19 20 21 Channel area only Straight section 22 23 0 -~----.---~---.....----...----...---....... ----.-----...-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 14 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Survey Years ~ 1995 --- 1998 15 16 17 18 19 20 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Straight section 21 22 23 351 Muddy Creek cross-section 14 Riparian Guidelines 1993, 1995, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 2 ....... -.....,.--.....--..----,------.....--..------------------- ,-.._ "' ... 0 0 s ,__, i::: 0 -~ > 0 ~ Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank= inside 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull I 993 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0---.----.-----....... --~----r-----.------~------- -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 3 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -f-- 1993 --- 1998 4 5 Bend Right bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Undercuts were just missed in 1993. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 352 Muddy Creek cross-section 14 (continued) Riparian Guidelines 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only 0 -ir------r----r-----"T----,-----,r------r----r-----"T----, -1 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 3 Survey Years -+- 1993 ----- 1995 4 1995 and 1998 5 Bend Right bank= inside Undercuts just missed in 1993. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Channel area only 0-----.-----.---------..-------------------- -1 -4 -5 3 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -+- 1995 ----- 1998 4 5 Bend Right bank= inside 6 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 7 Variations in the right bank undercut just due to the location selected for the undercut point. 8 9 10 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 11 12 353 Muddy Creek cross-section 14 (continued) 1993, 1995, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. ,.--. "' .... B (l) ~ -4 -5 -6 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only Straight section 10 11 12 13 0 -.------,,------,-----,---~-----.-----.-----.-----.-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Survey Years -+- 1993 _.., 1998 3 4 5 6 7 old channel or spreading tension crack? I Straight section Probably just missed measuring the undercut in 1993. 8 9 10 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 11 359 Muddy Creek cross-section 16 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines 1993, 1995, and 1998 Channel area only 1993 and 1995 0--,---""T""---,-------.---~--~---~----,r-----r----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 old channel or spreading tension crack? Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1993 2 Survey Years -r- 1993 ---- 1995 3 1995 and 1998 4 5 6 Probably just missed measuring the undercut in 1993. 7 8 9 Channel area only 10 11 0--,.-----""T----,----....-----,,-----"T----r---~---,------, -1 -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 old channel or spreading tension crack? I Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Survey Years -r- 1995 ---- 1998 3 4 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Straight section 9 10 11 360 361 Muddy Creek cross-section 16 (continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercut removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 ,___ VJ .... <1.) 0 s '-' i:: 0 -~ > <1.) ~ Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 0 2 3 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) Old channel or spreading tension crack? Geomorphic bankfull 1993 4 5 6 7 8 9 Straight section 10 11 12 13 Channel area only 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) o~----r--..:.._-~:,_;_---,-----,r----.----.--~----,r----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Survey Yearn -1- 1993 --- 1998 3 4 5 6 7 old channel or spreading tension crack? I Straight section Undercut removed for clarity. 8 9 10 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 11 362 Muddy Creek cross-section 16 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 Channel area only 1993 and 1995 o-.----~.------.----.--------~-------~---~--~ -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 old channel or spreading tension crack? Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Undercut removed for clarity. Survey Years -f-- 1993 ---- 1995 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1995 and 1998 Channel area only 11 o-...---~.------.-----..----.--------~---~---~---~ -1 I -2 g § ·.g -3 E'.i w -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -f-- 1995 ---- 1998 3 4 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 5 6 old channel or spreading tension crack? I Undercuts removed for clarity. 7 8 9 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Straight section 10 11 Muddy Creek cross-section 17 Riparian Guidelines 1993, 1995, and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -1 -4 -5 0 2 3 4 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull I 993 5 6 7 Channel area only Bend Left bank= inside 8 9 10 11 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) 0 --r----r--'---r-;:_;_-.......,.._---,,-----.----~--~-----~ -1 -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull I 993 Undercut probably just missed in 1993. Survey Years -I-- 1993 ------ 1998 3 4 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Bend Left bank= inside 9 10 11 363 Muddy Creek cross-section 17 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only 0 ---,.----~----r----....----.----~----.----...----.----~ -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Undercuts just missed in 1993 and 1995 Survey Years --f- 1993 ----- 1995 3 4 1995 and 1998 Bend Left bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1993 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Channel area only 0----------------~-------------------- -1 -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years --f- 1995 ----- 1998 3 4 Bend Left bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull !995 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 364 365 Muddy Creek cross-section 17 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 ,.---, i i::: 0 -~ 0 -1 -2 t -3 w -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 0 2 3 4 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1993 5 6 7 Channel area only Bend Left bank= inside 8 9 IO 11 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) 0 ----~-=---~-=-..:--..-----,-----.-----r----r---~----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Left bank = inside -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -4 Survey Years -5 --I- 1993 ---- 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 366 Muddy Creek cross-section 17 (continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only o----~----.----~----,r----,------.----.------,r----, Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Bend Left bank = inside -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -4 Survey Years -+- 1993 Undercuts removed for clarity. -5 --- 1995 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1995 and 1998 Channel area only 0 -.-----,----~---.----...------,.-----.-----,r----.----, Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Bend Left bank = inside -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -4 Survey Years -+- 1995 Undercuts removed for clarity. -5 --- 199B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Muddy Creek cross-section 18 Riparian Guidelines 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 3 ~-~----.--,---..---~-~------~~-..----.-----~-~~-..----.---- 2 0 ,....._ Ul .... .., ...... -1 .., _§, i:: -2 0 -~ ;,- .., -3 iii -4 -5 -6 0 -1 ,....._ Ul -2 .... f 8 .._, i:: 0 -~ -3 ;,- .., iii -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1993 and 1998 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration =0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Undercut possibly missed in 1993 ormaybeanew feature in 1998. Survey Years -+- 1993 --- 1998 2 3 4 5 6 7 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 11 Straight section Questionable point in 1993, but may just be a rock . Nothing in notes. I 12 13 14 15 Straight section 8 9 16 10 367 Muddy Creek cross-section 18 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines 1993 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 368 Undercut removed for clarity. 3 -.---.---.--......--......----r---r---r---r---r---r---r---r---r--,---,---, 2 0 ,-._ "' .... 0 ... -1 0 s '-' i::: -2 0 ·.g > 0 -3 w -4 -5 -6 0 0 -1 ,-._ ·V., -2 .... 0 0 g i::: 0 -~ -3 ~ w -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1993 and 1998 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 Undercut removed for clarity. Survey Years -+- 1993 --- 1998 2 3 4 5 6 7 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 11 Straight section Questionable point in 1993, but may just be a rock. Nothing in notes. 12 13 14 15 Straight section 8 9 16 10 Muddy Creek cross-section 19 Riparian Guidelines 1993 and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -1 ,-._ ti) ... Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) block ofbank -3 -3 0 w -4 -5 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 1993 and 1998 Channel area only 370 Undercut removed for clarity. Straight section 8 9 lO 11 0--,,----,----,---,---,----,---,---,---,-----, -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 block of bank Geomorphic bankfull 1993 I Undercut removed for clarity. Survey Years -f-- 1993 --e- 1998 2 3 4 5 6 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Bend Right bank= inside 7 8 9 Muddy Creek cross-section 22 New Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -1 ,-._ Cl) .... ~ -2 8 .___, i:: 0 ·:g -3 > d) ~ -4 Survey Years -+- 1993 -5 ----- 1995 3 4 5 6 7 8 1995 and 1998 Channel area only 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 ,--. I clod IZl -2 !3 ..... d) 8 .___, ~ .9 -3 1il > d) ~ -4 Survey Years -+- 1995 -5 ----- 1998 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 372 Straight section 10 11 12 Straight section IO 11 12 Muddy Creek cross-section 22 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -1 ,--. Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 373 Undercut removed for clarity. Straight section "' ... (1) Geomorphic bankfull I 993 0 -2 s '-' i::: 0 ·~ t -3 ~ -4 -5 -6 0 2 3 0 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 ,--. ~ -2 (1) 0 s '-' i::: Undercut removed for clarity. 0 -~ -3 t ~ -4 Survey Years -+- 1993 -5 ---- 1998 3 4 5 4 6 5 6 7 Channel area only 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (m) 8 9 9 10 11 12 Straight section 10 11 12 Muddy Creek cross-section 22 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only 0 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 ,--. "' -2 .... (\) 0 s '-' i::: Undercut removed for clarity. 0 ·.g -3 [) ~ -4 Survey Years -I- 1993 -5 ---- 1995 3 4 5 6 7 8 1995 and 1998 Channel area only Undercut removed for clarity, Straight section 9 10 11 12 0--.------.-----.----..-------.---~--------------- Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -2 I clod -3 Undercut remove for clarity. -4 Survey Years -f- 1995 -5 ---- 1998 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 374 Muddy Creek cross-section 23 New Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1993 (Baseline year) 0 --,r---"T---,-----r---r----,---"T----.----..---..----,---,----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1993 -5 -6 -7 -+----r---r----.r---,-----.-----r---...-----.....----.---..----1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only -2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -3 ,......_ Geomorphic bankfull 1993 "' -4 ... ------0 0 s .__, i:: LB undercut just 0 missed in 1993. ·-g -5 ;> 0 ~ -6 Survey Years -1- 1993 -7 ---- 1998 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 375 Muddy Creek cross-section 23 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only -2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -3 ,.....,_ Geomorphic bankfull 1993 "' -4 .... * 8 .__, i::: .9 -5 ti ;,- ., ra -4 -5 -6 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Channel area only 1993 and 1998 (Net Change) 0 -.--------.-----.-------.----.....----...------r-----,-------,-----, "i? -2 1 ::: 0 ·.g -3 ~ ra -4 -5 3 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Undercut possibly missed in 1993. Survey Years -f-- 1993 ----e-- 1998 4 5 Straight section 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 379 Muddy Creek cross-section 24 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure 1993, 1995, and 1998 1993 and 1995 Channel area only o----~---~---~------~---~---~------~ Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section ,-.._ 0) ~ -3 -4 -5 -6 0 2 3 1995 and 1998 4 5 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 6 7 8 9 10 Channel area only Straight section 11 12 13 14 0--T----r----.----.----.----r---.---.---.----, -1 -4 -5 4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years ~ 1995 ---- 1998 5 6 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 lush sedges Undercuts removed for clarity. 7 10 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 8 9 11 12 13 Muddy Creek cross-section 26 Old Cattle Exclosure 1995 and 1998 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 0 -1 old channel meander bend? ,,-._ "' ... 0 Straight section 0 -2 g Geomorphic bankfull 1995 I ----------- i:::: -3 0 -~ -4 ;., 0 iiS -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1995 and 1998 Channel area only 0 -,---""T'""---.-----.-----r-----,----..----"""T-----r-----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 old channel meander bend? Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -4 Survey Years -f-- 1995 -5 --e- 1998 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 385 386 Muddy Creek cross-section 26 ( continued) Old Cattle Exclosure Undercuts removed for clarity. 1995 and 1998 ----- V) .... (I) Ei.i -3 -4 4 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Entire cross-section 1996 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1996 I r-- gravel bar --i 5 10 15 20 25 1996 and 1998 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Just missed back edge of willow block in 1998. Survey Years -+- 1996 --- 1998 5 6 Right bank undercut may have been missed in 1996 or a new feature as of 1998. 7 10 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 8 9 11 387 Straight section 30 Straight section 12 13 Muddy Creek cross-section 30 ( continued) Old Cattle Exclosure 1996 and 1998 5 -5 -10 0 ,-._ "' -1 ... * 8 .__, i::: 0 .i -2 ;. Q) G:i Vertical Exaggeration =0 Entire cross-section 1996 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1996 I r-- gravel bar 1 5 10 15 20 1996 and 1998 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Just missed back edge of willow block in 1998. 388 Undercut removed for clarity. Straight section 25 30 Straight section -3 Undercut removed for clarity. Survey Years -+- 1996 -4 --- 1998 4 5 6 7 10 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 8 9 11 12 13 Muddy Creek cross-section 31 Old Cattle Exclosure 1996 and 1998 5 0 Geomorphic bankfull I 996 I _r---- -5 downstream channel -10 -15 0 5 10 1996 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1996 (Baseline year) Gecnnarphic bankfull 1996 I sand and gravel bar 15 upstream channel This cross-section is parallel to the valley so crosses the creek twice. Only the downstream channel analyzed because of the angle of the cross-section line across the upper channel made the results questionable. 20 25 30 35 Channel area only ( downstream channel) 40 0 --,.------,-----.---~----T----r-----.-----.----....... ----. -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Survey Years -+- 1996 --- 1998 3 4 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1996 sand and gravel bar --- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 389 Muddy Creek cross-section 32 Old Cattle Exclosure 1996 and 1998 1996 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1996 (Baseline year) 3 -,--,,--,----,-....---,,--,---,.-..----.--..---.--,--.--,--,--,,--,----,-....---,,-...---,,~ ,-._ [/) ... (1) ..... (1) s '--' ~ 0 -~ ;,. (1) ~ ,___ [/) ... ~ 5 ~ 0 ·.g ~ ~ 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 0 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 old channel 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1996 and 1998 Geomorphic bankfull 1996 L gravel_J bar Straight section old channel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Channel area only 0 ---.-----.-----,----..----,------.-----,----..----,,----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1996 ,1'.i::;;;;l;;;;;;l_,_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3 -4 -5 10 Survey Years ~ 1996 _____,. 1998 11 12 gravel bar ---- 13 15 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 14 16 17 Straight section old channe I No explanation for difference. 18 19 390 391 Price Creek, Montana Relative location of cross-sections with respect to each other. New elk exclosure/beaver dam controlled 4 6 7 5 31 32 West Fork Price Creek Price Creek cross-section 2 _ Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam controlled 1994 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 3 ...--....--,----,--.--.....--~--,.----.---.--....--,----.----r----.--~------.-~ ,-. s __, i:: 0 -~ > tl) ~ 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank = inside 0 -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1994 and 1998 Channel area only 0 ---.---.....----.-------r----~----.----........ -----.----.-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 9 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -1-- 1994 --- 1998 10 11 12 Bend Right bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1994 13 14 15 16 17 18 Distance from Left Pin (m) 392 393 Price Creek cross-section 2 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam controlled 1994 and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. ,--, g A 0 -~ :> ., ES Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 3 ,--r-..---r---.-.--,--.----,.---r--r---r-...----,--~------ 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank= inside 0 -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1994 and 1998 Channel area only 0 -.---.---.---.----,----,-----,-----,....---~-~ Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank= inside -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -3 -4 Survey Years Undercuts removed for clarity. -,- 1994 -5 --- 1998 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Distance from Left Pin (m) 394 West Fork Price Creek cross-section 4 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1994 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 3 .---ir--.--,.----,--r--,--r--,--r----.--r----r-..----r---.----.---.--~ 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Side channel ? 0 Geomorphic bjkfull 1994 I -..........------+-------+--;.. .... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1994 and 1998 12 13 Straight section 14 15 16 17 18 Channel area only 0 -,-------y-------y------r--......::.---r-----------~ -1 -3 6 Vertical Exaggeration= O Survey Years --1-- 1994 ---- 1998 7 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Side channel? \ Undercuts removed for clarity. 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 395 West Fork Price Creek cross-section 4 (continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1994 and 1998 2 0 ,,...._ -1 $ i:: -2 0 -~ ] -3 w -4 -5 -6 -7 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Side channel ? 0 Geomorphic batfull 1994 I '1,...,...----------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1994 and 1998 12 13 Straight section 14 15 16 17 18 Channel area only 0--r----.------,-----,---..::_-..------.----~ Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Side channel ? \ ,,...._ "' 2 11) E '--' -2 i:: . 9 Undercuts removed for clarity . t;j > 11) w Survey Years -3 -i- 1994 _._ 1998 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) West Fork Price Creek cross-section 5 Riparian Guidelines 1994 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Q--,,-------.-----~-----,-------.-----~-------, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend (very gentle) -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -i------------~ -3 0 2 3 4 5 6 1994 and 1998 Channel area only 0 -...-----.----.....-----,----.-------.---.....-----,----...-----, Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Bend (very gentle) -1 ,-.. -2 g Tension crack i::: 0 1998 'i > -3 0 li:i -4 Survey Years -1- 1994 -5 --- 1998 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Distance from Left Pin (m) 396 397 West Fork Price Creek cross-section 5 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines Undercuts removed for clarity. 1994 and 1998 s '-' s::: 0 -~ [> w ,__ g s::: 0 -~ [> w Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) o--.,-------r-------..-----,------~-----,------.. Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Bend (very gentle) -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -2 Undercuts removed for clarity. -3 0 2 3 4 5 6 1994 and 1998 Channel area only o--------~----T----..------.----r----r----..------. Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 -2 -3 Undercuts removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years -+- 1994 -5 ---- 1998 0 2 3 4 Tension crack 1998 5 Distance from Left Pin (m) Bend (very gentle) 6 7 8 9 West Fork Price Creek cross-section 6 Riparian Guidelines 1994 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 2~---.---...----.---.-------.---...----,---,-------.--~ 0 ,,...._ 5 -l Q 0 ..... ti! ,.. -2 (I) ~ g i::: 0 -~ 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 -1 ~ -2 ~ -3 -4 0 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Side channel or old cow trail. 2 3 1994 and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years --f- 1994 ---- 1998 3 Side channel or old cow trail 4 4 5 Geomorphic bankfull I 994 Undercuts removed for clarity. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Channel area only Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 ·----------- Undercuts removed for clarity. 6 7 8 9 10 Distance from Left Pin (m) 12 11 West Fork Price Creek cross-section 7 Riparian Guidelines 1994 and 1998 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -I ,__ g -2 1::1 0 -~ -3 ;> Q.) iii -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 0 2 3 4 5 1994 and 1998 6 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 7 8 9 IO II 12 Channel area only Straight section 13 14 15 16 17 18 o-~---~---~----.,------.--------.------.------.----~ -I -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Differences in the undercut positions are a function of the underwater elevation selected. Survey Years --+- 1994 --- 1998 2 3 4 5 Right undercut was likely just missed in 1994. 6 7 Distance from Left Pin (m) Straight section 8 9 IO 400 West Fork Price Creek cross-section 7 (continued) Riparian Guidelines 1994 and 1998 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 ,__ -1 "' ... * -2 8 '---' i:: 0 -3 "i :> Undercuts removed <1.l -4 for clarity. ~ -5 -6 -7 -8 0 2 3 4 5 1994 and 1998 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 ,__ ~ -2 <1.l ~ 8 '---' i:: .Si -3 ~ 5) Undercuts removed ~ for clarity. -4 Survey Years -+- 1994 -5 ---- 1998 2 3 6 4 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 7 8 9 10 11 12 Channel area only 5 6 7 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 401 Undercuts removed for clarity. Straight section 13 14 15 16 17 18 Straight section 8 9 10 Price Creek cross-section 13 New Elk Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1994, 1997, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 5 --,,----.-----,-~--,---.---T-..---,--..----,--~--r--...---r--...---.---,,----,---,,----,--~ ,-._ g i::: 0 -~ > Q) w 8 .__,, i::: .9 t;:j > Q) w 4 3 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Right bank= inside Side channel I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 1994 and 1998 (Net Change) Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Differences in the undercut position are a function of the elevation selected. Survey Years -+- 1994 ----- 1998 13 14 15 16 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 undercut 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Channel area only 17 Bend Right bank = irn,ide Partially breached beaver dam located 5 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. Beaver re-entered the exclosure between 1994 and 1995 and rebuilt the dam. Dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side. 18 19 20 21 Distance from Left Pin (m) 22 402 Price Creek cross-section 13 ( continued) New Elk Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1994, 1997, and 1998 1994 and 1997 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 --- -2 El '-' i::: Differences in the 0 -~ undercut position are :> -3 a function of the 0 w 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Undercuts removed for clarity. Survey Years -+- 1994 -------- 1997 13 14 15 1997 and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 16 Channel area only 17 Bend Right bmk = inside Partially breached beaver dam located 5 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. Beaver re-entered the exclosure between 1994 and 1995 and rebuilt the dam. Dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 snrveys. Breach occurred on the left side. 18 19 20 21 Channel area only Bend Right bmk = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1997 Undercuts removed for clarity. Survey Years -I- 1997 ----- 1998 Beaver dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. The breach occurred on the left side. 22 -5 --1: - --.----.....-----.----..------,.----r------.----r------t 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Price Creek cross-section 14 New Elk Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1994, 1997, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 0 -r------r-----,----...----~-----r-------.------r-------, -1 S -2 .__, i:: 0 ·:g t ~ -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 2 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 3 4 5 6 7 8 Channel area only 1994 and 1998 (Net Change) 0 -,,-----,---~------.-----,-----.------r----...----...-----, Vertical Exaggeration = 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Survey Years --i- 1994 -5 --- 1998 0 2 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 3 Intact, but abandoned beaver dam was located 15 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. All traces of this dam were gone by 1997. Beaver re-entered exclosure between the 1994 and 1995 surveys and built a new dam 35 m downstream of cross-section. Dam failed between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. 4 5 Distance from Right Pin (m) 6 7 8 9 406 Price Creek cross-section 14 ( continued) New Elk Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1994, 1997, and 1998 1994 and 1997 Channel area only o-----~---.....----~----.---.....;;.~-----,------------~ -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -+- 1994 --- 1997 1997 and 1998 2 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 3 4 Straight section Intact, but abandoned beaver dam was located 15 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. All traces of this dam were gone by 1997. Beaver re-entered exclosure between the 1994 and 1995 surveys and built a new dam 35 m downstream of cross-section. 5 6 7 8 Channel area only 9 o-.--------~----.-----.----~--------~---.....----- Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Survey Years --+- 1997 -5 ---- 1998 0 2 Geomorphic bankfull I 997 3 4 5 Distance from Right Pin (m) 6 Straight section Beaver dam located 35 to 37 m downstream of the cross-section. Dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. The breach occurred on the left side. 7 8 9 407 Price Creek cross-section 15 New Elk Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1994, 1997, and 1998 -1 -2 -3 -6 -7 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Beaver side channel I 2 3 1994 and 1998 (Net Change) Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1994 4 5 6 7 Straight section 8 9 10 11 Channel area only -2 """T"""---"""T"""---....----...----..-----r-----,------,------,-----, -3 ,-.. -4 g i:: 0 ·~ ;> -5 ., 5".i -6 -7 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section ~, "-i-! ~-------+- Survey Years -+- 1994 ----- 1998 3 4 5 6 The 1994 RPin was buried under sediment and a new pin was installed in 1997. The cross-section length had to be increased to reach the top of the bar. Beaver re-entered the exclosure between 1994 and 1995 and built a dam 6.5 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side. 7 8 9 10 Distance from Left Pin (m) 11 408 Price Creek cross-section 15 ( continued) New Elk Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1994, 1997, and 1998 1994 and 1997 Channel area only -2 -r-----,----.--------.----,-----,-----,,---~-----r-----, -3 -6 -7 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -r- 1994 --- 1997 3 1997 and 1998 4 5 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 6 The 1994 RPin was buried under sediment and a new pin was installed in 1997. The cross-section length had to be increased to reach the top of the newly deposited bar. 7 Beaver re-entered the exclosure between 1994 and 1995 and built a dam 6.5 m downstream of the cross-section. 8 9 10 Channel area only 11 -2 --r----.-----,-----,-----,-----,-----,----.----,----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -3 -4 t-- II 8 '---' i:: 0 ·~ ] -5 ~ -6 Survey Years -r- 1997 -7 --- 1998 2 3 4 5 6 Straight section I I Beaver dam was located 6.5 m downstream of the cross-section. Dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side. 7 8 9 10 Distance from Left Pin (m) 11 409 Price Creek cross-section 16 Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam influence 1994 and 1998 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 0 ----,,----"""T""---r----"""T""---..----.-----r-------.----,---~----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 -2 8 '-' IC: 0 -3 -~ ;,- -3 11) ~ Probably just missed the left bank undercut in 1994. -4 Survey Years -1- 1994 -5 ----- 1998 2 3 4 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Straight section I unvegetated bar 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Channel area only Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 - - - - - - - - Intact, but abandoned beaver dam was located 44 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. Dam breached in stages between 1994 and 1998. Initial breach ou the left side. By 1998, entire dam had breached and only a trace of the dam remained. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Distance from Left Pin (m) 411 12 11 Price Creek cross-section 17 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam influence 1994, 1995, 1997,and 1998 Channel area only 1994 and 1995 0 ---,----r----.-----.----~------.----r-----ir-----,-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Probably just missed the left bank undercut in 1994. Survey Years -I- 1994 ----- 1995 2 3 4 1995 and 1997 5 Straight section Geomorphic baukfull 1994 6 Intact, but abandoned beaver dam was located 44 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. Dam breached in stages between 1994 and 1998. Initial breach on the left side. By 1998, entire dam had breached and only a trace of the dam remained. 7 8 9 10 Channel area only 11 0 --,,-----,----r-----.-----r-----.----r----.-----,-----, -1 I -2 5 i::: 0 ·.g -3 ~ ~ -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Probably just missed the left bank undercut in 1997. Survey Years -I- 1995 ----- 1997 3 4 Straight section Geomorphic baukfull 1995 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 412 Price Creek cross-section 17 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam influence 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1998 Channel area only 0 ---.1_9_9_7 _an_d_l"T9_98 __ ......,. ___ -r-----.----.----....-------.-----.---~ -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Survey Years -+- 1997 ---- 1998 3 Geomorphic bankfull 1997 l unvegetated bar~J~-_...~l __,,~~~---- unvegetated bar J 4 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Probably just missed the left bank undercut in 1997. 9 10 11 413 Price Creek cross-section 17 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam influence 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. Vertical Exaggeration =O 0 -1 -4 -5 -6 0 2 3 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1994 I unvegetated bar 1 L unvegetated bar J 4 5 6 7 8 9 Channel area only Straight section 10 11 12 1994 and 1998 (Net Change) 0 -r------,,------,,-----,-----r----r----,-----,-----,-----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 -3 Undercut removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years -+- 1994 -5 ---- 1998 2 3 4 5 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 . 6 Intact, but abandoned beaver dam was located 44 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. Dam breached in stages between 1994 and 1998. Initial breach on the left side. By 1998, entire dam had breached and only a trace of the dam remained. 7 8 9 10 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 11 414 415 Price Creek cross-section 17 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam influence 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 -1 ,--. ..,, -2 ... ~ L ~,,,.,.,, ·~ j -4 Survey Years -1- 1997 -5 --- 1998 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Price Creek cross-section 18 Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam influence 1994, 1995, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 3-------~----~-~---.---------~--~-~-~-- 2 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 ,....., 0 "' ... II) ~ -1 8 '--' $::I 0 "i -2 ;> II) w -3 -4 -5 -6 0 2 3 4 1994 and 1998 (Net Change) Vertical Exaggeration = 0 0 -3 Survey Years -1-- 1994 -4 ---- 1998 5 6 7 5 8 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Channel area only Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 9 May have just missed the right bank undercut in 1998 or bank collapsed between 1994 and 1998. A remnant beaver dam was located 14.2 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. No trace of the dam remained in 1995. 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 15 14 417 Price Creek cross-section 18 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam influence 1994, 1995, and 1998 1994 and 1995 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 I -1...,. ____ _ .§ 1;l -2 t w -3 -4 0 I -1 g § -~ -2 t w -3 -4 Survey Years -f- 1994 ---e-- 1995 5 6 7 1995 and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration =0 Survey Years -f- 1995 ---e-- 1998 5 6 7 8 Channel area only Straight section Geommphic bankfull 1994 A remnant beaver dam was located 14.2 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. No trace of the dam remained in 1995. 9 10 11 12 13 Channel area only Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 8 9 May have just missed the right bank undercut in 1998 or bank collapsed between 1995 and 1998. A remnant beaver dam was located 14.2 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. No trace of the dam remained in 1995. 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 418 14 14 419 Price Creek cross-section 18 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam influence 1994, 1995 and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 3 -.----,,----.-------.---..----,--"""T--,-----,------r---r---r---,---r----.----, 2 ,....._ 0 Ul ... 0 0 -1 5 i:: .8 -2 1;l 6', 53 -3 -4 -5 -6 0 I -1 -2 -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Undercut removed for clarity. 0 2 3 4 1994 and 1998 (Net Change) Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years --i-- 1994 --- 1998 5. 6 7 5 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Channel area only Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Undercuts removed for clarity. A remnant beaver dam was located 14.2 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. No trace of the dam remained in 1995. 9 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 15 14 420 Price Creek cross-section 18 ( continued) Riparian Guidelines/Beaver dam influence 1994, 1995 and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. 1994 and 1995 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 I -1 5 ..,.. _____ _ i::: 0 ·.g -2 ~ ~ -3 -4 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 5 Survey Years --i- 1994 ------- 1995 6 1995 and 1998 7 Vertical Exaggeration =O Survey Years --i- 1995 ------- 199S 5 6 7 8 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. A renmantbeaver dam was located 14.2 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. No trace of the dam remained in 1995. 9 10 11 12 13 Channel area only Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 8 9 Undercuts removed for clarity. A renmant beaver dam was located 14.2 m downstream of the cross-section in 1994. No trace of the dam remained in 1995 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 14 14 Price Creek cross-section 19 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 ,__ "' .... ~ i:,:l -4 Survey Yeors -5 -+- 1995 --- 1997 -6 10 11 1997 and 1998 12 13 14 15 Beaver dam located 3 5 m downstream of the cross-section in 1995. 16 17 18 Channel area only 19 0 --,,------,,------,-----,-----.----,--~--r----.-----.-----, -1 ~ -2 1 i:: 0 ·.g -3 > ~ -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Survey Years -,- 1997 --- 1998 10 11 12 13 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1997 Beaver dam was located 35 m downstream of the cross-section in 1995. Beaver dam began to fail between the 1995 and 1997 surveys. Dam still realtive1y intact in 1998 and influencing cross•section. Initial breach occurred on the left side and under the dam. 14 15 16 17 18 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 19 422 Price Creek cross-section 20 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 10 ~~~--.--.--.--.-.--.-............................ --.---.---.-...-~~~~..---~~--.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.- 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 0 I -1 g § ·.g -2 ~ ~ -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Bend Right bank = inside Side channel or beaver slide 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314 15 16171819 20 21222324 25 26272829 30 31323334 35 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -+- 1995 --- 1998 18 19 20 21 Channel area only Bend Right bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 22 Beaver dam located 9 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. The breach occurred in the middle of the dam. 23 24 25 26 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 27 423 Price Creek cross-section 20 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 0 I -1 g i:: 0 .-§ -2 5) Q -3 -4 0 -1 ,-.. "' I -2 g i:: 0 -3 -~ 5) Q -4 -5 1995 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -+- 1995 ----- 1997 18 19 20 1997 and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -+- 1997 ----- 1998 18 19 20 21 21 Channel area only Bend Right bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Beaver dam located 9 m downstream of the cross-section. 22 23 24 25 26 Channel area only Bend Right bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull I 997 22 Beaver dam located 9 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the I 997 and 1998 surveys. The breach occurred in the middle of the dam. 23 24 25 26 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 424 27 27 Price Creek cross-section 21 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 0 --,,-----.,------r------r----~------,,------r-----.------, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -2 -3 -4 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0 --.----r----.------r---'---..-------r----r---~----.-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 r-....__.._ Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Survey Years -+- 1995 --e- 1998 0 2 3 4 Differences in the undercut positions are a function of the underwater elevation selected. Straight section Beaver dam located 12 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 snrveys. The breach occurred on the right side. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 425 Price Creek cross-section 21 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 --ir--~---.--........ -,----,r--~---.---r--,-----.--,--....--..--,----.--,--....---, -I -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Survey Years -+- 1995 ------- 1997 0 2 3 4 Straight section Differences in the undercut position are a function of the underwater elevation selected. Beaver dam located 12 m downStream of the cross-section. 5 6 7 8 1997 and 1998 Channel area only 9 0 -.-----.-----.------,,-------,------,------.-----,------,----~ -I -2 -3 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bank full 1997 Survey Years -+- 1997 ------- 1998 2 3 4 Straight section Differences in the undercut positions are a function of the underwater elevation selected. Beaver dam located 12 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. The breach occurred on the right side. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 426 427 Price Creek cross-section 21 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity Entire cross-section 199 5 (Baseline year) o-..----""T""-----.----~----.-----..----~--------- Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -2 -3 Undercut removed for clarity. -4 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0-..---------.---------------------------- -1 '[ -2 0 g t:: 0 ·-g -3 t r:iS -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section t----i-+-.._._Geomorphic bankfull 1995 ------------- 0 Survey Years -f-- 1995 ------ 1998 2 3 4 Undercuts removed for clarity. Beaver dam located 12 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 snrveys. The breach occurred on the right side. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 428 Price Creek cross-section 21 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 --,,----,.----,,----,,----,--,--,----.----.----.--.-----.--.----,----,----.----.----.---, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -2 -3 Undercuts removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years -+- 1995 -5 ---- 1997 Beaver dam located 12 m downstream of the cross-section. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1997 and 1998 Channel area only 0 --,.-----,------.------.-----.-----r-----r-----r-----.-----, -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1997 Survey Years -+- 1997 ---- 1998 2 3 4 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity Beaver dam located 12 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. The breach occurred on the right side. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 Price Creek cross-section 22 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 ,,,__ "' i -1 5 i::: -2 0 ·:g ;> '1) w l 995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 --,----,----,----"""T"---.------.---.-------,r----,-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -,-- 1995 ---e- 1997 3 4 5 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. Beaver dam located 16.4 m downstream of the cross-section. 6 7 8 9 IO Channel area only II 1997 and 1998 0 --,.:.:..:.._..;.;.:.;..;..;.-i-'----r-----r----,r---.----.-----,----r---7 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Survey Years -,-- 1997 -5 ---e- 1998 2 3 4 5 Geomorphic bankfull 1997 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. Beaver dam located 16.4 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the right side. 6 7 8 9 IO Distance from Left Pin (meters) II Price Creek cross-section 23 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 ,__ "' .... 0 +-' 0 s ..__, i:::: 0 -~ ;;, 0 w Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 0 --,,----,-----.----.------,---.-----.-----.----.------,---.-------. Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Beaver slide Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -+----.---...---,-----.----r-----r---...---,-----.----.-----t 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0 --,...-----,------,-----,-----.-----.-----,-----,------.-----, -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section Beaver slide Geomorphic bankfull 1995 I Survey Years -I-- 1995 ------ 1998 2 3 4 Beaver dam located 15 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the right side. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 433 Price Creek cross-section 23 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 -..----..-----,,------,.-----,,.....-----,.------,-------,-------,-------, -1 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Beaver slide Geomorphic bankfull 1995 0 Survey Years -4-- 1995 --- 1997 1997 and 1998 2 3 Beaver dam located 15 m downstream of the cross-section. 4 5 6 7 8 Channel area only 9 0 --,,-----..----..----..----..----..----,-----..-----..-----, -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -4-- 1997 --- 1998 2 Geomorphic bankfull 1997 3 4 Straight section Beaver slide I Beaver dam located 15 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between 1997 and 1998 snrveys. Breach occurred on the right side. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 434 Price Creek cross-section 23 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercut removed for clarity. ,,...._ "' .... 0 ~ s .__, i::: 0 -~ ;> 0 w Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 0 --.r-----r---"'T""---,-----,,-----,,-----r---"'T""---.-----,,---.-----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Beaver slide Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0 ---,,-------,,------,-----,,-----..----.------.----....----....-----, -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Beaver slide Geomorphic bankfull 1995 I Survey Years -+- 1995 ----- 1998 2 3 Undercut removed for clarity. 4 Beaver dam located 15 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the right side. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 435 436 Price Creek cross-section 23 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercut removed for clarity. 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 -,------,e-------.-------.-----.------..----,-----r------.-----, Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section -1 Beaver slide -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -3 -4 Survey Years -+- 1995 -5 --- 1997 Beaver dam located 15 m downstream of the cross-section. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1997 and 1998 Channel area only 0 -,------,e-----.-------.-----,.-----,.-----,.-----..-----..----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Beaver slide Geomorphic bankfull 1997 Survey Years -+- 1997 --- 1998 2 3 Undercut removed for clarity. 4 Beaver dam located 15 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the right side. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 Price Creek cross-section 24 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 4 ""T""--.--,-----,----.---,--,---,---.---,--..----,,-----.----.--..----,,----,--""T""--.--,----, ---- ti) .... ., .... ., 8 '-" i::: 0 ~~ > ., w 0 3 2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 0 -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Straight, but at an angle to the stream due to vegetation con train ts Beaver trail I ~------"""-------.~-~~--~~----~ 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 3 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight, but at an angle to the stream due to vegetation constraints. Survey Years -f-- 1995 --- 1998 4 5 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 6 7 Beaver dam located 3 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1995 and 1997 surveys and was completely gone by the 1998 survey. Initial breach occurred in the middle of the dam. 8 9 10 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 12 437 Price Creek cross-section 24 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 0 -3 1995 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years --f-- 1995 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Straight, but at an angle to the stream due to vegetation constraints. -4 ---- 1997 Beaver dam located 3 m downstream of the cross-section. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 1997 and 1998 Channel area only 12 I -.----,-----,-----r------.----r-----,,-----,-----,------, Vertical Exaggeration = 0 0 ~ -1 l § -~ -2 ~ ~ -3 Survey Years --f-- 1997 -4 ---- 1998 3 4 5 Straight, but at an angle to the stream due to vegetation constraints Geomorphic bankfull 1997 6 7 Beaver dam located 3 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1995 and 1997 surveys and was completely gone by the 1998 survey. Initial breach occurred in the middle of the dam. 8 9 IO 11 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 12 438 Price Creek cross-section 25 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 0 --,,-----r---r-----r----r------r-----,------,,----....,..----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 -2 ----------.___ Geomorphic bankfull 1995 ------~ -3 -4 -5 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) Channel area only 0 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 ,-.. "' -2 a, .... 11) w -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Differences in the undercut positions are a function of the underwater elevation selected. Survey Years ~ 1995 --- 1997 2 3 4 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Beaver dam located 19.4 m downstream of the cross-section. 5 6 7 8 1997 and 1998 Channel area only 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section ~-----------~G~,eomorphic bankfull 1997 Survey Years ~ 1997 --- 1998 2 Differences in the undercut positions are a function of the underwater elevation selected. Left bank undercut not measured in 1998. Beaver dam was located 19.4 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam failed after the 1997 survey and was completely gone by the 1998 survey. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 9 440 441 Price Creek cross-section 25 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) o-~---.------..-----.------------------------- Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -2 Undercuts removed for clarity. -3 -4 -5 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 __,,;;.;19..;.9.;..5 .;:;an;;.;d;..;:lc;.9;:..;98 :..__--.----..----C ....... h_ann_e_l_a_r,....ea_on_l_y~---.....---~--~ -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. Survey Years --r- 1995 --- 1998 2 3 4 Beaver dam located 19.4 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam failed after the 1997 survey and was completely gone by the 1998 survey. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 442 Price Creek cross-section 25 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 -..------,,------.------.---~------.-----.------.------.----- -1 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. 0 Survey Years -f- 1995 ---- 1997 1997 and 1998 2 3 A beaver dam is located 19 .4 m downstream of the cross-section. 4 5 6 7 8 Channel area only 9 o----'--~-------~-------~-----.-----------~ -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Undercuts removed for clarity. Survey Years -f- 1997 ---- 1998 2 3 Beaver dam located 19.4 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam failed after the 1997 surv.ey and was completely gone by the 1998 survey. 4 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 Price Creek cross-section 26 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 0 -.------.------,----....-------,.----...-----.------,.------, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomo,;phic bankfull 1995 ------------:.:....:----~ -2 -3 -4 -5 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1995 and 1998 Channel area only 0------------~-----.----~--------.----~----, -1 I -2 g i::: 0 ·.g -3 ~ ~ -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Unclear if the differences seen in the left bank undercuts are real or simply an artifact of the underwater elevation selected. Survey Years -+- 1995 ~ 1998 2 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 3 4 Difference in th~ right bank undercuts are likely real. Change between the 1995 and 1998 surveys may be the result of sediment infilling the 1995 right bank undercut. Beaver dam located 27 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side and under the dam. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 443 Price Creek cross-section 26 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 -.-----.-----.------,-------.----,-----.-------.-------.-----, -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -+- 1995 --- 1997 1997 and 1998 2 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Differences in the undercuts are real and due to bed aggradation. Straight section Beaver dam located 24 to 27 m downstream of the cross-section. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Channel area only 0 -.-----.-----.------,-------.----,-----.-------.-----.-----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Survey Years -+- 1997 -5 --- 1998 0 2 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1997 3 4 Differences in the undercuts are real. Changes due to bed erosion. Beaver dam located 24 to 27 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side and under the dam. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 444 445 Price Creek cross-section 26 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. ,-._ "' a> 0 s ___, s:: 0 ·~ :> G) w Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 0 --,.-----.------.------r----r----r----r----.,--------, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Undercuts removed for clarity. -4 -5 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Channel area only 1995 and 1998 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -2 -3 Undercuts removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years -+- 1995 Beaver dam located 27 m downstream of the cross-section. -5 _._ 1998 The dam began failing between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side and under the dam. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 446 Price Creek cross-section 26 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 --,....-----,-----.-----,-----,-----.-----.-----.----~---- Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Undercuts removed for clarity. -4 Survey Years -1- 1995 -5 ----- 1997 Beaver dam is located 27 m downstream of the cross-section. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1997 and 1998 Channel area only 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1997 ,.-., ~ -2 0 - 0 g i:::: Undercuts removed for clarity. 0 -~ -3 > 0 ~ -4 Survey Years -1- 1997 Beaver dam located 27 m downstream of the cross-section. -5 ----- 1998 The dam began failing between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side and under the dam. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Price Creek cross-section 27 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 0 -1 ,-__ "' .... (1) d) 5 -2 i::: 0 -~ t -3 w -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 2 3 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 4 5 6 7 Channel area only 8 Bend (very gentle) Left bank = inside 9 10 11 1995 and 1998(NetChange) 0 -.------,.------.-----.----.-----.-----r----""T-----,-----, -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -+- 1995 _._ 1998 2 3 Bend (very gentle) Left bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 4 Beaver dam located 11 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. The breach occurred on the left side and under the dam. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 447 Price Creek cross-section 27 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 1995 and 1997 Channel area only o----------r-----r----.------.---------~---~--- -1 I -2 g i:: 0 -~ -3 [) ~ -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Survey Years --t- 1995 --- 1997 0 2 1997 and 1998 3 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Bend (very gentle) Left bank= inside Beaver dam located 11 m downstream of the cross-section. 4 5 6 7 8 Channel area only 9 0 -----.-------.-----r-----r-----r----.------.-----.-----, -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years --t- 1997 --- 1998 2 3 Bend (very gentle) Left bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1997 4 Beaver dam located 11 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side and under the dam. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 448 449 Price Creek cross-section 27 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. ,-._ "' I-< * 8 ,._,, i::: 0 ·:g > Q) ~ Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 2 3 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Bend (very gently) Left bank= inside Undercuts removed for clarity. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Channel area only 11 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) 0 ---r---.---'---.-~----.---,------.------.----~------ -1 -4 -5 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -+- 1995 --- 1998 2 3 Bend (very gentle) Left bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 4 Undercuts removed for clarity. Beaver dam located 11 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side and under the dam. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 450 Price Creek cross-section 27 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0--,---~---.---.-----.----r----.----,r----.----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 Survey Years -r- 1995 -e- 1997 1997 and 1998 2 3 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Bend (very gently) Left bank = inside Undercuts removed for clarity. Beaver dam located 11 m downstream of the cross-section. 4 5 6 7 8 Channel area only 9 0--.----,-----.---.---y-----,----.--~.---,----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Survey Years -+-- 1997 -5 -e- 1998 0 2 Bend (very gently) Left bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1997 3 4 Undercuts removed for clarity. Beaver dam located 11 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach occurred on the left side and under the dam. 5 6 7 8 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 9 Price Creek cross-section 28 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 3 --r--"""T""-"""T""_"""T""_--r----.---........ --r---r---r---r---r--..--..---,--?--?--?""- ,-._ "' .... (I) .... (I) s '-' ~ 0 -~ ;> (I) ~ 2 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section 0 -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Channel area only 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) 0 --,----.--'---r"-..;.._---,----....------,-----r----.------r-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 9 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Survey Years -+- 1995 ----- 1998 10 11 12 13 Differences in the right bank undercut positions are likely part real and the result of aggradation and an artifact of the underwater elevation selected. Beaver dam located 22 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1995 and 1997 surveys. Breach occurred in the middle of the dam. 14 15 16 17 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 18 451 Price Creek cross-section 28 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 1995 and 1997 Channel area only 0 -.-----..-----.----...-----.-------T-----.----...----..-----, Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1995 r--~~: -4 Survey Years --f- 1995 -5 ----- 1997 Beaver dam located 22 m downstream of the cross-section. 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1997 and 1998 Channel area only O-.r-----""T""---..----.-----r-----.-----,-----.-----.-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1997 i--~~- Left bank undercut may have been missed in 1998. Survey Years --1- 1997 ----- 1998 9 IO II Differences in the two right bank undercut elevations are likely part real and the result ofaggradation and an artifact of the underwater elevation selected. Beaver darn located 22 m downstream of the cross-section. The darn began to fail between the 1995 and 1997 surveys. Breach occurred in the middle of the dam. 12 15 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 13 14 16 17 18 452 453 Price Creek cross-section 28 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. ,--. "' .... (l) ...... (l) g :::: 0 -~ 5) ~ 0 3 2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 2 3 4 5 6 Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1995 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Channel area only Straight section 15 16 17 18 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) 0 -..-----,,------,,------,-----.-----.-----.-----.-----.-----, -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 9 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1995 Survey Years --f- 1995 --- 1998 10 11 Undercuts removed for clarity. Beaver dam located 22 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1995 and 1997 surveys. Breach occurred in the middle of the dam. 12 15 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 13 14 16 17 18 454 Price Creek cross-section 28 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. Channel area only 1995 and 1997 0-...-----,.------,---------------------------- Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section -1 y ,....._ Cl) -2 .... ., ~ Entire cross-section 1995 (Baseline year) 3 .....----.---...---r---,----,,---~--r--~--...---r-----r--r---r---, 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 2 3 4 1995 and 1998 (Net Change) 4 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 1998 undercut removed for clarity. Survey Years -+- 1995 --- 1998 5 6 5 7 Bend Left bank = inside 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Channel area only Bend Left bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 8 Beaver dam located 3 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam failed between the 1995 and 1997 surveys and was gone by 1998. Initial breach occurred on the left side. 9 10 11 12 Distance from Right Pin (meters) 14 13 458 Price Creek cross-section 29 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 Undercuts removed for clarity. 0 I -1 g i::: 0 ·-g -2 ~ iil -3 -4 0 -3 -4 1995 and 1997 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey Years -I- 1995 ---- 1997 4 5 6 7 Bend Left bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1995 8 A beaver dam located 3 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam failed between the 1995 and 1997 surveys. Initial breach occurred on the left side. 9 IO 11 12 1997 and 1998 Channel area only 4 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Bend Left bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1997 ,__., ' ' ' ' ' --,;,;· 1998 ~,._ ~m:\D .. -.-~r_,.,_ 1 ,.-t::..,_____.__,....-- for clarity. 1 ,-- Survey Years -f- 1997 ---- 1998 5 6 A beaver dam located 3 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam failed between the 1995 and 1997 surveys and was gone by 1998. Initial breach occurred on the left side. 7 10 Distance from Right Pin (meters) 8 9 11 12 13 13 Price Creek cross-section 30 New Cattle Exclosure/Beaver dam controlled 1995, 1997, and 1998 9 8 7 6 5 4 ,-, 3 "' 2 .... ~ 8 0 --...., i:: .9 -1 1il -2 > ~ i:i:l -4 Survey Years --+- 1995 -5 --- 1997 JI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Distance from Right Pin (meters) 461 West Fork Price Creek cross-section 32 Riparian Guidelines 1995, 1997, and 1998 10 5 ,...._ i s '-' i::: 0 0 -~ :> -1 s '-' i:: 0 -~ -2 > 0 ra -3 -4 -5 0 2 3 1997 and 1998 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -3 Survey Years -f-- 1997 -4 ---- 1998 2 3 Straight section Willow mound 17 Geomorphic bankfull 1997 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Channel area only Straight section Willow mound Geomorphic bankfull 1997 4 5 I Change may be a function of the data point locations and not real. Beaver dam located 22 m downstream of the cross-section. The dam began to fail between the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Breach is on the left side. · 6 7 8 9 Distance from Right Pin (meters) 12 10 464 465 White Mountains suite, Arizona Relative location of the cross-sections with respect to each other. Hay Creek New cattle exclosure 2 3 5 6 4 1 8 7 9 H ome Creek New elk exclosure ;;. 2 1 New cattle exclosure Lower Burro Creek I I I I • 5 4 3 2 1 Lower Stinky Creek 5 4 3 2 1 New cattle exclo sure Mandan Creek 5 3 2 111 11 • 6 4 1 Hay Creek cross-section 1 Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 8 7 6 5 4 3 ,--. Ul 2 ... ~ 1 g i::: 0 0 ·-"t;l -1 :> 11) ra 5 0 4 3 2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 2.1 0 5 10 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Survey years -j-- 1994 -e- 1997 27 28 29 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 15 20 25 30 35 40 Channel area only Straight section 30 31 32 33 34 35 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 471 36 Hay Creek cross-section 5 ( continued) New Elk Exclosure 1994 and 1997 5 4 3 2 Vertical Exaggeration =2.1 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 472 Undercut removed for clarity Straight section 0 -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -2 -3 -4 -5 0 I -1 g § ·.g -2 ~ iiS -3 -4 0 5 10 1994 and 1997 27 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Left undercut removed for clarity. Survey years -+- 1994 ---- 1997 28 29 15 20 25 30 35 40 Channel area only Straight section 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Hay Creek cross-section 6 New Elk Exclosure 1994 and 1997 6 473 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 2.3 Straight section 4 3 ,--. 2 "' ~ ~ s '-' i::: 0 .9 t;j -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 > Ill w -2 -3 -4 lush sedges -5 -6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1994 and 1997 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -----------------:_:-~~--r- lush sedges -3 Survey years -+- 1994 -4 ---- 1997 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Hay Creek cross-section 7 New Cattle Exclosure 1994 and 1997 5 0 4 3 2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 0 -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration =2.05 0 5 IO 1994 and 1997 17 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey years -+- 1994 --- 1997 18 19 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1994 15 20 25 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1994 20 21 22 23 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 474 Bend Right bank= inside 30 35 40 Bend Right bank = inside 24 25 26 Hay Creek cross-section 8 New Cattle Exclosure 1994 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 5 Vertical Exaggeration = 3 .15 0 4 3 2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 0 -1 0 5 10 15 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 old channel Geomorphic bankfull 1994 20 25 30 35 40 Channel area only Gecm:qhic bankfull 1994 --w=-=~--=--=-....::.-..;:,_-:...;--:..:.-..:...-.:..::--:..:.-..:..--::..:...:..:__----i ~ -2 g § ~ t -3 i:i3 -4 27 Survey years --!-- 1994 _._ 1997 28 L lush sedges 29 30 31 32 33 Distance from Right Pin (meters) 475 Bend Right bank= inside 45 50 55 60 Bend Right bank = inside 34 35 36 476 Hay Creek cross-section 8 ( continued) New Cattle Exclosure Undercut removed for clarity. 1994 and 1997 5 4 3 2 Vertical Exaggeration = 3 .15 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Bend Right bank = inside 0 -1 old channel -2 -3 -4 -5 0 -1 -4 0 5 10 15 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 27 Survey years -f-- 1994 ---- 1997 28 29 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Channel area only Bend Right bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1994 clod, L lush sedges ___J 30 31 32 33 Distance from Right Pin (meters) Left undercut removed for clarity. 34 35 36 Hay Creek cross-section 9 New Cattle Exclosure 1994 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 6 ""T""-,--,--,--,-...,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,..-,--,--,--,--,-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....-....--.--, 5 0 4 3 2 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 0 i -1 ~ g ~ 0 ·-g -2 ii; w -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration = 3 .15 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1994 and 1997 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section Survey years -I-- 1994 --- 1997 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distance from Right Pin (meters) 477 Home Creek cross-section 1 New Cattle Exclosure 1994 and 1997 ,--. ..,, t ~ g i:::: 0 -~ ~ w 1994 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 7 -r----r--r-""T""--.--.-""T""--,,---.--.---,.---.----.--.---.----.----,.---.----.--.----.---.--..----.----.--, 6 5 4 3 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 1994 and 1997 Bend Left bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1994 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Channel area only 0 --,,----....... ---....-----r----r-----.----,------,.------.-----. Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Left bank = inside -1 -2 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 ----1----+------; -,-----------· -3 -4 Survey years -j-- 1994 -5 --- 1997 5 6 7 silt bar 8 9 10 Right bank undercut probably just missed in 1994. 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 14 478 479 Home Creek cross-section 1 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure Undercut removed for clarity. 1994 and 1997 ,;;:;- .... (!) ..... (!) g d 0 ·~ > (!) ~ 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Bend Left bank = inside Geomorphic bankfull 1994 --------------~. O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Channel area only 1994 and 1997 0-:..::..::..:.~~.:_--r---,---r---.---.---,----.--i Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Left bank= inside -1 I _-2-t---------------"-lE~ g d 0 ·~ ~ ~ -3 -4 -5 5 Survey years ~ 1994 ---- 1997 6 7 silt bar 8 9 10 Undercut removed for clarity. 11 12 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 13 14 Home Creek cross-section 2 New Cattle Exclosure 1994 and 1997 6 5 4 3 2 ' Q) w -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 ----~ -1 1 § ·-g -2 ] µJ -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 1994 and 1997 6 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey years --f- 1994 -e- 1997 7 8 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Straight section 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1994 sedge bar Right undercut probably just missed in the 1994 survey. 9 10 11 12 13 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Straight section 14 15 480 Home Creek cross-section 2 (continued) New Cattle Exclosure 1994 and 1997 6 5 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 4 3 2 'ti;' 1 ~ +-> -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -------------, 0 w -2 -3 -4 -5 0 5 IO 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 -3 -4 20 21 22 15 20 25 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1994 23 24 25 26 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 30 35 Straight rection Either surface topgraphy or a bad data point \ 27 28 40 29 482 Lower Burro Creek cross-section 2 Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 0 ,-._ r/) -1 .... 0) 0 8 .._,, i:: 0 -2 ·.g ;> 0) ~ -3 -4 0 -1 ,-._ ~ -2 2 0) g i:: .8 -3 1i:i ;> 0) ~ -4 -5 old Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) old old gravel channel? bar I \ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Channel area only 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Survey year -+- 1994 ---- 1997 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 483 45 50 55 60 Straight section 39 40 41 Lower Burro Creek cross-section 2 ( continued) Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 0 ,,-._ -1 U) .... -3 ., w -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 0 0 -3 -4 I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Left undercut removed for clarity. Survey year --+- 1994 --- 1997 41 42 43 Channel area only 44 45 46 47 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 486 Undercut removed for clarity. Straight section 60 65 70 75 Straight section sedges---- 48 49 Lower Burro Creek cross-section 4 Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 5 4 3 2 ,-.__ "' .... (!) -2 ii3 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 0 ';i,' -1 i 5 c:: .9 -2 1;j ~ ii3 -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Bend Right bank= inside Geomorphic bankfull 1~99~4~-------------7 r------- 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1994 and 1997 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration = 0 Bend Right bank= inside 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 492 Lower Stinky Creek cross-section 4 New Cattle Exclosure 1994 and 1997 5 4 Vertical Exaggeration= 2.36 3 2 1 ,-._ 0 "' Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) ... 0 -1 ..... Geomorphic bankfull 1994 0 s -2 .____, ~ 0 -3 -~ ;> -4 0 ~ -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1994and 1997 Channel area only Bend Left bank = inside 45 50 55 1 ----...----.------.----,-----r----..------.----.-----. Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Bend Left bank= inside 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -3 -4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 493 Lower Stinky Creek cross-section 5 New Cattle Exclosure 1994 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 3 -r-rr"T""T'"'l""l-r-r-r"T""T-r-r..,..,r-rTT-r-r..,..,r-rTT-ri-'"'l""l-r-rrri-r-r-'r-,r-r,..,.."T""T""T"1-r-r-r-T"T-r-,-r-....-T"T-.-,-, Vertical Exaggeration = 5 .14 Straight section 2 ,-._ le ~ 0 g lush sedges i::: 0 ·.g -I t ~ Geomorphic bankfull 1994 r- lush sedges -----, I ~........, _ __,_-+--< __ ,....... ~----------"""'""£ L lush sedges .:::J -2 -3 -4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Channel area only 1994 and 1997 2 -----..-----,,------,,-------...----,------,,-------~ Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Straight section I 0 g .§ t;; -1 -+----+---------· Geomorphic bankfull 1994 t ~ - _________ __,I grasses, forbs, medium sedges - tall lush sedges ! -2 -3 34 Survey year -+- 1994 ---- 1997 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 494 Mandan Creek cross-section 1 Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Vertical Exaggeration= 5.625 2 ,.--. "' 0 I-< (I.) ..... (I.) s ._, i::: -1 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 0 -~ I ;,. ~ -2 sedges >il -3 sedges -4 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 0 ,.--. "' 50 -1 .... Geomorphic bankfull 1994 * s sedges ._, i::: 0 -~ -2 ;,. -2 Undercuts not recorded in 1994 >il -3 Survey year -I- 1994 -4 --- 1997 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 495 Straight section 55 60 65 70 75 Straight section 17 18 19 496 Mandan Creek cross-section 1 ( continued) Special Emphasis Management Area Undercuts removed for clarity. 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 5.625 2 ,-, "' 0 .... 0 -2 _J µS sedges -3 -4 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 I -1 5 ~ 0 ·-g -2 ~ µS -3 -4 1994 and 1997 15 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Undercuts not recorded in 1994. Survey year --f- 1994 ---- 1997 16 17 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1994 - - - - - -,- . . Jf:L· sedges I ..... 18 19 20 21 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 497 Straight section 50 55 60 65 Straight section 22 23 24 Mandan Creek cross-section 2 ( continued) Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration =4.87 2 ,-.__ rn 0 .... <1} ..... <1} old channel ? s Geomorphic '--' -1 i:: bankfull 1994 0 I -~ ;,. <1} -2 w -3 -4 -5 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) sedges _J 498 Undercuts removed for clarity. Straight section 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 1994 and 1997 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Geomorphic bankfull I 994 Undercuts removed for clarity. 15 Survey year --f- 1994 -e- 1997 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Straight section I _. 22 23 24 Mandan Creek cross-section 3 Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Vertical Exaggeration= 6.86 0 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 -3 -4 Straight section 0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 0 I -1 d 0 ·-g -2 ;:; iiS -3 -4 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 36 Survey year -+- 1994 --- 1997 37 38 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1994 39 40 41 42 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Straight section Did a tension crack form between 1994 and 1997 or was it missed in 1994? Area is heavily impacted so the change is quite possibly real. Undercut may have just been missed in 1994 or the change maybe real. 43 44 45 499 500 Mandan Creek cross-section 3 ( continued) Special Emphasis Management Area Undercut removed for clarity. 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 6.86 0 -1 § ·-g -2 ~ ~ -3 -4 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Straight section 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 I -1 -3 -4 1994andl997 Vertical Exaggeration = 0 36 Survey year ~ 1994 --- 1997 37 38 Channel area only Geomorphic bankfull 1994 39 40 41 Straight section Did a tension crack form behveen 1994 and 1997 or was it missed in 1994? Area is heavily impacted so the change is quite possibly real. Undercut removed for clarity. 42 43 44 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 80 45 Mandan Creek cross-section 4 Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 4 .......,,..,...,..,....T"T"......,,..,...,..,.... ........ T"M,...,..,_,..,...,.....,...........,,..,..., ............... T"M,...,..,"TT"T'"T"T"T"T"T,,...,..,"TT"T'"T"T"T"l"T"ICT"T...-rT"T"rr,,...,..,........, 3 2 -2 -3 0 -3 -4 Vertical Exaggeration= 5.625 Geomorphic old channel? bankfull 1994 old channel I '----~ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1994 and 1997 Channel area only 14 Vertical Exaggeration= 0 Survey year ~ 1994 --- 1997 15 16 Geomorphic bankfull 1994 gravel bar 17 18 19 50 55 20 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Bend Right bank = inside 60 65 70 75 Bend Right bank =inside 21 22 23 501 Mandan Creek cross-section 5 Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) 2 ,,-_ "' 0 .... ., -2 w -3 -4 -5 0 0 I -1 Vertical Exaggeration = 6 old channel meander bends Geomorphic bankfull 1994 I Straight section tributary channel 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 1994 and 1997 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration =0 Straight section Geomorphic bankfull 1994 § ~-----=-;...:-:...;;;-;...::-:....i...;;;;..;;;..::..::_:::..: ·-g -2 . ~ w Undercut removed for clarity. -3 Survey year --+-- 1994 -4 --- 1997 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Distance from Left Pin (meters) Mandan Creek cross-section 6 Special Emphasis Management Area 1994 and 1997 Vertical Exaggeration= 3 .37 5 2 ,-._ "' 0 .... Entire cross-section 1994 (Baseline year) * old channel old channel s '-' i::: -1 .8 1il > ., -2 ~ -3 -4 -5 0 i -1 g i::: 0 -~ -2 > ., ·~ -3 -4 I Geomorphic bankfuli 1994 I L__ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1994 and 1997 Channel area only Vertical Exaggeration= 0 ----- sedges ---- Geomorphic bankfull 1994 Survey year -I-- 1994 --- 1997 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Distance from Left Pin (meters) 504 Straight section 40 45 Straight section rock \ 36 37 APPENDIXC SUMMARY OF REACH DATA COLLECTED Creek Reach Reach Number Treatment Reach BF cross-sections Lengths (m) of widths XSs i ' I Main Basin 1, 2 and 3 69,67 3 New EE 35 N. Basin i 4, 5, 6 and25 100, 100 4 1NewEE 51 S. Basin 7, 8, 9, 23 and 24 142,140 5 New CE 56 S. Basin 10, 11, 12 and 13 163,164 4 RG 55 Main Basin 14, 15 and 16 150,150 3 RG 87 N. Basin 17, 18 and26 100, 100 3 RG 50 N. Basin 19,20,21,22 150 4 RG 51 Main Basin 27 and 28 100, 100 2 IRG 55 Muddy 1, 2, 26, 30, 31, 32 unknown, 200 6 Old CE 50 Muddy 3,4 210,232 2 RG 70 Muddy 5,6 150, 137 2 RG 71 Muddy 7, 8, 9 68, 114 3 RG 59 Muddy 10, 11 149, 130 2 RG 50 Muddy 12, 13, 25 152,154,146 3 Old CE 51 Muddy 14, 15 149,152,152 2 RG 50 Muddy 16, 17 149,152 2 RG 50 Muddy 18, 19 149,152 2 RG 50 Muddy 22 107, 107 1 New CE 53 Muddy 23,24 149,81 2 New CE 50 Thalweg Thalweg Depths resurvey? 61 67 126 101 141 141 141 168 87 151 143 99 196 no resurvey 73 101 50 152 70 146 71 91 50 76 50 86 51 102,96 50 101, 101 50 101 50 101 53 69 50 Ill Pebble Counts? 100 101 100 229 200 100 no count no count 401 446 281 375 103 200 296 361 200 224 220 V, 0 V, Creek Reach Reach Number Treatment cross-sections Lengths (m) of XSs I i Price 2 152 1 RG/BD controlled Price 13, 14, 15, 33 I 115, 121, 115 4 New EE/BD controlled Price 16,17,18 100, 100 3 RG/BD controlled Price 19,20,211 100 3 New CE/BD controlled Price 22 -27 200, 150, 100 6 New CE/BD controlled Price 28,29 100, 100 2 New CE/BD controlled Price 30 100 1 New CE/BD controlled W. FkPrice 4,5 152, 145 2 RG W. FkPrice 6, 7 152 2 RG W. FkPrice 31,32 100 2 RG Hayground 11 150 1 ,SEMA Hayground 2,3 150, 152 2 SEMA Hayground 4, 5, 6! 115, 115 3 New EE Hayground 7, 8, 9 I 115, 115 3 New CE Home 1, 2 113, 100 2 New CE Lower Burro 1, 2 100 2 SEMA Lower Burro 3,4 114 2 SEMA Lower Burro 5 137 1 SEMA Lower Stinky 1, 2 57 2 New CE Lower Stinky 3 57 1 New CE Lower Stinky 4,5 152 2 New CE Mandan 1, 2 152,152 2 SEMA Mandan 3, 4, 5, 6 150, 150 4 SEMA Reach BF Thalweg widths I Depths 50 50 50 50 no count 86 1 beaver pond 90 beaver pond 46 1 beaver pond 50 beaver pond 113 50 50 50 50 no count 96 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 37 51 52 51 50 26 50 25 73 25 73 26 101 50 50 49 50 Thalweg resurvey? no resurvey 91, 106 99 no resurvey 61, 83 100 no resurvey 102 no resurvey no resurvey no resurvey 50 50 50 51 no resurvey no resurvey no resurvey no resurvey no resurvey no resurvey 50 49 Pebble Counts? 96 200 100 beaver pond beaver pond beaver pond beaver pond 101 100 100 100 195 196 223 no count 202 101 101 102 no count 92 99 201 V1 0 O'I Creek Reach Reach Number Treatment cross-sections Lengths (m) of XSs Total reaches and cross- sections 42 108 Total with data %with data Reach BF Thalweg widths Depths 39 42 86% 100% - Thalweg resurvey? 29 69% Pebble Counts? 34 81% VI 0 --..:i APPENDIXD REACH CHARACTERISTICS Drainage Elevation Valley Floor Valley Floor Creek XS I Area Treatment (m) Width (m) Gradient (%) 2 (sq. km) Main Basin 1, 2, 3 NEE 7.0 2140 23 4.2 North Basin 4, 5, 6, 25 NEE 2.3 2140 10, 24, 27, - 4.5 South Basin 7, 8, 9, 23, 24 NCE 4.7 2146 67, 57, -, 21, 40 3.2 (XS 7, 8 - lower) South Basin 10, 11 RG 4.7 2149 47 3.5 South Basin 12, 13 RG 4.7 2149 no value. use 3.5 XS 10, 11 Main Basin 14, 15, 16 RG 7.1 2121 83,-,62 3.9 North Basin 17,18,26 RG 2.1 2149 - , 51, - 1.6 North Basin 19,20,21,22 RG 2.1 2158 55, 56, 16, 13 1.6 Main Basin 27,28 RG 7.2 2120 32,25 2.4 Water Surface Slope(%) 2.8 1.4 (XS 4 - lower), 5 (XS 5 - upper) 2.3 (XS 7, 8 - lower), 4.8 (XS 9 - upper) 1.90 0.80 1.7 (XS 14 - lower), 3.6 (XS 15, 16 - upper) 3.0 3.2 3.0 Channel Sinuosity 1.31 1.32 1.69 1.67 1.67 1.8 1.6 1.45 1.8 Vl 0 00 Drainage Elevation Creek XS 1 Area Treatment (m) (sq. km) Muddy I, 2, 26, 30, OCE 76 2015 31,32 Muddy 3,4 RG 70 2018 Muddy 5,6 69 2018 Muddy 7, 8, 9 RG 61 2048 Muddy 10, 11 RG 60 2048 Muddy 12, 13, 25 OCE 54 2060 Muddy 14, 15 RG 53 2060 Muddy 16, 17 RG 52 2060 Muddy 18, 19 RG 51 2073 Muddy 22 NCE 10 2170 Muddy 23,24 NCE 6 2213 Price 2 RG/Beaver 14.7 2066 dam influence Valley Floor Valley Floor Width (m) Gradient (% l 20, 20, -, 22, - , 0.46 16 16, - 0.46 198 0.46 20, 21, 15 0.4 -, 17 0.4 -, 24, - 0.4 24,22 0.4 33, - 0.4 15,27 0.6 51 1.1 47, - 1.9 33 1.8 Water Surface Slope(%) 0.5% (XS 1- lower), 1.2% (XS 2 - upper) 0.3 0.3 0.2 (XS 7, 8 - lower), 0.4 (XS 9 - upper) 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 2.6 4.2 1.2 Channel Sinuosity 1.68 1.4 (XS 3), 2 (XS4) 1.94 2 1.84 1.45 1.47 1.75 1.5 1.3 1.46 1.85 V, 0 I.O Drainage Creek XS Treatment 1 Area (sq. km) Price 13, 14, 15, 33 NEE/Beaver 8.3 dam controlled Price 16, 17, 18 RG/Beaver 14.3 dam influence Price 19,20,21 NCE/Beaver 8.7 dam controlled Price 22-27 NCE/Beaver 8.8 dam controlled Price 28,29 NCE/Beaver 8.9 dam controlled Price 30 NCE/Beaver 9.0 dam controlled W. FkPrice 4,5 RG 3.9 W. FkPrice 6, 7 RG 4.0 W. FkPrice 31,32 RG 5.3 Hayground 1 SEMA 4.5 Hayground 2,3 SEMA 4.5 Elevation Valley Floor Valley Floor (m) Width (m) Gradient (% >2 2103 53 2.1 2073 26, 18 1.8 2103 70,41 2.1 2085 41, 31, 29,29 2.5 2079 17, 21.5 2.3 2079 31 2.3 2097 20 2.4 2084 18.3 2.4 2084 34,39 2.4 2646 43 2.9 2646 30 1 Water Surface Slope(%) 0.5 2.0 0.8 6 0.85 1.3 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.0 2.4 1.3 (XS 3), 2.3 (XS 2) Channel Sinuosity 1.48 1.46 1.97 - 2.14 2 1.47 1.8 1.49 not measured 1.49, 2.4 (?) 1.07 1.4 VI ,__. 0 I I Drainage Creek XS I Treatment Area I (sq. Ian) Hayground 14, 5, 6 : NEE 4.9 Hayground 7, 8, 9 NCE 4.7 Home i I, 2 I NCE 2.8 I I i Lower Burro I, 2 SEMA 13.7 Lower Burro 13, 4 SEMA 12.7 I I Lower Burro j5 SEMA 9.8 I I I I Lower Stinky 11, 2 I NCE 6.1 Lower Stinky 3 NCE 6.1 Lower Stinky 4,5 NCE 6 I Mandan I, 2 SEMA 3.8 Mandan 3, 4, 5, 6 SEMA 3 I Elevation I Valley Floor Valley Floor Gradient (¾l (m) 1 Width (m) I 2633 143 ! I I 2633 79 I 2573 123, 79 1.4 I 2694 67 0.5 2701 179 I 0.5 ! i 2701 I 137 s I 0.5 I I I 2603 15 I 2 2579 27 2 2579 54 2 2701 25 0.5 2701 76 I 0.5 Water Surface Slope(%) 0.39 0.31 0.8 0.03 0.2 not measured 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.03 0.4 Channel Sinuosity 1.39 1.9 1.02 1.27 2 1.64 1.3 1.3 1.8 I.I 1.48 VI ...... ...... Creek XS Bank Stratigraphy Main Basin 1, 2, 3 homogeneous N. Basin 4, 5, 6, 25 homogeneous S. Basin 7,8,9,23,24 homogeneous S. Basin 10, 11 homogeneous S. Basin 12, 13 homogeneous Main Basin 14, 15, 16 homogeneous N. Basin 17,18,26 homogeneous N. Basin 19,20,21,22 homogeneous Main Basin 27,28 homogeneous Bank Composition3 sandy loam to clay loam. Depends on XS sandy loam sandy loam/loam sandy loam clay loam/silty clay loam sandy loam to silty clay. Depends on XS clay sandy loam/loam sandy loam Channel Bed Composition 4 34% cobbles, 36% gravel 24% cobbles, 48% gravel, 20% sand 25% cobbles, 52% gravel 19% cobbles, 48% gravel, 21 % sand 19% cobbles, 48% gravel, 21% sand 30% cobbles, 37% gravel, 30% sand 50% gravel, 19% sand, 20% silt/clay no pebble count no pebble count Beaver Ponds? no no no no no no no no no Vl ...... N Creek XS Bank Stratigraphy Muddy 1, 2, 26, 30, homogeneous 31,32 Muddy 3,4 homogeneous Muddy 5, 6 homogeneous Muddy 7, 8, 9 homogeneous Muddy 10, 11 homogeneous Muddy 12, 13, 25 homogeneous Muddy 14, 15 homogeneous Muddy 16, 17 homogeneous Muddy 18, 19 homogeneous Muddy 22 homogeneous Muddy 23,24 homogeneous Price 2 homogeneous Bank Composition3 no sample no sample clay clay no sample no sample sandy loam to loam no sample no sample silt loam no sample Channel Bed Composition 4 26% gravel; 25% sand; 42% silt/clay 32.5% gravel; 28.5% sand; 32.5% silt/clay 14% cobbles; 33% gravel; 42.5% sand 62% gravel;24.5% sand; 13.5% silt/clay 71% gravel; 12.5% sand; 16.5% silt/clay 31 % gravel; 36% sand; 32% silt/clay 50% gravel; 30% sand; 21 % silt/clay 43% gravel; 35% sand; 22% silt/clay 43% gravel; 18% sand; 35% silt/clay 15% cobbles; 42% gravel; 15% sand; 28% silt/clay 18% cobbles; 27% gravel; 24% sand; 28% silt/clay 41% sand; 42% silt/clay Beaver Ponds? no no no no no no no no no no no no V1 -w Creek XS Bank Stratigraphy Price 13, 14, 15, 33 homogeneous Price 16, 17, 18 homogeneous Price 19, 20, 21 homogeneous Price 22-27 homogeneous Price 28,29 homogeneous Price 30 homogeneous W. FkPrice 4,5 homogeneous W. FkPrice 6, 7 homogeneous W. FkPrice 31,32 homogeneous Hayground 1 homogeneous Hayground 2,3 homogeneous Bank Composition3 Channel Bed Composition 4 sandy loam 29% gravel; 24% sand; 41 % silt/clay sandy loam 37% cobbles, 40% gravels sandy loam sand, silt, clay and some gravels (beaver pond) loam to clay loam. sand, silt, clay and some gravels Depends on XS (beaver pond) sany loam sand, silt, clay and some gravels (beaver pond) sand, silt, clay and some gravels (beaver pond) 17% gravel; 20% sand; 57% silt/clay 21% gravel; 15% sand; 62% silt/clay sandy loam 48% sand; 47% silt/clay no pebble count loam/silt loam 38% cobbles; 35% gravel Beaver Ponds? no/yes no yes yes yes/no yes/no no no no no no VI -.i::.. Creek ·1 XS I Bank I i Stratigraphy i Hayground 4,5,6 homogeneous Hayground i7, 8, 9 homogeneous I Home 11, 2 homogeneous ' ' Lower Burro 11, 2 homogeneous Lower Burro 3,4 homogeneous Lower Burro 5 homogeneous Lower Stinky 1, 2 homogeneous I Lower Stinky 13 homogeneous i Lower Stinky 4,5 homogeneous Mandan 1, 2 homogeneous Mandan 3, 4, 5, 6 l homogeneous Bank Composition 3 silty clay clay (XS 8), silt loam (XS 7) clay loam/silty clay loam sandy loam loam/silt loam loam/silt loam loam/silt loam loam/silt loam sandy loam to silt loam. Depends on XS silty clay loam/clay loam silty clay loam/clay loam Channel Bed Composition 4 24% cobbles; 26% gravels; 42% silt/clay no pebble count -- lightening storm I 1 no pebble count -- lightening storm 41 % gravel; 25% sand no pebble count -- lightening storm ,no pebble count -- lightening storm I no pebble count -- lightening storm no pebble count -- lightening storm no pebble count -- lightening storm ' ' I no pebble count 50% gravel; 49% silt/clay Beaver Ponds? no no no no no no no no no no no i r I i I I ! i I I I ! i i i i I i I V, ...... V, 1 NEE= New Elk Exclosure, NCE = New Cattle Exclosure, OCE = Old Cattle Exclosure, RG = Riparian Guidelines, SEMA = Special Emphasis Management Area 2Valley floor gradient% measured in the field with survey equipment unless BOLD. Values in BOLD were determined from a 1 :24,000 topographic map. 3Bank compositions determined using the Soil Conservation Survey method (Soil Survey Staff 1995). 4 Channel bed compositions determined from pebble counts using the Wolman (1954) pebble count method. 5 The valley floor width of 137 for L. Burro 5 is a visual estimate. Too many cows with horns to make a measurement safe. 6 Price XS 19 through 21. Three water surface slopes were taken= 1 % (below beaver dam), 0.7% (above beaver dam), and 10% (at beaver dam). Vl -0\ APPENDIXE HYDROLOGIC BANK.FULL CROSS-SECTION AREAS BASED ON STAGE INDICATORS NOTED IN THE FIELD 517 518 Geomorphic Hydrologic Bankfull Drainage XS Area Reach Baseline Creek XS I Area Channel XS based on field stage Channel Segment number (sq. km) indicators (sq. Area (sq. m) ml Main Basin 1 1 7 1.59 0.93 Straight Main Basin 2 1 7 3.29 0.85 Straight Main Basin 3 1 7 2.69 1.26 Straight N. Basin 4 2 2.3 1.35 0.42 LB= inside N. Basin 5 2 2.3 0.38 ***** Straight N. Basin 6 2 2.3 1.81 0.33 LB= inside S. Basin 7 3 4.7 1.39 0.41 Straight S. Basin 8 3 4.7 10.25 ***** RB= inside S. Basin 9 3 4.7 6.69 1.35 Straight S. Basin 10 4 4.7 7.99 ***** LB= inside S. Basin 11 4 4.7 7.21 0.43 Straight S. Basin 12 4 4.7 4.42 1.21 Straight S. Basin 13 4 4.7 2.32 1.05 Straight Main Basin 14 5 7.1 5.57 1.36 RB= inside Main Basin 15 5 7.1 3.12 0.90 Straight Main Basin 16 5 7.1 3 LB= inside N. Basin 17 6 2.1 2.12 0.15 Straight N. Basin 18 6 2.1 0.87 0.39 Straight N. Basin 19 7 2.1 1.08 0.26 Straight N. Basin 20 7 2.1 2.35 0.22 Straight N. Basin 21 7 2.1 1.17 0.32 Straight N. Basin 22 7 2.1 1.37 0.30 Straight S. Basin 23 3 4.7 1.97 0.31 Straight S. Basin 24 3 4.7 5.39 ***** LB= inside N. Basin 25 2 2.3 1.39 ***** Straight N. Basin 26 6 2.1 3.19 ***** LB= inside Main Basin 27 8 7.2 1.91 0.73 Straight Main Basin 28 8 7.2 2.16 0.56 RB= inside Muddy 1 1 76 4.27 1.350 RB= inside Muddy 2 1 76 3.91 1.800 Straight Muddy 3 2 70 1.96 ***** Straight Muddy 4 2 70 1.29 0.910 LB= inside Muddy 5 3 69 0.81 0.497 Straight Muddy 6 3 69 1.66 0.810 RB= inside Muddy 7 4 61 3.21 1.360 RB= inside Muddy 8 4 61 2 0.485 LB= inside Muddy 9 4 61 1.21 0.430 Straight Muddy 10 5 60 1.44 0.820 LB= inside Muddy 11 5 60 1.8 1.010 RB= inside Muddy 12 6 54 2.58 1.460 RB= inside 519 Geomorphic Hydrologic Bankfull Drainage XS Area Reach Baseline Creek XS 1 Area Channel XS based on field stage Channel Segment number (sq. km) indicators (sq. Area (sq. m) m)2 Muddy 13 6 54 1.63 0.716 Straight Muddy 14 6 53 1.02 ***** RB= inside Muddy 15 6 53 0.76 0.743 Straight Muddy 16 6 52 2.18 0.823 Straight Muddy 17 6 52 2.2 1.200 LB= inside Muddy 18 6 51 1.37 0.883 Straight Muddy 19 6 51 1.84 1.226 RB= inside Muddy 22 7 10 1.13 0.520 Straight Muddy 23 8 6 0.98 0.097 Straight Muddy 24 8 6 0.14 0.284 Straight Muddy 25 6 54 2.54 0.920 Straight Muddy 26 1 76 1.04 0.850 Straight Muddy 30 1 76 0.53 ***** Straight Muddy 31 1 76 1 1.051 RB= inside Muddy 32 1 76 3.45 0.548 Straight Price 2 1 14.7 4.66 ***** RB= inside Price 13a 2 8.3 1.54 ***** RB= inside Price 13b 2 8.3 0.87 ***** RB= inside Price 13c 2 8.3 1.54 ***** RB= inside Price 14a 2 8.3 1.35 ***** Straight Price 14b 2 8.3 0.72 ***** Straight Price 14c 2 8.3 1.35 ***** Straight Price 15a 2 8.3 1.87 ***** Straight Price 15b 2 8.3 0.12 ***** Straight Price 15c 2 8.3 1.87 ***** Straight Price 16 3 14.3 4.39 ***** Straight Price 17a 3 14.3 6.9 ***** Straight Price 17d 3 14.3 6.9 ***** Straight Price 17f 3 14.3 6.9 ***** Straight Price 17b 3 14.3 6.9 ***** Straight Price 17c 3 14.3 6.9 ***** Straight Price 17e 3 14.3 6.9 ***** Straight 520 Geomorphic Hydrologic Bankfull Drainage XS Area Reach Baseline Creek XS 1 Area Channel XS based on field stage Channel Segment number (sq. km) indicators (sq. Area (sq. m) ml Price 18a 3 14.3 3.63 ***** Straight Price 18c 3 14.3 3.79 ***** Straight Price 18b 3 14.3 3.63 ***** Straight Price 19a 4 8.7 1.23 ***** Straight Price 19c 4 8.7 1.19 ***** Straight Price 19b 4 8.7 1.23 ***** Straight Price 20a 4 8.7 3.07 ***** RB= inside Price 20c 4 8.7 2.3 ***** RB= inside Price 20b 4 8.7 3.07 ***** RB= inside Price 21a 4 8.7 2.09 ***** Straight Price 21c 4 8.7 1.81 ***** Straight Price 21b 4 8.7 2.09 ***** Straight Price 22a 5 8.8 2.22 ***** Straight Price 22c 5 8.8 2.25 ***** Straight Price 22b 5 8.8 2.22 ***** Straight Price 23a 5 8.8 1.68 ***** Straight Price 23c 5 8.8 1.49 ***** Straight Price 23b 5 8.8 1.68 ***** Straight Price 24a 8.8 2.39 ***** Straight ( at angle 5 to stream) Price 24c 8.8 2.39 ***** Straight ( at angle 5 to stream) Price 24b 8.8 2.39 ***** Straight ( at angle 5 to stream) Price 25a 5 8.8 1.6 ***** Straight Price 25c 5 8.8 Straight Price 25b 5 8.8 1.6 ***** Straight Price 26a 5 8.8 2.71 ***** Straight Price 26c 5 8.8 Straight 521 Geomorphic Hydrologic Bankfull Drainage XS Area Reach· Baseline Creek XS 1 Area Channel XS based on field stage Channel Segment number (sq. km) indicators (sq. Area (sq. m) m)2 Price 26b 5 8.8 2.71 ***** Straight Price 27a 5 8.8 4.09 ***** LB= inside Price 27c 5 8.8 LB= inside Price 27b 5 8.8 4.09 ***** LB= inside Price 28a 6 8.9 1.43 ***** Straight Price 28c 6 8.9 1.43 ***** Straight Price 28b 6 8.9 1.43 ***** Straight Price 29a 6 8.9 0.95 ***** LB= inside Price 29c 6 8.9 0.95 ***** LB= inside Price 29b 6 8.9 0.95 ***** LB= inside Price 30a 7 9 1.63 ***** Straight Price 30c 7 9 1.63 ***** Straight Price 30b 7 9 16.3 ***** Straight Price 33 2 8.3 1.18 ***** Straight W. FkPrice 4 8 3.9 0.203 0.095 Straight W. FkPrice 5 8 3.9 0.745 0.145 Straight W. FkPrice 6 9 4 0.465 0.323 Straight W. Fk. Price 7 9 4 0.472 0.363 Straight W. FkPrice 31 10 5.3 0.11 ***** Straight W. Fk. Price 32a 10 5.3 0.31 ***** Straight W. Fk. Price 32c 10 5.3 0.31 ***** Straight W. Fk. Price 32b 10 5.3 0.31 ***** Straight Hayground 1 1 4.5 1.427 0.46 Straight Hayground 2 2 4.5 0.93 0.41 Straight Hayground 3 2 4.5 1 ***** RB= inside Hayground 4 3 4.9 1.64 ***** RB =inside Hayground 5 3 4.9 0.59 ***** Straight Hayground 6 3 4.9 2.62 1.94 Straight Hayground 7 4 4.7 0.72 ***** RB= inside 522 Geomorphic Hydrologic Bankfull Drainage XS Area Reach Baseline Creek XS I Area Channel XS based on field stage Channel Segment number (sq. km) indicators (sq. Area (sq. m) ml Hayground 8 4 4.7 0.66 ***** RB= inside Hayground 9 4 4.7 0.58 ***** Straight Home 1 1 2.8 0.56 ***** LB= inside Home 2 1 2.8 0.495 0.14 Straight L. Burro 1 1 13.7 2.01 1.43 Straight L. Burro 2 1 13.7 1.086 ***** Straight L. Burro 3 2 12.7 1.46 0.85 Straight L. Burro 4 2 12.7 2.02 ***** RB= inside L. Burro 5 3 9.8 1.395 ***** Straight L. Stinky 1 1 6.1 0.99 0.87 Straight L. Stinky 2 1 6.1 0.86 0.54 Straight L. Stinky 3 2 6.1 0.53 ***** RB= inside L. Stinky 4 3 6 1.56 ***** LB= inside L. Stinky 5 3 6 0.505 0.505 Straight Mandan 1 I 3.8 0.68 ***** Straight Mandan 2 I 3.8 0.84 0.52 Straight Mandan 3 2 3 1.68 ***** Straight Mandan 4 2 3 1.47 ***** RB= inside Mandan 5 2 3 1.1 ***** Straight Mandan 6 2 3 0.266 ***** Straight 1 Reach number is assigned as a means ot identifying cross-sections in the same reach. There is no spatial meaning to the numbers (i.e. I does not equal most upstream or downstream reach). 2 (*****) indicates that no hydrologic bankfull elevation was identified in the field at this cross-section APPENDIXF ANNUAL AND NET CHANGES IN CROSS-SECTION AREA AS A FUNCTION OF CREEK, CROSS-SECTION, TREATMENT, CHANNEL SEGMENT, AND BASELINE CROSS-SECTION AREA 523 Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 2 9597 Main Basin 1 7 1.59 2 9597 Main Basin 2 6.69 3.29 2 9597 Main Basin 3 6.68 2.69 2 9597 N. Basin 4 2.31 1.35 2 9597 N. Basin 5 2.3 0.38 2 9597 N. Basin 6 2.29 1.81 2 9597 S. Basin 7 4.7 1.39 2 9597 S. Basin 8 4.68 10.25 2 9597 S. Basin 9 4.67 6.69 2 9597 S. Basin 10 4.63 7.99 2 9597 S. Basin 11 4.64 7.21 2 9597 S. Basin 12 4.65 4.42 2 9597 S. Basin 13 4.66 2.32 2 9597 Main Basin 14 7.1 5.57 2 9597 Main Basin 15 7.09 3.12 2 9597 Main Basin 16 7.08 3 2 9597 N. Basin 17 2.1 2.12 2 9597 N. Basin 18 2.09 0.87 2 9597 N. Basin 19 2.08 1.08 2 9597 N. Basin 20 2.07 2.35 2 9597 N. Basin 21 2.06 1.17 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. m!yr)1 (sq. m)2 -0.07 -0.14 -0.13 -0.25 -0.13 -0.25 -0.01 -0.01 -0.10 -0.19 -0.11 -0.21 -0.05 -0.09 -0.15 -0.3 -0.18 -0.36 0.09 0.17 -0.08 -0.16 -0.02 -0.05 0.01 0.02 -0.07 -0.13 -0.03 -0.05 -0.02 -0.04 0.11 0.21 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.18 0.02 0.04 -0.01 -0.02 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area -4 -4 -5 0 -25 -6 -3 -1 -3 1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 5 5 8 1 -1 NET %Change in Baseline XS Area -9 -8 -9 -1 -50 -12 -6 -3 -5 2 -2 -1 1 -2 -2 -1 10 9 17 2 -2 VI N .i::,. Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 2 9597 N. Basin 22 2.05 1.37 2 9597 S. Basin 23 4.71 1.97 2 9597 S. Basin 24 4.69 5.39 2 9597 N. Basin 25 2.29 1.39 2 9597 N. Basin 26 2.11 3.19 2 9597 Main Basin 27 7.2 1.91 2 9597 Main Basin 28 7.19 2.16 2 9395 Muddy la 76 4.27 3 9598 Muddy lb 76 4.27 5 9398 Muddy le 76 4.27 2 9395 Muddy 2a 75.98 3.91 3 9598 Muddy 2b 75.98 3.91 5 9398 Muddy 2c 75.98 3.91 3 9598 Muddy 3 70 1.96 2 9395 Muddy 4a 69.99 1.29 3 9598 Muddy 4b 69.99 1.29 5 9398 Muddy 4c 69.99 1.29 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. mlyr)1 (sq. m)2 0.00 0.01 -0.04 -0.07 0.10 0.2 -0.13 -0.25 -0.11 -0.21 o.oi 0.01 0.13 0.25 -0.02 -0.04 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 0.07 0.14 -0.06 -0.19 -0.01 -0.05 -0.02 -0.05 0.02 0.04 -0.05 -0.14 -0.02 -0.1 ANNUAL %Change in Baseline XS Area 0 -2 2 -9 -3 0 6 0 0 0 2 -2 0 -1 2 -4 -2 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area l -4 4 -18 -7 1 12 -1 0 -1 4 -5 -1 -3 3 -11 -8 Vi N Vi Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 2 9395 Muddy 5a 69 0.81 3 9598 Muddy 5b 69 0.81 5 9398 Muddy 5c 69 0.81 2 9395 Muddy 6a 68.99 1.66 3 9598 Muddy 6b 68.99 1.66 5 9398 Muddy 6c 68.99 1.66 5 9398 Muddy 7 61 3.21 5 9398 Muddy 8 60.99 2 5 9398 Muddy 9 60.98 1.21 5 9398 Muddy 10 60 1.44 5 9398 Muddy 11 59.99 1.8 2 9395 Muddy 12a 54 2.58 3 9598 Muddy 12b 54 2.58 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. mlyr)1 (sq.m)2 -0.05 -0.09 0.01 0.02 -0.01 -0.07 -0.06 -0.11 -0.05 -0.15 -0.05 -0.26 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.08 -0.02 -0.09 -0.05 -0.23 -0.06 -0.29 0.31 0.62 0.06 0.17 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area -6 1 -2 -3 -3 -3 0 -1 -1 -3 -3 12 2 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area -11 2 -9 -7 -9 -16 0 -4 -7 -16 -16 24 7 Vl N 0\ Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 5 9398 Muddy 12c 54 2.58 2 9395 Muddy 13a 53.99 1.63 3 9598 Muddy 13b 53.99 1.63 5 9398 Muddy 13c 53.99 1.63 2 9395 Muddy 14a 53 1.02 3 9598 Muddy 14b 53 1.02 5 9398 Muddy 14c 53 1.02 2 9395 Muddy 15a 52.99 0.76 3 9598 Muddy 15b 52.99 0.76 5 9398 Muddy 15c 52.99 0.76 2 9395 Muddy 16a 52 2.18 3 9598 Muddy 16b 52 2.18 5 9398 Muddy 16c 52 2.18 2 9395 Muddy 17a 51.99 2.2 3 9598 Muddy 17b 51.99 2.2 5 9398 Muddy 17c 51.99 2.2 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. m/yr)l (sq.m)2 0.16 0.79 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.2 -0.04 -0.07 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.09 -0.04 -0.07 -0.02 -0.06 -0.03 -0.13 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.15 0.3 0.22 0.65 0.19 0.95 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area 6 4 1 2 -3 -1 -2 -5 -3 -3 2 1 1 7 10 9 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area 31 8 4 12 -7 -2 -9 -9 -8 -17 4 3 6 14 30 43 VI N -..) Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 5 9398 Muddy 18 51 1.37 5 9398 Muddy 19 50.99 1.84 2 9395 Muddy 22a 10 1.13 3 9598 Muddy 22b 10 1.13 5 9398 Muddy 22c 10 1.13 2 9395 Muddy 23a 6 0.98 3 9598 Muddy 23b 6 0.98 5 9398 Muddy 23c 6 0.98 2 9395 Muddy 24a 5.99 0.14 3 9598 Muddy 24b 5.99 0.14 5 9398 Muddy 24c 5.99 0.14 3 9598 Muddy 25 54.01 2.54 3 9598 Muddy 26 76.01 1.04 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. mlyr)1 (sq.m)2 -0.04 -0.18 0.04 0.22 -0.03 -0.05 -0.08 -0.23 -0.05 -0.27 -0.12 -0.23 -0.01 -0.02 -0.05 -0.25 0.02 0.04 -0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0 -0.01 -0.02 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area -3 2 -2 -7 -5 -12 -1 -5 14 -7 1 0 -1 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area -13 12 -4 -20 -24 -23 -2 -26 29 -21 7 0 -2 V1 N 00 Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 2 9698 Muddy 30 76.03 0.53 2 9698 Muddy 31d 76.04 1 2 9698 Muddy 32 75.99 3.45 4 9498 Price 2 14.7 4.66 3 9497 Price 13a 8.3 1.54 1 9798 Price 13b 8.3 0.87 4 9498 Price 13c 8.3 1.54 3 9497 Price 14a 8.31 1.35 1 9798 Price 14b 8.31 0.72 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. m/yr)l (sq. m)2 0.05 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.35 1.39 -0.22 -0.666 0.24 0.24 -0.11 -0.43 -0.21 -0.63 0.15 0.15 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area 9 3 0 7 -14 28 -7 -16 21 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area 19 5 0 30 -43 28 -28 -47 21 VI N \0 Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 4 9498 Price 14c 8.31 1.35 3 9497 Price 15a 8.32 1.87 1 9798 Price 15b 8.32 0.12 4 9498 Price 15c 8.32 1.87 4 9498 Price 16 14.3 4.39 1 9495 Price 17a 14.29 6.9 2 9597 Price 17b 14.29 6.9 1 9798 Price 17c 14.29 6.9 3 9497 Price 17d 14.29 6.9 4 9498 Price 17e 14.29 6.9 3 9598 Price 17f 14.29 6.9 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. mlyr)1 (sq. m)2 -0.12 -0.48 -0.58 -1.75 0.53 0.53 -0.31 -1.22 0.24 0.95 -0.06 -0.06 0.03 0.06 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.02 0.06 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area -9 -31 442 -16 5 -1 0 0 0 0 0 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area -36 -94 442 -65 22 -1 1 0 0 0 1 Vt v) 0 Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 1 9495 Price 18a 14.28 3.63 3 9598 Price 18b 14.28 3.79 4 9498 Price 18c 14.28 3.63 2 9597 Price 19a 8.71 1.23 1 9798 Price 19b 8.71 1.19 3 9598 Price 19c 8.71 1.23 2 9597 Price 20a 8.7 3.07 1 9798 Price 20b 8.7 2.3 3 9598 Price 20c 8.7 3.07 2 9597 Price 21a 8.69 2.09 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. mlyr)1 (sq. m)2 0.16 0.16 0.00 -0.01 0.04 0.15 -0.02 -0.04 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.06 -0.39 -0.77 1.06 1.06 0.10 0.29 -0.14 -0.28 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area 4 0 l -2 -2 -2 -13 46 3 -7 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area 4 0 4 -3 -2 -5 -25 46 9 -13 Vt w - Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 1 9798 Price 21b 8.69 1.81 3 9598 Price 21c 8.69 2.09 2 9597 Price 22a 8.77 2.22 1 9798 Price 22b 8.77 2.25 3 9598 Price 22c 8.77 2.22 2 9597 Price 23a 8.78 1.68 1 9798 Price 23b 8.78 1.49 3 9598 Price 23c 8.78 1.68 2 9597 Price 24a 8.79 2.39 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. mlyr)1 (sq. m)2 0.21 0.21 -0.02 -0.07 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.07 -0.10 -0.19 0.53 0.53 0.11 0.34 0.63 1.26 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area 12 -1 1 2 l -6 36 7 26 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area 12 -3 1 2 3 -11 36 20 53 Vi w N Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) I 9798 Price 24b 8.79 2.39 3 9598 Price 24c 8.79 2.39 2 9597 Price 25a 8.8 1.6 I 9798 Price 25b 8.8 1.64 3 9598 Price 25c 8.8 1.6 2 9597 Price 26a 8.81 2.71 1 9798 Price 26b 8.81 2.44 3 9598 Price 26c 8.81 2.71 2 9597 Price 27a 8.81 4.09 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. mlyr)1 (sq. m)2 -0.02 -0.02 0.41 1.24 0.02 0.04 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 0.01 -0.14 -0.27 0.27 0.27 0.00 0 -0.20 -0.4 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area -1 17 1 -2 0 -5 11 0 -5 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area -1 52 3 -2 1 -10 11 0 -10 Vl w w Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 1 9798 Price 27b 8.81 3.69 3 9598 Price 27c 8.81 4.09 2 9597 Price 28a 8.9 1.43 1 9798 Price 28b 8.9 1.43 3 9598 Price 28c 8.9 1.43 2 9597 Price 29a 8.91 0.95 1 9798 Price 29b 8.91 0.95 3 9598 Price 29c 8.91 0.95 2 9597 Price 30a 9 1.63 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. m/yr)l (sq. m)2 0.39 0.39 0.00 -0.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.62 1.24 0.10 0.1 0.45 1.34 0.47 0.93 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area 11 0 2 2 2 65 11 47 29 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area 11 0 4 2 6 131 11 141 57 V1 w +:>- Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 1 9798 Price 30b 9 1.63 3 9598 Price 30c 9 16.3 1 9798 Price 33 8.29 1.18 4 9498 W. Fk. Price 4 3.89 0.203 4 9498 W. Fk. Price 5 3.9 0.745 4 9498 W. Fk. Price 6 4 0.465 4 9498 W. Fk. Price 7 4.1 0.472 2 9597 W. Fk. Price 31 5.3 0.11 2 9597 W. Fk. Price 32a 5.29 0.31 1 9798 W. Fk. Price 32b 5.29 0.31 3 9598 W. Fk. Price 32c 5.29 0.31 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. mlyr)1 (sq. m)2 0.93 0.93 0.62 1.86 1.08 1.08 -0.01 -0.028 0.03 0.119 -0.01 -0.025 -0.01 -0.048 0.03 0.06 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area 57 4 92 -3 4 -1 -3 27 -2 6 1 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area 57 11 92 -14 16 -5 -10 55 -3 6 3 Vl w Vl Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 3 9497 Hayground 1 4.49 1.427 3 9497 Hayground 2 4.5 0.93 3 9497 Hayground 3 4.51 1 3 9497 Hayground 4 4.91 1.64 3 9497 Hayground 5 4.89 0.59 3 9497 Hayground 6 4.9 2.62 3 9497 Hayground 7 4.7 0.72 3 9497 Hayground 8 4.69 0.66 3 9497 Hayground 9 4.71 0.58 3 9497 Home 1 2.8 0.56 3 9497 Home 2 2.79 0.495 3 9497 Lower Burro 1 13.7 2.01 3 9497 Lower Burro 2 13.69 1.086 3 9497 Lower Burro 3 12.7 1.46 3 9497 Lower Burro 4 12.69 2.02 3 9497 Lower Burro 5 9.8 1.395 3 9497 Lower Stinky 1 6.1 0.99 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. m/yr)l (sq. m)2 0.03 0.093 0.02 0.05 -0.04 -0.11 -0.10 -0.3 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.05 -0.01 -0.02 0.03 0.09 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.06 -0.01 -0.021 -0.03 -0.1 0.01 0.034 0.02 0.05 -0.05 -0.135 0.05 0.144 -0.06 -0.19 ANNUAL %Change in Baseline XS Area 2 2 -4 -6 5 1 -1 5 -1 -4 -1 -2 1 1 -2 3 -6 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area 7 5 -11 -18 15 2 -3 14 -3 -11 -4 -5 3 3 -7 10 -19 V, w 0\ Yrs Drainage Baseline Btwn Comparison Creek XS Area XS Area Surveys Years (sq. km) (sq. m) 3 9497 Lower Stinky 2 6.09 0.86 3 9497 Lower Stinky 3 6.08 0.53 3 9497 Lower Stinky 4 6 1.56 3 9497 Lower Stinky 5 5.99 0.505 3 9497 Mandan 1 3.8 0.68 3 9497 Mandan 2 3.79 0.84 3 9497 Mandan 3 3.31 1.68 3 9497 Mandan 4 3 1.47 3 9497 Mandan 5 2.99 1.1 3 9497 Mandan 6 2.98 0.266 ANNUAL NET Rate of Change Change in in Baseline XS Baseline Area XS Area (sq. mlyr)1 (sq. m)2 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.07 -0.03 -0.092 0.00 0.003 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.016 -0.05 -0.15 0.05 0.14 0.10 0.29 0.03 0.084 ANNUAL % Change in Baseline XS Area 3 4 -2 0 0 -1 -3 3 9 11 NET % Change in Baseline XS Area 10 13 -6 1 -1 -2 -9 10 26 32 Ul w -...J Comparison Creek XS Years 9597 Main Basin 1 9597 Main Basin 2 9597 Main Basin 3 9597 N. Basin 4 9597 N. Basin 5 9597 N. Basin 6 9597 S. Basin 7 9597 S. Basin 8 9597 S. Basin 9 9597 S. Basin 10 9597 S. Basin 11 9597 S. Basin 12 9597 S. Basin 13 9597 Main Basin 14 9597 Main Basin 15 9597 Main Basin 16 9597 N. Basin 17 9597 N. Basin 18 9597 N. Basin 19 9597 N. Basin 20 9597 N. Basin 21 Channel Segment Treatment' Type Straight New Elk Exel. Straight New Elk Exel. Straight New Elk Exel. LB= inside New Elk Exel. Straight New Elk Exel. LB= inside New Elk Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. RB= inside New Cattle Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. LB= inside Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines LB= inside Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Distance Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Dam Condition (m) Vl w 00 Comparison Creek XS Years 9597 N. Basin 22 9597 S. Basin 23 9597 S. Basin 24 9597 N. Basin 25 9597 N. Basin 26 9597 Main Basin 27 9597 Main Basin 28 9395 Muddy la 9598 Muddy lb 9398 Muddy le 9395 Muddy 2a 9598 Muddy 2b 9398 Muddy 2c 9598 Muddy 3 9395 Muddy 4a 9598 Muddy 4b 9398 Muddy 4c Channel Segment Treatment3 Type Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight New Cattle Exel. LB= inside New Cattle Exel. Straight New Elk Exel. LB= inside Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Old Cattle Exel. RB= inside Old Cattle Exel. RB= inside Old Cattle Exel. Straight Old Cattle Exel. Straight Old Cattle Exel. Straight Old Cattle Exel. Straight Rip. Guidelines LB= inside Rip. Guidelines LB= inside Rip. Guidelines LB= inside Rip. Guidelines Distance Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Dam Condition (m) V, w \0 Comparison Creek XS Years 9395 Muddy 5a 9598 Muddy 5b 9398 Muddy 5c 9395 Muddy 6a 9598 Muddy 6b 9398 Muddy 6c 9398 Muddy 7 9398 Muddy 8 9398 Muddy 9 9398 Muddy 10 9398 Muddy 11 9395 Muddy 12a 9598 Muddy 12b Channel Segment Treatment' Type Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Rip. Guidelines RB =inside Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Rip. Guidelines LB= inside Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines LB= inside Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Old Cattle Exel. RB= inside Old Cattle Exel. Distance Upstream ofBeaver Dam(m) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Dam Condition (m) Vl .i::,.. 0 Comparison Creek XS Years 9398 Muddy 12c 9395 Muddy 13a 9598 Muddy 13b 9398 Muddy 13c 9395 Muddy 14a 9598 Muddy 14b 9398 Muddy 14c 9395 Muddy 15a 9598 Muddy 15b 9398 Muddy 15c 9395 Muddy 16a 9598 Muddy 16b 9398 Muddy 16c 9395 Muddy 17a 9598 Muddy 17b 9398 Muddy 17c Channel Segment Treatment' Type RB =inside Old Cattle Exel. Straight Old Cattle Exel. Straight Old Cattle Exel. Straight Old Cattle Exel. RB= inside Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines LB= inside Rip. Guidelines LB= inside Rip. Guidelines LB= inside Rip. Guidelines Distance Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Dam Condition (m) V, .j::,.. ...... Comparison Creek XS Years 9398 Muddy 18 9398 Muddy 19 9395 Muddy 22a 9598 Muddy 22b 9398 Muddy 22c 9395 Muddy 23a 9598 Muddy 23b 9398 Muddy 23c 9395 Muddy 24a 9598 Muddy 24b 9398 Muddy 24c 9598 Muddy 25 9598 Muddy 26 Channel Segment Treatment' Type Straight Rip. Guidelines RB= inside Rip. Guidelines Straight New Cattle Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. Straight New Cattle Exel. Straight Old Cattle Exel. Straight Old Cattle Exel. Distance Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Dam Condition (m) Vl .J::.. N Channel Comparison Creek XS Segment Years Type 9698 Muddy 30 Straight 9698 Muddy 31d RB= inside 9698 Muddy 32 Straight 9498 Price 2 RB= inside 9497 Price 13a RB= inside 9798 Price 13b RB= inside 9498 Price 13c RB= inside 9497 Price 14a Straight 9798 Price 14b Straight Distance Treatment3 Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) Old Cattle Exel. NIA Old Cattle Exel. NIA Old Cattle Exel. NIA Rip. Guidelines/Failin 13 gBD New Elk 5 Excl./Intact BD New Elk 5 Excl./Failing BD New Elk Excl./Intact to 5 FailingBD New Elk 15 Excl./Intact BD New Elk 36 Excl./Failing BD Dam Condition (m) NIA NIA NIA Partially intact in 1994. Fully breaches between 1994 and 1998. Probably breached in 1995. Partially intact in 1994 survey. Repaired between 1994 and 1995 Breaching by 1997, but still exerting strong influence in 1997 and 1998. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1994 about 15 m downstream of cross-section. Dam failed between the 1994 and 1997 surveys and was gone by 1997. Another built 36 m downstream of XS 14, below XS 15 post 1994 survey. Dam downstream of XS 15 begins breaching btwn 1997 and 1998. Still influencing sediment in 1997 and 1998. u-, .i:,,. w Channel Comparison Creek XS Segment Treatment' Years Type New Elk 9498 Price 14c Straight Excl./Intact to Failing BD 9497 Price 15a Straight New Elk Excl./Intact BD 9798 Price 15b Straight New Elk Excl./Failing BD New Elk 9498 Price 15c Straight Excl./Intact to FailingBD 9498 Price 16 Straight RG/BD influence 9495 Price 17a Straight Rip. Guidelines 9597 Price 17d Straight Rip. Guidelines 9798 Price 17f Straight Rip. Guidelines 9497 Price 17b Straight Rip. Guidelines 9498 Price 17c Straight Rip. Guidelines 9598 Price 17e Straight Rip. Guidelines Distance Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) 36 6 6 6 21 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Dam Condition (m) Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1997. Built between the 1994 and 1995 surveys. Dam breaching in 1997, but is still exerting an influence on the cross-section in the 1997 and 1998 surveys. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact, but inactive beaver dam located 21 meters downstream of XS in 1994. Partially breached by 1995. Fully breached by 1997. No remnant remained by the 1998 survev. Partially intact dam located 44 m downstream of the XS in 1994. Dam exerted minimal to no influence. NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA V, .J:::,. .J:::,. Channel Comparison Creek XS Segment Treatment3 Years Type 9495 Price 18a Straight Failing BO/Rip. Guidelines 9598 Price 18b Straight Rip. Guidelines Failing 9498 Price 18c Straight BO/Riparian Guidelines 9597 Price 19a Straight New Cattle Excl./Intact BD 9798 Price 19b Straight New Cattle Excl./Failing BD New Cattle 9598 Price 19c Straight Excl./Intact to Failing BD 9597 Price 20a RB= inside New Cattle Excl./Intact BD 9798 Price 20b RB= inside New Cattle Excl./Failing BD New Cattle 9598 Price 20c RB= inside Excl./Intact to Failing BD 9597 Price 21a Straight New Cattle Excl./Intact BD Distance Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) 14 14 14 35 35 35 9 9 9 12 Dam Condition (m) Remnant dam exists in 1994, 14.2 m downstream of XS. Exerting influence on sediment. Remnant gone by 1995. No beaver dam influence post- 1995. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995, 35 m downstream of XS. Begins failing pre-1997, but still exerts strong influence in 1997 and 1998 because downstream by 35 m so breach has Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995, 9 m downstream of XS. Begins breaching post-1997 survey. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995, 12 m downstream of XS. V1 ..i:,. V1 Channel Comparison Creek XS Segment Years Type 9798 Price 21b Straight 9598 Price 21c Straight 9597 Price 22a Straight 9798 Price 22b Straight 9598 Price 22c Straight 9597 Price 23a Straight 9798 Price 23b Straight 9598 Price 23c Straight Straight (at 9597 Price 24a angle to stream) Distance Treatment3 Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) New Cattle 12 Excl./Failing BD New Cattle Excl./lntact to 12 Failing BD New Cattle 16 Excl./lntact BD New Cattle 16 Excl./Failing BD New Cattle Excl./Intact to 16 FailingBD New Cattle 15 Excl./lntact BD New Cattle 15 Excl./Failing BD New Cattle Excl./Intact to 15 Failing BD New Cattle 3 Excl./Failing BD Dam Condition (m) Begins breaching post-1997 survey. Still exerting influence in 1998. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995, 16 m downstream of XS. Begins breaching post-1997 survey. Gone by 1998. No major change noted. Why? Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995, 15 m downstream of XS. Breaches post-1997 survey. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Dam exists in 1995, 3 m downstream of XS. Breaches post-1995 survey. V, .i:,. O'\ Channel Comparison Creek XS Segment Years Type Straight ( at 9798 Price 24b angle to stream) Straight (at 9598 Price 24c angle to stream) 9597 Price 25a Straight 9798 Price 25b Straight 9598 Price 25c Straight 9597 Price 26a Straight 9798 Price 26b Straight 9598 Price 26c Straight 9597 Price 27a LB= inside Distance Treatment3 Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) New Cattle Excl./Failing BD 3 New Cattle 3 Excl./Failing BD New Cattle 19 Excl./Intact BD New Cattle 19 Excl./Failing BD New Cattle Excl./Intact to 19 Failing BD New Cattle 27 Excl./Intact BD New Cattle 27 Excl./Failing BD New Cattle Excl./Intact to 27 FailingBD New Cattle 11 Excl./Intact BD Dam Condition (m) Completely breached by 1998. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam in 1995, 19 m downstream of XS. Also submerged BD just below XS. Base level control only. Breaches post-1997 survey and is gone by 1998. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995, 27m downstream of XS. Begins breaching post-1997 survey. Still exerting some influence in 1998. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995, 11 m downstream of XS. VI ~ -....) Channel Comparison Creek XS Segment Treatment' Years Type 9798 Price 27b LB= inside New Cattle Excl./Failing BD New Cattle 9598 Price 27c LB= inside Excl./Intact to FailingBD 9597 Price 28a Straight New Cattle Excl./Failing BD 9798 Price 28b Straight New Cattle Excl./Failing BD 9598 Price 28c Straight New Cattle Excl./Failing BD 9597 Price 29a LB= inside New Cattle Excl./Failing BD 9798 Price 29b LB= inside New Cattle Excl./Failing BD 9598 Price 29c LB= inside New Cattle Excl./Failing BD 9597 Price 30a Straight New Cattle Excl./Failing BD Distance Upstream ofBeaver Dam(m) 11 11 22 22 22 3 3 3 3 Dam Condition (m) Begins breaching post-1997 survey. Still exerting some influence in 1998. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995, 22 m downstream of XS. Begins breaching post-1995 survey. Minimal response seen btwn 95/97 and 97 /98. May be due to a base level control of a submerged BD just downstream. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995, 3 m downstream of XS. Begins breaching post-1995 survey. Gone by 1998. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. Intact dam exists in 1995 survey, 3 m downstream of XS. Begins breaching post-1995 survey. Vl +s- 00 Comparison Creek XS Years 9798 Price 30b 9598 Price 30c 9798 Price 33 9498 W. Fk. Price 4 9498 W. Fk. Price 5 9498 W. Fk. Price 6 9498 W. Fk. Price 7 9597 W. Fk. Price 31 9597 W. Fk. Price 32a 9798 W. Fk. Price 32b 9598 W. Fk. Price 32c Channel Segment Treatment' Type Straight New Cattle Excl./Failing BD Straight New Cattle Excl./Failing BD Straight New Elk Excl./Failing BD Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Straight Rip. Guidelines Distance Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) 3 3 22 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Dam Condition (m) Dam still exerting some influence in 1997, but largely as base-level control. Completely fails post-1997. Shift in treatment occurs during study period due to beaver trapping. Dams no longer maintained. XS controlled by dam 22 m downstream (XS 13 dam). Dam breaching by 1997 but still exerting influence 1998. NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Vl ..i:,.. \0 Channel Comparison Creek XS Segment Years Type 9497 Hayground 1 Straight 9497 Hayground 2 Straight 9497 Hayground 3 RB= inside 9497 Hayground 4 RB= inside 9497 Hayground 5 Straight 9497 Hayground 6 Straight 9497 Hayground 7 RB =inside 9497 Hayground 8 RB= inside 9497 Hayground 9 Straight 9497 Home 1 LB= inside 9497 Home 2 Straight 9497 Lower Burro 1 Straight 9497 Lower Burro 2 Straight 9497 Lower Burro 3 Straight 9497 Lower Burro 4 RB= inside 9497 Lower Burro 5 Straight 9497 Lower 1 Straight Stinkv Treatment' SEMA SEMA SEMA New Elk Exel. New Elk Exel. New Elk Exel. New Cattle Exel. New Cattle Exel. New Cattle Exel. New Cattle Exel. New Cattle Exel. SEMA SEMA SEMA SEMA SEMA New Cattle Exel. Distance Upstream of Beaver Dam(m) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Dam Condition (m) V, V, 0 Channel Distance Comparison Creek XS Segment Treatment' Upstream Dam Condition (m) Years of Beaver Type Dam(m) 9497 Lower 2 Straight New Cattle Exel. NIA NIA Stinkv 9497 Lower 3 RB =inside New Cattle Exel. NIA NIA Stinky 9497 Lower 4 LB= inside New Cattle Exel. NIA NIA Stinkv 9497 Lower 5 Straight New Cattle Exel. NIA NIA Stinky 9497 Mandan 1 Straight SEMA NIA NIA 9497 Mandan 2 Straight SEMA NIA NIA 9497 Mandan 3 Straight SEMA NIA NIA 9497 Mandan 4 RB= inside SEMA NIA NIA 9497 Mandan 5 Straight SEMA NIA NIA 9497 Mandan 6 Straight SEMA NIA NIA 1 Annual Rate of Change in Baseline XS Area. Negative value= decrease in XS area, Positive value= increase in XS area. 2 Net Change in Baseline XS area Negative value = decrease in XS area, Positive value= increase in XS area 3 BD = Beaver Dam Vl Vl - APPENDIXG STATISTICAL AND GRAPHICAL COMPARISON OF REACH AND CROSS-SECTION HYDROLOGIC BANKFULL WIDTHS 552 Statistical Analysis of Reach "Hydrologic" Bankfull Width Values Lumped by Treatment within a Creek1 I REACH VALUES XS VALUES Year 1 Creek 2 Sample Median Bf Av.Bf St. Dev XS ! Median Av. Bf I St. Dev Treatment size Width (m) Width (m) sample i Bf Width Width (m) (m) , size ; (m) , :::c: 0 Cross-section New Elk Exclosure Reach widths . . . Cross-section widths N=3 widths --.....---"""T""---.---"""T""---.-----.--------P- N =35 . + ++ + Reach widths --.....--~•-=:..:;;••,..;::;;:;;:::;;:;.:~:.;.:;::;;..: ;;..: .;;;;:•:;;:;.•~••::......;;..• -----------...-----..- 0 2 4 ti 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 558 1995 Basin Creek reach containing cross-sections 4, 5, 6, and 25. 14 8 New Elk Exclosure 12 '-' ~ 10 -~ ...-< I 8 t'i ,.0 Q ..... 01) 0 4 ........ 0 .{5 £ 2 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=3 Cross-section --,,----..:;EB.-· .aaaEB>--....----.----....----.----......----..-- widths Reach widths + ++ ++ ++ .... ::: :::::::::. . .. 0 2 4 t'i 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=51 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 559 1995 Basin Creek reach containing cross-sections 7, 8, 9, 23, and 24. s .___, ~ ,=a ..... ~ ,........ ,........ 1 ..0 <) ..... bJ} 0 ,........ 0 I-< "O £ Cross-section widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 New Cattle Exclosure I Reach widths Cross-section widths EB . . .. .. . •• + ... • ++ N=5 N=5t'.i Reach widths ----,-.....a.•..a.•.;..: "'"'::"'"::a....a.a:."'"'::'"""::""':"""""'::"'"'::"""::""':..a.:.;... -'•'-T-----.------.---------..-- 0 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 560 1995 Basin Creek reach containing cross-section 10, 11, 12, and 13. g ..c: 'rj -~ ....... i ,.D <.) ...... bl) 0 ....... 0 ,fJ £ Cmss-section widths Reech widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 Riparian Guidelines t Reach widths + + + + + + ..... .. .. . .. . . . ........... . ................... 2 4 + + 8 Cross-section widths 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=3 N =55 12 14 Straight= • Bend = m 561 1995 Basin Creek reach containing cross-sections 14, 15, and 16. s ,.__, ,:£3 "O ..... ~ ...... ...... 1 ,.D C) ..... bI) 0 ...... 0 ,ti >-. P::: Cross-section widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Riparian Guidelines t ~ Reach widths mm . :.. .. . •••••• ++ • .... .... .. . Cross-section widths N=3 N=87 Reach 'Mdths --.....--.:;•.:;.::::...;:;:;;,;;.!!;.:;;!!;;.:;;!!~:.:;.::!•.:;.::!!.:;.:::.;;,;;.!:~: .:;•.:;••.:;.::•...:;:!•...------------------ 0 2 4 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 562 1995 Basin Creek reach containing cross-sections 17, 18, and 26. 8 '--' ~ ...... ~ ...... ...... j ,£) 0 ...... bJ) 0 ...... 0 ~ £ Gross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 (i 4 2 □ □ Riparian Guidelines Reach widths Cross-section widths + i : .... ::::: .. . ::.:: ::::.:: . 2 4 (i 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=2 N=50 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 563 1995 Basin Creek reach containing cross-sections 19, 20, and 21. 14 Riparian Guidelines ,,-... 12 s ..c: 'tj 10 ...... ~ ...... 8 I l'i ,.n <) ...... 4 bl) 0 ...... 0 ,ti 2 &' 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=3 Cross-section widths -.------.----......-----.....-----.----......----.------- Reach widths D . . . .. .. ... . ... .. . ••• ++ • .. ........ .. ................. 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N =51 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 564 1995 Basin Creek reach containing cross-sections 27 and 28. 14 Riparian Guidelines ,,-.... 12 s '-' ,.c:: 'tj 10 ..... ~ ...... 8 ...... i IJ .n <) ..... bJ} 4 0 ...... ~ 2 &' 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Cross-section • EB widths --..-----.-=----.-----.----..----.----------- . . . . . . . • + •••• N= 51 Reach widths --,.---•--•-:_!!-;!!,_!!""'!!""':!-•....;.;.-...---..---....----.------.----..-- 0 2 4 15 8 10 Hydrofogic bankfull width (ni) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 565 1993 Muddy Creek summary comparison of reach and cross-section widths and distributions. ,-... s '--' ..c: 'tj -~ ...... ...... c.S § ..D <) ...... bl) 0 .-< 0 {l £ Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 * • + + Reach widths : + + + + + ! + + ++ +++ iiii. !!!!! ..... ::::::. ....... ....... ::::::: . . ..... . . ....... . . : :::::::: ........... ........... ........... !!!! !!!!!! ! i miimimt:L . ................. . ................... . ................... . ..................... ................... . . ..................... .................... .. ................... . .. ................... . ... . ..................... ... .. .•...•....•..•...•....•........ mm .................................... Cross-section widths N=22 N=627 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) Straight= • Bend = EB + .... 12 566 14 567 1993 Muddy Creek reach comparison ofbankfull widths and distributions. Treatment= Riparian Guidelines unless otherwise noted. DA=6 to DA = 50 to 70 sq. km 10 sq.km I ◄ ► 14 g 12 * . ~ 10 Old Cattle -~ Exel. L-►- -I 8 New Cattle Old Cattle Exel. Exel. ,.D 6 u I ..... bI) I • 0 4 i . . . - t ~ 0 . ~ ~ ~ . i-.. ~ s ~ ' '"O 9 ~ &' 2 ~ 0 XSs XS XSs XSs XSs XSs XSs XSs XSs XSs XSsl, 2,26, 23, 22 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 7,8, 5, 6 3,4 30, 31, 32 24 19 17 15 13,25 11 9 Upstream Downstream 1993 Muddy Creek reach comparison ofbank:full widths and distributions. XSs 23, 24 XS 22 XSs 18, 19 XSs 16, 17 XSs 14, 15 XSs 12, 13, 25 XSs 10, 11 XSs 7, 8, 9 XSs 5, 6 XSs 3, 4 XSs 1, 2, 26, 30, 31, 32 0 i : !!!iii.:. .. . . .. . ... ....... ......... .......... ............. .. . .. . .. ........ ...... . . .. ...... . .. .............. . . ..... ...... . ...... . . ....... . ··•···•·•····· . .. .:: : .. . ...... . .......... + ••••••••••••• . .. . . .. . .. ... ......... ................... .. ......................... . . . . . . . .. . ...... . . .............. . ..........•..... . . . . . ::iiuJ::::. : . .. .. . .... .... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... . .: ::::: .. :: :. . . . i : .i::i~i ~Hi:. :.::. . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .. .. ......... .. ... .... . 2 4 15 8 10 ·Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N =50 N=53 N=50 N=50 N =50 N=51 N= 50 N =50 N =50 N=50 N=50 . . ... 12 568 14 569 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 1, 2, 26, 30, 31, 32. Old Cattle Exclosure 14 s 12 * ,.__, . ~ 10 -~ ...... ~ 8 § 6 ..0 Q ..... bJ) 0 4 ...... 0 ,t3 I £ 2 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Cross-section EB --.---....--=----,....--------.-----.------------ widths . . . . . . N=5□ Reach widths --.---....-•-•:_.:_::_.:_:_,:,...._::_:_:._._. _____ .--________ • .,..: __ •-·--....- 0 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = ffi 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 3 and 4. / 14 Riparian Guidelines ~ 12 - ..s::::: 'tj ...... 1 □ -~ -~ 8 -§ t'.i -...0 (.) ...... • bl) 4 0 - ~ -0 I-< '"'d 2 £ - □ I I Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Cross-section widths --.----.-----,----=-...------,-.----,------,.------.--- . . . . . . . . . ... : .. :::: .. :. N=7□ Reach widths ___ ..;:•.;;;:::;;:.::::;,;;::;.;:::;;;:::.;;;:::~ •..::;;;:.:..:,::•;..._:;:;.._ __________________ ..-- 0 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 570 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 5 and 6. s '--' ,;3 '"Cl -~ ....... ....... c.S § ,.D (.) ..... bl) 0 ....... 0 I-< '"Cl £ Cross-section wi d th s 14 Riparian Guidelines 12 10 8 (i 4 f; * 2 : D Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 ---------------lll'---------------,...----.-- . .. .. .. . .... .... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... . N=71 Reach Vvidths --,.----.:.::•=::::::..:;:::;=:•::•.:.:::::;.....::.:•:....:=;• ---=-•----.----T"'-----r----r-----r- 0 2 4 i5 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = ffi 571 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 7, 8, and 9. ]: ..c: 'ti -~ ...... I ..0 (.) ...... oJ) 0 ...... 0 ,t3 £ Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 □ Riparian Guidelines •EB . + . : : .. . .. . .. . ..... ..... .. . + ~ Reach widths ...... ..... . ............... . . .. Cross-section widths 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=3 N=.59 12 14 Straight= • Bend = ffi 572 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 10 and 11. 14 s Riparian Guidelines 12 "-' ~ 10 ..... ~ ....... 8 i ti ,.D u ..... bJ) 4 0 ....... 0 .f3 2 £ 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Cross-section m EB widths --.----=r----=---,,-----------,.------.----,-------.-- . . . . . . . .. . ...... . . N=50 Reach widths __ .:::::=:::~:::::;:::;:;::::.:=.:::.::;::•~:;...._~--------------------- 0 4 ti 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 573 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 12, 13, and 25. :g ,;3 "O -~ ...... ~ § ..0 0 ..... bl) 0 ...... 0 .{5 £ Crass-section widths 14 12 10 8 ti 4 2 0 Old Cattle Exclosure ~ . .. Reach widths !.::.:::. Cross-section widths 574 N=2 N=50 Reach widths --,--':a.a.: -'-::"""::-;:,...::_:: ..... :a.a.:• .... •......,.------.----r------.---------r- 0 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = ffi 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 14 and 15. 8 '-' ~ ..... ~ ........ ........ 1 ..0 0 ..... bJ) 0 ........ 0 ,t3 &' Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 l'i 4 2 0 0 Riparian Guidelines Reach widths • EB . .. .. .. . ... .. . . ...... . .......... . ......... ... . 2 4 Cross-section widths 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=2 N=50 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 575 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 16 and 17. 14 ,,-._ Riparian Guidelines s 12 ~ 10 ·~ -1 8 ,.0 6 0 ..... 0.0 0 4 i -0 l ,t3 &' 2 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Cross-section @ widths ---,---...---::::.-----.-----------..-----.----------.-- . . ..... ...... . ...... . . ......• . N=50 Reach 'Widths ---,---,_;;.:••;.;.••;.;.••;;.;, . ;.;.•.;.;; . .;.;;••-• ----.--------';.......,.------.----.---------r- 0 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 576 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 18 and 19. 14 s Riparian Guidelines 12 ,.__, ~ 10 -~ ....... ....... 8 i fi ..0 (.) ...... bl) 4 0 ....... 0 ~ .tJ 2 £ 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Cross-section _______ ._EB=----..----------.---------.------ widths . .. .. . N=50 .. :::::: : :. Reach widths -..;•.;;.;;••.;.;••.;.;••;.:;;••~•..;,••;;,:;•.;;.• ...... • --------..----------.--------.-- □ 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 577 1993 Muddy Creek reach containing cross-sections 23 and 24. ---s '-" ,:S "Cl ...... ~ ....... ;:s § ,D Q ...... bJ) 0 ....... 0 1--< "Cl >-. ::r: Cross-section widths 14 12 10 8 ti 4 2 0 New Cattle Exclosure . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... .... ...... ...... Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 N=5□ Reach widths ---,.....;.;;::.;;.;::;..;.;::;.;..:;.;.•-,-------,.----"""T'"---,-------.----..------,.- □ 2 4 6 8 10 JHydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 578 1994 Price Creek summary comparison of reach and cross-section widths and distributions. a '-' ~ ·-~ ...... i ,.D c.) ·-bf) 0 ...... 0 ,t, £ Cross-section widths 14 12 10 8 (i 4 2 □ - - - - - $ - I Reach widths . . . . .... EB . ! . ... : : : : ....... . .... ..... . . . .... ....... . ............... ............... .............. . ................. :.::::::::::::::::.:: . 6 I Cross-section widths N=9 N=2□0 Reach widths __,...::•...:::"""::~::~:.;.;::.;.;::;,;.;::_:_::.;.;::"""::-:_:""':."'-'-:--•_-r-______ ~----r----..-- 0 2 4 fl 8 1 □ Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 579 1994 Price Creek reach comparison ofbankfull widths and distributions. Treatment= Riparian Guidelines unless otherwise noted. 14 s 12 '-" ~ 10 ..... ~ ...... ...... 1 8 ..0 6 Q ..... bl) 0 4 ...... 0 I-< "O £ 2 0 XSs 4, 5 XSs 6, 7 West Fork Price Ck DA=4sq.km $ XSs 4, 5 Upstream . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . .... ... .. .... ... .. . . . .......... . . ! : .. . . . ... . . ... . . XSs t'i, 7 I Upper Price Ck I Lower Price Ck I DA= 8.3 sq. km I DA= 14.7 sq. km New Elk Exel. + ~ XSs 13, 14, 15 XSs 2, 3 Upstream ► Downstream N=50 N=50 N=5□ ....... .... . XSs 13! 14, --,,..._.....:.••:::•.::••::.:••.::••:.:;••:::•.::••.:.• .:.•.....;.•~---.-------,.-----.-----,-----r- 15 XSs 2, 3 0 . . . . . • + •• . ... .. .. . . ........... .. . ............. .. . . 2 4 15 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=50 12 14 580 1994 Price Creek reach containing cross-sections 2 and 3. s '-' ~ -~ -~ § ..0 (.) ..... 01) 0 -0 ,t5 £ Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 DA= 14. 7 sq. km Riparian Guidelines Reach widths No cross-section hydrologic widths . . . + •• • • ........ ............. ................ + + + • 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 581 1994 Price Creek reach containing cross-sections 4 and 5. 14 s Riparian Guidelines 12 '-' :g 10 -~ - 8 ~ § (j ..0 u ..... 01} 4 0 -0 ~ 2 &' 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Cross-section widths --,,----""T""---..-----,----r----,----T-----.-- Reach widths D . . . . .. .. . .. . .. ... • .!!!!.!!! !!:. 2 4 t'i 8 1 □ Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=5□ 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 582 1994 Price Creek reach containing cross-sections 6 and 7. 8 '-' {3 "O -~ ....... ....... 1 ...0 0 ..... 01) 0 ....... 0 l-< "O £ Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 t'.i 4 2 0 Riparian Guidelines Reach widths Cross-section widths . . !~!!iii.: 0 2 4 t'i 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=2 N=S□ 12 14 Straight= • Bend = W 583 1994 Price Creek reach containing cross-sections 13, 14, and 15. s '--' ~ ...... ~ ...... ...... i ,.D 0 ...... b1) 0 ...... 0 'ti :£ Gross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 New Elk Exclosure Reach 'Widths . : ::H. ....... .... . ............... . . 2 4 Cross-section 'Widths 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=2 N=50 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 584 1997 Hay Creek summary comparison of reach and cross-section widths and distributions. 14 g 12 ~ -~ 10 ...... i 8 ,.D t'i C) . ..... . bJ) . 0 4 • ...... ~ 0 .{j :£ 2 □ Reach widths Cross-section widths N=8 Cross-section EB•: --,---=-.-------,.----....-----------......---...... - widths : . . .. .. .. .. =~L= . ::::::.::: ........... .. ......... . .. ......... . .. ......... . .. ......... . .. ........... . N=200 .::::::::::::::. :: . Reach \Vidths __,,...... ... •--··--··--••_,•,....••-··--··--·· ... ·• .... •_,••,....••--•--•--· --• .--· ------------------ 0 2 4 t'i 8 1 □ Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 585 1997 Hay Creek reach comparison of bankfull widths and distributions. Treatment = Special Emphasis Management Area unless otherwise noted. 14 g 12 ,s '"O 10 ·-~ ...... ;:§ 8 § 6 ..0 (.) ·-01) 0 4 ...... 0 1-4 '"O £ 2 0 XS 1 XSs 2, 3 DA=4..5t□ 4.9 sq.km ~ Vpstream XS 1 . . . • !! !.: .. .. . ..... . XSs 2,3 . .... .... ......... .. . . . . . . . .. ++ •• • : !!!:!!: ............... . . . .. .. .. .. ... ... . . .. . . .. NewCatUe New Elk Exel. Exel. . . l $ + XSs 7, 8, XSs4, 9 .5,6 Downstream N=5□ N=50 N=50 XSs 7, 8, 9 __, __ .:.;:•:::;•::.;::;:,::.=:::::.=:: •• =.;:•=---...:,::.~--....---""'T""---r-----r----,- .. : : ..... N=50 .. :.i:i!i:ii .. XSs 4, 5, 6 --.---=;.;;,;;.;.=-=--.,a.a--------""'T""---.------r-----r-------.-- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 586 1997 Hay Creek reach containing cross-section 1. ---5 ~ -~ ...... ...... i ..0 C) ...... bl) 0 ...... 0 ,t3 £ Cross-section widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Special Emphasis Management Area ~ Reach widths . . . .. . Gross-section widths N=2 N=50 . ..: : ii.: .:i: i:... .: • . Reach widths --~=~;;..;;.;;==_,;,;;;..;;._..;,_--,.,...;..----.----....... ---..------.-- 0 2 4 6 8 1 □ Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 587 1997 Hay Creek reach containing cross-sections 2 and 3. ,.-._ s ';j 'O ...... ~ - ..s § ,.D <.) ...... bl} 0 -0 I,.< 'O £ Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 1 □ 8 (j 4 2 □ □ Special Emphasis Management Area Reach widths Cross-section EB • . . . . . .. • i iii:ii: ............... 2 widths 4 l'i 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=2 N=50 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 588 1997 Hay Creek reach containing cross-section 4, 5, and 6. 14 s New Elk Exclosure '-' 12 ~ 10 ·-~ ....... ....... ~ 8 § (j ,.0 Q ·-01) 0 4 . ....... : 0 .f:3 » 2 :::r:: 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Gross-section widths --.---...-.;.._-----,,-----.-------.,-----.----r-------r-- . . N=50 . Ui::i! Reach \Vidths --,---•::•::; ..~••.;;:••;;:.:••;;;;••:;;; .. ;.....,~-....:..-,---~r------r----,------r- 0 2 4 (j 8 l lJ Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = ffi 589 590 1997 Hay Creek reach containing cross-section 7, 8, and 9. 14 s New Cattle Exclosure '-' 12 jg l □ -~ ........ i 8 ,.D tS (.) ....... bJ) 0 4 . ........ f 0 ,t3 I £ 2 □ Reach widths Cross-section widths N=J Gross-section ffi ffi widths ---.----.--=-=-..-------.----.------,-------....... - . . . .. .. .. .. ... ... . . .. . . .. N=50 Reach widths _____ : ...... :....,:: .... :_:: __ •• __ :. ____________ ....,.. _____________ .....- 0 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 1997 Home Creek reach containing cross-sections 1 and 2. ,.-... s :fi -~ ~ 1 ..0 c:) "5b 0 -0 43 ~ Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 DA=2.8 sq.m New Cattle Exclosure • EB + . :: : ...... ....... . ....... . ....... . .......... 2 Reach widths 4 Cross-section widths N=2 N = 51 6 8 10 12 14 Hydrologic bank.full width (m) Straight= • Bend = EB 591 592 1997 Lower Burro Creek summary comparison of reach and cross-sections widths and distributions. s '-' ~ -~ ...... ~ ,J:l Q ....... bl) 0 ....... 0 .f5 £ Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 15 4 2 0 a : Reach widths . . . . : :~L= ! : .. ! .!:!!!!!!!:!.!! !!.! •• :. :! •• : Cross-section widths 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=5 N= 103 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 1997 Lower Burro Creek reach comparison of bankfull widths and distributions. Treatment = Special Emphasis Management Areas. 14 s 12 '-' ~ 10 ..... ~ ...... j 8 6 ,.D (.) ..... bl) 0 4 ...... 0 I-, 'O £ 2 □ XS5 XSs 3, 4 XSs 1, 2 - - - . . - * . • $ ~ $ -- I I I XS 5 XSs 3, 4 XSs 1, 2 Upstream 0 . . .. . .... . .. . . ....... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ....... . ... . . .. . ... . . . ... . . . ...... . ............. . . . ..... . 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) Downstream N=26 N =26 N =51 12 593 14 594 Lower Burro Creek reach containing cross-sections 1 and 2. 14 g Special Emphasis Management Area 12 ~ -~ 10 ....... ....... c.S 8 § ..0 6 . . (.) . • . ,..... 9 bl) 0 4 ....... 0 ,f3 £ 2 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Cross-section widths --,.------.----...-----,....-----.-------------.-- ... . .. . . ... . . ...... . ...... . . . N=51 Reach widths --,.----• -• -••""•-••-••-•• ...... •...a• ....... •----• ...a• ... ·• ... •_,•,.....••------.-----.-----.------.-- 0 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 1997 Lower Burro Creek reach containing cross-sections 3 and 4. ---g ~ -~ ...... ...... i ,.D 0 ..... bJ) 0 ...... 0 "tj £ Gross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 1 □ 8 6 4 2 □ □ Special Emphasis Management Area Reach widths . . . m . . . ... . . . . . ....... . Cross-section widths 2 4 6 8 1 □ Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=2 N=26 12 Straight=. • Bend = EB 595 14 1997 Lower Burro Creek reach containing cross-section 5. i ,s 'O ..... ~ ....... ....... c.S § ..0 0 ..... bl) 0 ....... 0 ,-Ej £ Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 Special Emphasis Management Area * $ Reach widths Cross-section widths . .. . .... . .. . . ......... . 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N= 1 N=26 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 596 1997 Lower Stinky Creek summary comparison of reach and cross-section widths and distributions. 14 ,,.....__ S· '-" 12 ,;3 "O 10 -~ ....... i 8 t'i ,.0 (.) ..... I bJ) 4 0 ....... 0 ;... r "O . 2 £ 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=5 Cross-section !!I • ffi widths ---~ ........ ;.....:~--,---....-----,.----""T""---r----"""T"- : . .. i ... .... ..... ..... ..... •••••• ++ .......... N =76 Reach ~dths __ ...:::;..::::,:::::;::~:::.:.::::::::•.:..• --.------,,...----.------,r----""T"---~ a 2 4 t'i 8 10 Hydrologic bank.full width (rn) 1 12 Straight= • Bend = EB 14 597 1997 Lower Stinky Creek reach comparisons of bankfull widths and distributions. Treatment= New Cattle Exclosure. DA=6 sq.km 14 s 12 '-' ,;3 "O ...... 10 ~ ....... t 8 ,.0 6 Q ...... bl) 0 4 ....... 0 ,t3 £ 2 ' ! □ XSs 4, 5 XS 3 XSs 1, 2 Upstream Downstream XSs 4, 5 XS 3 XSs 1, 2 □ . .... : ::::.:: . . . . ... ...... . ...... ..... . . . . . . . . ... ... ... . ........ 2 4 t'i 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 N=2t'i N=25 N=25 14 598 1997 Lower Stinky Creek reach containing cross-sections 1 and 2. s .__, ..c: 'tj -~ -i ..0 (.) ...... bl) 0 -0 ,t3 £ Gross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 New Cattle Exclosure t Reach widths Cross-section + + + + + + + +++ +++ ... . ........ 2 widths 4 t'i 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=2 N=25 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 599 1997 Lower Stinky Creek reach containing cross-section 3. ---s ...c: ,ti -~ ...... t ..0 u ...... bl) 0 ...... 0 ~ &' Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 ti 4 2 0 □ New Cattle Exclosure Reach widths Cross-section . . . .. . . .... . ............. 2 widths 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N= 1 N=25 12 14 Straight= • Bend = ffi 600 1997 Lower Stinky Creek reach containing cross-sections 4 and 5. 14 ,--. New Cattle Exclosure s 12 .__., ,s "O 10 ...... ~ ...... ...... i 8 (i ,.0 0 ...... bJ} 0 4 ...... 0 ~ >-> 2 :r:: 0 Reach widths Cross-section widths N=2 Cross-section • EB ----------..-----,-----,,-----,----..-------.-- widths . .... .... . . .... .. N=2ti Reach widths --.--·--·--·..., .,...·•--• --• --,r----"""T""---,..-----,----T-""--"""T"- □ 2 4 ti 8 1 □ Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 601 1997 Mandan Creek summary comparison of reach and cross-section widths and distributions. 14 a 12 ---~ 1 □ -~ ...... I 8 6 ,.n u ..... bl) • 0 4 • ...... 0 : ,t3 £ 2 □ Reach widths Cross-section widths N=t'i . 602 Cross-section --,,---..,: ,...• _. _ _,m..._ __ .--__ """T'" ___ ~--"""'T"----w-1 widths Reach widths □ . . . . ... ::i:Hi ::::::: : .......... . ............ . . . ............... .... . 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bank:full width (m) N = 199 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 1997 Mandan Creek reach comparison ofbankfull widths and distributions. Treatment = Special Emphasis Management Area. 14 a 12 ..__, jJ 10 ..... ~ ...... ...... c.S 8 § .D 6 <.) ..... bl) 0 4 ...... 0 ,t3 £ 2 0 DA=3to3.8 sq.km Upstream • XSs 3, 4, 5, 6 . . . . . .:: .... ... . ... .. XSs 1, 2 Downstream N=49 XS " 4 5 * •••• •• • * SJ,,•--.----~•~•~++_ .. _ .. _ •• _ .. ~•-••~•-~•-------...----..-----.----.- !5 XSs 1, 2 0 . . . .. ..... ...... ...... :. :::::::: . . 2 N=5□ 4 o 8 10 12 14 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) 603 1997 Mandan Creek reach containing cross-sections 1 and 2. 14 8 Special Emphasis Management Area 12 ~ jJ 10 ...... ~ ...... ...... -, ~ Cross-section widths Reach widths 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 Special Emphasis Management Area . . • Reach widths . . . .:i .... ... . ... .. . .... .. . . . ........... .... . Cross-section widths 2 4 6 8 10 Hydrologic bankfull width (m) N=4 N=49 12 14 Straight= • Bend = EB 605 606 APPENDIXH LINEAR REGRESSION RESULTS: TESTING FOR A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANNUAL RATES OF CROSS-SECTION AREA AND DRAINAGE AREA AND ANNUAL RATES AND CHANNEL GEOMETRY Sample Cross-section Area Size (sq. m) Creek All cross-sections r-sq percent p-value Basin 28 4.2 0.3 Muddy 27 3.5 0.35 Price 8 1.4 0.78 White Mts. 27 9.7 0.11 All 90 4 0.06 Straight sections only Basin 19 17.1 0.08 Muddy 15 1.8 0.63 Price 8 1.4 0.78 White Mts. 18 0.3 0.82 All 60 11.7 0.01 Bends only Basin 9 1.8 0.73 Muddy 12 3.5 0.56 WhiteMts. 9 22.9 0.192 All 30 0.8 0.633 Geomorphic Channel Geomorphic Channel Width (m) Width/ Average Depth Ratio r-sq p-value r-sq p-value percent percent 8.8 0.13 15.8 0.036 0 0.32 16.4 0.036 4.6 0.61 17.1 0.309 7.5 0.04 8.7 0.135 7.5 0.01 3.5 0.08 30.6 0.014 28 0.02 0.2 0.86 10.8 0.23 4.6 0.61 17.1 0.31 16.5 0.01 46.7 0.002 13.3 0.004 2.1 0.27 0.5 0.853 3 0.65 6.2 0.434 44.3 0.018 12.7 0.346 5.1 0.558 4.4 0.266 5.7 0.203 Drainage Area (sq. km) r-sq p-value percent 0.9 0.64 0.9 0.64 0.9 0.83 3.4 0.36 1.5 0.25 17.1 0.08 20 0.1 0.9 0.83 0.6 0.75 0.7 0.53 15 0.303 18.6 0.162 10.9 0.386 2.4 0.415 0\ 0 -..J Sample Cross-section Area Geomorphic Channel Geomorphic Channel Drainage Area (sq. Size (sq. m) Width (m) Width/ Average Depth km) Ratio Treatments r-sq percent p-value r-sq p-value r-sq p-value r-sq p-value All cross-sections percent percent percent Old cattle exclosures 9 4.7 0.57 14.3 0.32 23.4 0.19 27 0.15 New elk exclosures 10 0 0.43 10 0.38 9.1 0.4 0.2 0.91 New cattle exclosures 18 29.8 0.02 23.9 0.04 0.1 0.92 0 0.94 Riparian guidelines 39 0.5 0.67 0.9 0.56 1 0.544 2.5 0.34 SEM area 14 11.1 0.24 3 0.55 0.6 0.79 7.2 0.35 Straight sections only Old cattle exclosures 6 31.8 0.24 28.1 0.28 21.6 0.35 4 0.71 New elk exclosures 7 6.9 0.57 4.5 0.65 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.96 New cattle exclosures 11 82 0 66 0.002 1.6 0.71 0.1 0.92 New cattle exclosures 1 10 33 0.08 10 0.38 3.6 0.602 5.1 0.53 Riparian guidelines 25 9.6 0.13 6.7 0.21 0.4 0.76 8.8 0.15 SEM area 11 10.1 0.34 21.6 0.15 57 0.01 2.5 0.64 1 Basin 9 removed. This point was an outlier both in terms of its valley bottom width and annual rate of cross-section area change when compared to the other cross-sections. 2 H0 = no relationship between annual rates of cross-section area change and control variable. Sirnificance level is "alpha" = 0.05 0\ 0 00 609 APPENDIX I VALUES USED TO DETERMINE THE GEOM ORPHIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANNUAL RATES OF CROSS-SECTION AREA CHANGE Treatment l Baseline Comp. Creek XS Channel Drainage Baseline Est. Pre- Geomorphic Distance 2 3 Segment Area Geomorphic disturbance Channel above Year years (sq. km) Channel XS Geomorphic Change from Beaver 4 Channel XS the Pre- Dam(m) Area (sq. m) 5 disturbance Area (sq. m) area (sq. m) OCE 1993 9398 Muddy 2 Straight 75.98 3.91 0.53 3.38 NIA OCE 1993 9398 Muddy 1 RB= inside 76 4.27 0.53 3.74 NIA OCE 1995 9598 Muddy 26 Straight 76.01 1.04 0.53 0.51 NIA OCE 1995 9598 Muddy 25 Straight 54.01 2.54 0.53 2.01 NIA OCE 1996 9698 Muddy 32 Straight 75.99 3.45 0.53 2.92 NIA OCE 1996 9698 Muddy 31 RB= inside 76.04 1 0.53 0.47 NIA OCE 1996 9698 Muddy 30 Straight 76.03 0.53 0.53 0 NIA OCE 1993 9398 Muddy 13 Straight 53.99 1.63 0.53 1.1 NIA OCE 1993 9398 Muddy 12 RB= inside 54 2.58 0.53 2.05 NIA NEE 1994 9497 Hayground 4 RB= inside 4.91 1.64 0.1 1.54 NIA NEE 1995 9597 N. Basin 25 Straight 2.29 1.39 0.1 1.29 NIA NEE 1995 9597 Main Basin 3 Straight 6.68 2.69 0.1 2.59 NIA NEE 1995 9597 Main Basin 2 Straight 6.69 3.29 0.1 3.19 NIA NEE 1995 9597 N. Basin 6 LB= inside 2.29 1.81 0.1 1.71 NIA NEE 1995 9597 N. Basin 5 Straight 2.3 0.38 0.1 0.28 NIA NEE 1995 9597 Main Basin 1 Straight 7 1.59 0.1 1.49 NIA NEE 1995 9597 N. Basin 4 LB= inside 2.31 1.35 0.1 1.25 NIA NEE 1994 9497 Hayground 6 Straight 4.9 2.62 0.1 2.52 NIA NEE 1994 9497 Hayground 5 Straight 4.89 0.59 0.1 0.49 NIA NCE 1995 9597 S. Basin 9 Straight 4.67 6.69 0.1 6.59 NIA NCE 1995 9597 S. Basin 8 RB= inside 4.68 10.25 0.1 10.15 NIA NCE 1993 9398 Muddy 22 Straight 10 1.13 0.1 1.03 NIA NCE 1993 9398 Muddy 23 Straight 6 0.98 0.1 0.88 NIA 0\ ...... 0 Treatment l Baseline Comp. Creek XS Channel Drainage Baseline Est. Pre- Geomorphic Distance 2 3 Segment Area Geomorphic disturbance Channel above Year years (sq. km) Channel XS Geomorphic Change from Beaver 4 Channel XS the Pre- Dam (m) Area (sq. m) 5 disturbance Area (sq. m) area (sq. m) NCE 1994 9497 · L. Stinky 1 Straight 6.1 0.99 0.1 0.89 NIA NCE 1994 9497 L. Stinky 4 LB= inside 6 1.56 0.1 1.46 NIA NCE 1995 9597 S. Basin 7 Straight 4.7 1.39 0.1 1.29 NIA NCE 1995 9597 S. Basin 23 Straight 4.71 1.97 0.1 1.87 NIA NCE 1994 9497 Home 1 LB= inside 2.8 0.56 0.1 0.46 NIA NCE 1994 9497 Home 2 Straight 2.79 0.495 0.1 0.4 NIA NCE 1994 9497 Hayground 7 RB= inside 4.7 0.72 0.1 0.62 NIA NCE 1994 9497 Hayground 9 Straight 4.71 0.58 0.1 0.48 NIA NCE 1994 9497 L. Stinky 5 Straight 5.99 0.505 0.1 0.41 NIA NCE 1993 9398 Muddy 24 Straight 5.99 0.14 0.1 0.04 NIA NCE 1994 9497 L. Stinky 3 RB= inside 6.08 0.53 0.1 0.43 NIA NCE 1994 9497 Hayground 8 RB= inside 4.69 0.66 0.1 0.56 NIA NCE 1994 9497 L. Stinky 2 Straight 6.09 0.86 0.1 0.76 NIA NCE 1995 9597 S. Basin 24 LB= inside 4.69 5.39 0.1 5.29 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 11 RB= inside 59.99 1.8 0.53 1.27 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 6 RB= inside 68.99 1.66 0.53 1.13 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 10 LB= inside 60 1.44 0.53 0.91 NIA RG 1995 9398 N. Basin 26 LB= inside 2.11 3.19 0.1 3.09 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 18 Straight 51 1.37 0.53 0.84 NIA RG 1995 9597 S. Basin 11 Straight 4.64 7.21 0.1 7.11 NIA RG 1995 9597 Main Basin 14 RB= inside 7.1 5.57 0.1 5.47 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 15 Straight 52.99 0.76 0.53 0.23 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 4 LB= inside 69.99 1.29 0.53 0.76 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 14 RB= inside 53 1.02 0.53 0.49 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 9 Straight 60.98 1.21 0.53 0.68 NIA 0\ - - Treatment 1 Baseline Comp. Creek XS Channel Drainage Baseline Est. Pre- Geomorphic Distance 2 3 Segment Area Geomorphic disturbance Channel above Year years (sq. km) Channel XS Geomorphic Change from Beaver 4 Channel XS the Pre- Dam (m) Area (sq. m) 5 disturbance Area (sq. m) area (sq. m) RG 1993 9398 Muddy 8 LB= inside 60.99 2 0.53 1.47 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 5 Straight 69 0.81 0.53 0.28 NIA RG 1995 9597 Main Basin 15 Straight 7.09 3.12 0.1 3.02 NIA RG 1995 9598 Muddy 3 Straight 70 1.96 0.53 1.43 NIA RG 1995 9597 S. Basin 12 Straight 4.65 4.42 0.1 4.32 NIA RG 1994 9498 W. Fk. Price 7 Straight 4.1 0.472 0.1 0.37 NIA RG 1995 9597 Main Basin 16 LB= inside 7.08 3 0.1 2.9 NIA RG 1994 9498 W. FkPrice 4 Straight 3.89 0.203 0.1 0.1 NIA RG 1994 9498 W. FkPrice 6 Straight 4 0.465 0.1 0.37 NIA RG 1995 9597 N. Basin 21 Straight 2.06 1.17 0.1 1.07 NIA RG 1995 9598 · Price 18 Straight 14.28 3.79 0.1 3.69 14 RG 1993 9398 Muddy 7 RB= inside 61 3.21 0.53 2.68 NIA RG 1995 9597 N. Basin 22 Straight 2.05 1.37 0.1 1.27 NIA RG 1995 9598 W. Fk. Price 32b Straight 5.29 0.31 0.1 0.21 NIA RG 1995 9597 Main Basin 27 Straight 7.2 1.91 0.1 1.81 NIA RG 1995 9597 S. Basin 13 Straight 4.66 2.32 0.1 2.22 NIA RG 1995 9597 N. Basin 20 Straight 2.07 2.35 0.1 2.25 NIA RG 1995 9597 W. FkPrice 31 Straight 5.3 0.11 0.1 0.01 NIA RG 1995 9598 Price 17e Straight 14.29 6.9 0.1 6.8 NIA RG 1995 9597 N. Basin 18 Straight 2.09 0.87 0.1 0.77 NIA RG 1994 9498 W. FkPrice 5 Straight 3.9 0.745 0.1 0.65 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 16 Straight 52 2.18 0.53 1.65 NIA RG 1995 9597 S. Basin 10 LB= inside 4.63 7.99 0.1 7.89 NIA RG 1995 9597 N. Basin 19 Straight 2.08 1.08 0.1 0.98 NIA RG 1995 9597 N. Basin 17 Straight 2.1 2.12 0.1 2.02 NIA RG 1993 9398 Muddy 19 RB= inside 50.99 1.84 0.53 1.31 NIA °' ....,. N Treatment 1 Baseline Comp. Creek XS Channel Drainage 2 3 Segment Area Year years (sq. km) RG 1995 9597 Main Basin 28 RB= inside 7.19 RG 1993 9398 Muddy 17 LB= inside 51.99 SEMA 1994 9497 Mandan 3 Straight 3.31 SEMA 1994 9497 L. Burro 4 RB= inside 12.69 SEMA 1994 9497 Hayground 3 RB= inside 4.51 SEMA 1994 9497 L. Burro 1 Straight 13.7 SEMA 1994 9497 Mandan 2 Straight 3.79 SEMA 1994 9497 Mandan 1 Straight 3.8 SEMA 1994 9497 L. Burro 2 Straight 13.69 SEMA 1994 9497 Hayground 2 Straight 4.5 SEMA 1994 9497 L. Burro 3 Straight 12.7 SEMA 1994 9497. Mandan 6 Straight 2.98 SEMA 1994 9497 Hayground 1 Straight 4.49 SEMA 1994 9497 Mandan 4 RB= inside 3 SEMA 1994 9497 L. Burro 5 Straight 9.8 SEMA 1994 9497 Mandan 5 Straight 2.99 IBD (NEE) 1994 9497 Price 15a Straight 8.32 IBD(NCE) 1995 9597 Price 20a RB= inside 8.7 IBD (NEE) 1994 9497 . Price 13a RB= inside 8.3 IBD(NEE) 1994 9497 Price 14a Straight 8.31 IBD(NCE) 1995 9597 Price 27a LB= inside 8.81 IBD (NCE) 1995 9597 Price 21a Straight 8.69 IBD (NCE) 1995 9597 Price 26a Straight 8.81 IBD (NCE) 1995 9597 Price 23a Straight 8.78 Baseline Est. Pre- Geomorphic disturbance Channel XS Geomorphic 4 Channel XS Area (sq. m) 5 Area (sq. m) 2.16 0.1 2.2 0.53 1.68 0.1 2.02 0.1 1 0.1 2.01 0.1 0.84 0.1 0.68 0.1 1.086 0.1 0.93 0.1 1.46 0.1 0.266 0.1 1.427 0.1 1.47 0.1 1.395 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.87 0.1 3.07 0.1 1.54 0.1 1.35 0.1 4.09 0.1 2.09 0.1 2.71 0.1 1.68 0.1 Geomorphic Channel Change from the Pre- disturbance area (sq. m) 2.06 1.67 1.58 1.92 0.9 1.91 0.74 0.58 0.99 0.83 1.36 0.17 1.33 1.37 1.3 1 1.77 2.97 1.44 1.25 3.99 1.99 2.61 1.58 Distance above Beaver Dam(m) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 6 9 5 15 11 12 27 15 0\ -u-J Treatment 1 Baseline Comp. Creek XS Channel Drainage Baseline Est. Pre- Geomorphic Distance 2 3 Segment Area Geomorphic · disturbance Channel above Year years (sq. km) Channel XS Geomorphic Change from Beaver 4 Channel XS the Pre- Dam(m) Area (sq. m) 5 disturbance Area (sq. m) area (sq. m) IBD (NCE) 1995 9597 Price 19a Straight 8.71 1.23 0.1 1.13 35 IBD(NCE) 1995 9597 Price 22a Straight 8.77 2.22 0.1 2.12 16 IBD(NCE) 1995 9597 Price 25a Straight 8.8 1.6 0.1 1.5 19 FBD (RG) 1994 9495 Price 17a Straight 14.29 6.9 0.1 6.8 NIA FBD (NCE) 1997 9798 Price 25 Straight 8.8 1.64 0.1 1.54 19 FBD (NCE) 1997 9798 Price 19 Straight 8.71 1.19 0.1 1.09 35 FBD(NCE) 1997 9798 Price 22 Straight 8.77 2.25 0.1 2.15 16 FBD(NCE) 1995 9598 Price 28b Straight 8.9 1.43 0.1 1.33 22 FBD(NEE) 1997 9798 Price 14b Straight 8.31 0.72 0.1 0.62 36 FBD (RG) 1994 9495 Price 18a Straight 14.28 3.63 0.1 3.53 14 FBD (NCE) 1997 9798 Price 21 Straight 8.69 1.81 0.1 1.71 12 FBD (NEE) 1997 9798 Price 13b RB= inside 8.3 0.87 0.1 0.77 5 FBD (NCE) 1997 9798 Price 26 Straight 8.81 2.44 0.1 2.34 27 FBD (NCE) 1997 9798 Price 27 LB= inside 8.81 3.69 0.1 3.59 11 FBD (NEE) 1997 9798 Price 15b Straight 8.32 0.12 0.1 0.02 6 FBD (NCE) 1997 9798 Price 23 Straight 8.78 1.49 0.1 1.39 15 FBD (RG) 1994 9498 Price 16 Straight 14.3 4.39 0.1 4.29 21 FBD (NCE) 1997 9798 Price 20 RB= inside 8.7 2.3 0.1 2.2 9 FBD (NEE) 1997 9798 Price 33 Straight 8.29 1.18 0.1 1.08 22 FBD (NCE) 1995 9598 Price 24b Straight ( at ar 8.79 2.39 0.1 2.29 3 FBD (NCE) 1995 9598 Price 29b LB= inside 8.91 0.95 0.1 0.85 3 FBD (RG) 1994 9498 Price 2 RB= inside 14.7 4.66 0.1 4.56 13 FBD (NCE) 1995 9598 Price 30b Straight 9 16.3 0.1 16.2 3 O'\ ....... .j:;;.. Treatment 1 Comp. Creek XS NET Change 3 in Baseline years XS Area(sq. m)6 OCE 9398 Muddy 2 -0.05 OCE 9398 Muddy 1 -0.03 OCE 9598 Muddy 26 -0.02 OCE 9598 Muddy 25 0 OCE 9698 Muddy 32 0.01 OCE 9698 Muddy 31 0.05 OCE 9698 Muddy 30 0.1 OCE 9398 Muddy 13 0.2 OCE 9398 Muddy 12 0.79 NEE 9497 Hayground 4 -0.3 NEE 9597 N. Basin 25 -0.25 NEE 9597 Main Basin 3 -0.25 NEE 9597 Main Basin 2 -0.25 NEE 9597 N. Basin 6 -0.21 NEE 9597 N. Basin 5 -0.19 NEE 9597 Main Basin 1 -0.14 NEE 9597 N. Basin 4 -0.01 NEE 9497 Hayground 6 0.05 NEE 9497 Hayground 5 0.09 NCE 9597 S. Basin 9 -0.36 NCE 9597 S. Basin 8 -0.3 NCE 9398 Muddy 22 -0.27 NCE 9398 Muddy 23 -0.25 ANNUAL TARGET Rate Rate of of Change in Change in Baseline XS Baseline XS Area (sq. area 7 (sq. m/yr) m/yr) -0.01 -0.34 -0.01 -0.37 -0.01 -0.05 0.00 -0.2 0.01 -0.29 0.03 -0.05 0.05 0 0.04 -0.11 0.16 -0.21 -0.10 -0.15 -0.13 -0.13 -0.13 -0.26 -0.13 -0.32 -0.11 -0.17 -0.10 -0.03 -0.07 -0.15 -0.01 -0.13 0.02 -0.25 0.03 -0.05 -0.18 -0.66 -0.15 -1.02 -0.05 -0.1 -0.05 -0.09 ANNUAL% Change in Baseline XS Area 0 0 -1 0 0 3 9 2 6 -6 -9 -5 -4 -6 -25 -4 0 1 5 -3 -1 -5 -5 Geomorphic Significance No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change Channel area increases Channel area increases Channel area increases Positive channel area deer. Sign. channel area deer. Positive channel area deer. Positive channel area deer. Positive channel area deer. Sign. channel area deer. Positive channel area deer. No Sign. Change No Sign. Change Channel area increases Positive channel area deer. Positive channel area deer. Positive channel area deer. Positive channel area deer. 0\ ...... VI Treatment 1 Comp. Creek XS NET Change ANNUAL TARGET Rate ANNUAL% Geornorphic Significance 3 in Baseline Rate of of Change in Change in years XS Area(sq. Change in Baseline XS Baseline XS rn)6 Baseline XS Area (sq. Area area rn/yr)7 (sq. rn/yr) NCE 9497 L. Stinky 1 -0.19 -0.06 -0.09 -6 Positive channel area deer. NCE 9497 L. Stinky 4 -0.092 -0.03 -0.15 -2 Positive channel area deer. NCE 9597 S. Basin 7 -0.09 -0.05 -0.13 -3 Positive channel area deer. NCE 9597 S. Basin 23 -0.07 -0.04 -0.19 -2 Positive channel area deer. NCE 9497 Horne 1 -0.06 -0.02 -0.05 -4 Positive channel area deer. NCE 9497 Horne 2 -0.021 -0.01 -0.04 -1 No Sign. Change NCE 9497 Hayground 7 -0.02 -0.01 -0.06 -1 No Sign. Change NCE 9497 Hayground 9 -0.02 -0.01 -0.05 -1 No Sign. Change NCE 9497 L. Stinky 5 0.003 0.00 -0.04 0 No Sign. Change NCE 9398 Muddy 24 O.oI 0.00 0 1 No Sign. Change NCE 9497 L. Stinky 3 0.07 0.02 -0.04 4 Channel area increases NCE 9497 Hayground 8 0.09 0.03 -0.06 5 Channel area increases NCE 9497 L. Stinky 2 0.09 0.03 -0.08 3 Channel area increases NCE 9597 S. Basin 24 0.2 0.10 -0.53 2 Channel area increases RG 9398 Muddy 11 -0.29 -0.06 -0.13 -3 Positive channel area deer. RG 9398 Muddy 6 -0.26 -0.05 -0.11 -3 Positive channel area deer. RG 9398 Muddy 10 -0.23 -0.05 -0.09 -3 . Positive channel area deer. RG 9398 N. Basin 26 -0.21 -0.11 -0.31 -3 Positive channel area deer. RG 9398 Muddy 18 -0.18 -0.04 -0.08 -3 Positive channel area deer. RG 9597 S. Basin 11 -0.16 -0.08 -0.71 -1 Positive channel area deer. RG 9597 Main Basin 14 -0.13 -0.07 -0.55 -1 Positive channel area deer. RG 9398 Muddy 15 -0.13 -0.03 -0.02 -3 Sign. channel area deer. RG 9398 Muddy 4 -0.1 -0.02 -0.08 -2 Positive channel area deer. RG 9398 Muddy 14 -0.09 -0.02 -0.05 -2 Positive channel area deer. RG 9398 Muddy 9 -0.09 -0.02 -0.07 -1 Positive channel area deer. 0\ -0\ Treatment l Comp. Creek XS NET Change 3 in Baseline years XS Area(sq. m)6 RG 9398 Muddy 8 -0.08 RG 9398 Muddy 5 -0.07 RG 9597 Main Basin 15 -0.05 RG 9598 Muddy 3 -0.05 RG 9597 S. Basin 12 -0.05 RG 9498 W. Fk. Price 7 -0.048 RG 9597 Main Basin 16 -0.04 RG 9498 W. FkPrice 4 -0.028 RG 9498 W. FkPrice 6 -0.025 RG 9597 N. Basin 21 -0.02 RG 9598 Price 18 -0.01 RG 9398 Muddy 7 -0.01 RG 9597 N. Basin 22 0.01 RG 9598 W. Fk. Price 32b 0.01 RG 9597 Main Basin 27 0.01 RG 9597 S. Basin 13 0.02 RG 9597 N. Basin 20 0.04 RG 9597 W. FkPrice 31 0.06 RG 9598 Price 17e 0.06 RG 9597 N. Basin 18 0.08 RG 9498 W. FkPrice 5 0.119 RG 9398 Muddy 16 0.14 RG 9597 S. Basin 10 0.17 RG 9597 N. Basin 19 0.18 RG 9597 N. Basin 17 0.21 RG 9398 Muddy 19 0.22 ANNUAL TARGET Rate Rate of of Change in Change in Baseline XS Baseline XS Area (sq. area mlyr/ (sq. m/yr) -0.02 -0.15 -0.01 -0.03 -0.03 -0.3 -0.02 -0.14 -0.02 -0.43 -0.01 -0.04 -0.02 -0.29 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.04 -0.01 -0.11 0.00 -0.37 0.00 -0.27 0.00 -0.13 0.00 -0.02 0.01 -0.18 0.01 -0.22 0.02 -0.23 0.03 0 0.02 -0.68 0.04 -0.08 0.03 -0.06 0.03 -0.17 0.09 -0.79 0.09 -0.1 0.11 -0.2 0.04 -0.13 ANNUAL% Change in Baseline XS Area -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -3 -1 -3 -1 -1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 27 0 5 4 1 1 8 5 2 Geomorphic Significance Positive channel area deer. Positive channel area deer. No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change No Sign. Change Channel area increases Channel area increases Channel area increases Channel area increases Channel area increases Channel area increases Channel area increases Channel area increases Channel area increases 0\ --....) Treatment 1 Comp. Creek XS NET Change ANNUAL TARGET Rate ANNUAL% Geomorphic Significance 3 in Baseline Rate of of Change in Change in years XS Area(sq. Change in Baseline XS Baseline XS m)6 Baseline XS Area (sq. Area area 7 (sq. m/yr) m/yr) RG 9597 Main Basin 28 0.25 0.13 -0.21 6 Channel area increases RG 9398 Muddy 17 0.95 0.19 -0.17 9 Channel area increases SEMA 9497 Mandan 3 -0.15 -0.05 -0.16 -3 Positive channel area deer. SEMA 9497 L. Burro 4 -0.135 -0.05 -0.19 -2 Positive channel area deer. SEMA 9497 Hayground 3 -0.11 -0.04 -0.09 -4 Positive channel area deer. SEMA 9497 L. Burro 1 -0.1 -0.03 -0.19 -2 Positive channel area deer. SEMA 9497 Mandan 2 -0.016 -0.01 -0.07 -1 No Sign. Change SEMA 9497 Mandan 1 -0.01 0.00 -0.06 0 No Sign. Change SEMA 9497 L. Burro 2 0.034 0.01 -0.1 1 No Sign. Change ·SEMA 9497 Hayground 2 0.05 0.02 -0.08 2 No Sign. Change SEMA 9497 L. Burro 3 0.05 0.02 -0.14 1 No Sign. Change SEMA 9497 Mandan 6 0.084 0.03 -0.02 11 Channel area increases SEMA 9497 Hayground 1 0.093 0.03 -0.13 2 Channel area increases SEMA 9497 Mandan 4 0.14 0.05 -0.14 3 Channel area increases SEMA 9497 L. Burro 5 0.144 0.05 -0.13 3 Channel area increases SEMA 9497 Mandan 5 0.29 0.10 -0.1 9 Channel area increases IBD (NEE) 9497 Price 15a -1.75 -0.58 -0.18 -31 Sign. channel area deer. IBD(NCE) 9597 Price 20a -0.77 -0.39 -0.3 -13 Sign. channel area deer. IBD(NEE) 9497 Price 13a -0.666 -0.22 -0.14 -14 Sign. channel area deer. IBD(NEE) 9497 Price 14a -0.63 -0.21 -0.13 -16 Sign. channel area deer. IBD (NCE) 9597 Price 27a -0.4 -0.20 -0.4 -5 Positive channel area deer. IBD (NCE) 9597 Price 21a -0.28 -0.14 -0.2 -7 Positive channel area deer. IBD(NCE) 9597 Price 26a -0.27 -0.14 -0.26 -5 Positive channel area deer. IBD(NCE) 9597 Price 23a -0.19 -0.10 -0.16 -6 Positive channel area deer. °" ...... 00 Treatment 1 Comp. Creek XS NET Change ANNUAL TARGET Rate ANNUAL% Geomorphic Significance 3 in Baseline Rate of of Change in Change in years XS Area(sq. Change in Baseline XS Baseline XS m)6 Baseline XS Area (sq. Area area 7 (sq. m/yr) m/yr) IBD(NCE) 9597 Price 19a -0.04 -0.02 -0.11 -2 No Sign. Change IBD (NCE) 9597 Price 22a 0.03 0.02 -0.21 1 No Sign. Change IBD (NCE) 9597 Price 25a 0.04 0.02 -0.15 1 No Sign. Change FBD(RG) 9495 Price 17a -0.06 -0.06 -0.68 -1 No Sign. Change FBD (NCE) 9798 Price 25 -0.03 -0.03 -0.15 -2 No Sign. Change FBD(NCE) 9798 Price 19 -0.02 -0.02 -0.11 -2 · No Sign. Change FBD(NCE) 9798 Price 22 0.04 0.04 -0.22 2 No Sign. Change FBD (NCE) 9598 Price 28b 0.09 0.03 -0.13 2 Channel area increases FBD(NEE) 9798 Price 14b 0.15 0.15 -0.06 21 Channel area increases FBD (RG) 9495 Price 18a 0.16 0.16 -0.35 4 Channel area increases FBD (NCE) 9798 Price 21 0.21 0.21 -0.17 12 Channel area increases FBD (NEE) 9798 Price 13b 0.24 0.24 -0.08 28 Channel area increases FBD(NCE) 9798 Price 26 0.27 0.27 -0.23 11 Channel area increases FBD(NCE) 9798 Price 27 0.39 0.39 -0.36 11 Channel area increases FBD (NEE) 9798 Price 15b 0.53 0.53 0 442 Channel area increases FBD (NCE) 9798 Price 23 0.53 0.53 -0.14 36 Channel area increases FBD(RG) 9498 Price 16 0.95 0.24 -0.43 5 Channel area increases FBD (NCE) 9798 Price 20 1.06 1.06 -0.22 46 Channel area increases FBD (NEE) 9798 Price 33 1.08 1.08 -0.11 92 Channel area increases FBD(NCE) 9598 Price 24b 1.24 0.41 -0.23 17 Channel area increases FBD (NCE) 9598 Price 29b 1.34 0.45 -0.09 47 Channel area increases FBD (RG) 9498 Price 2 1.39 0.35 -0.46 7 Channel area increases FBD (NCE) 9598 Price 30b 1.86 0.62 -1.62 4 Channel area increases 0\ -\0 1 OCE = Old Cattle Exclosure, NEE= New Elk Exel., NCE = New Cattle Exclosure, RG = Riparian Guidelines, SEMA = Special Emphasis Management Area, IBD (NCE) = Intact beaver dam inside a newcattle exclosure, IBD (NEE) = Intact beaver dam inside an new elk exclosure, FBD (NCE) = Failing beaver dam inside a new cattle exclosure, FBD (NEE) = Failing beaver dam inside a new elk exclosure. FBD (RG) = Failing beaver dam in a Riparian Guideline area. 2 The first year a cross-section was surveyed for a given treatment. If a treatment changed during the study it was assigned a new baseline year. 3 The years for which the baseline geomorphic channel cross-section area, annual rate of cross-section area change, and net change values refer to. 4 Baseline geomorphic channel cross-section area for a given cross-section under a given treatment. If the treatment changes over the course of the study, a new baseline area was assigned to the cross-section reflecting the cross-section area at the initiation of the new treatment. 5Estimated Pre-disturbance channel cross-section area = the value based on the smallest cross-section area surveyed for a given drainage area size with adjustments made for tributary contributions. 6Net Change= Baseline geomorphic cross-section area - Final geomorphic cross-section area 7Target Rate= Annual rate of change required to reduce the geomorphic channel cross-section area to its estimated pre-disturbance cross-section area in 10 years. °" N 0 Survey Year 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 APPENDIXJ VALUES USED TO DETERMINE PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE GEOMORPHIC CHANNEL CAPACITY Geomorphic Water-Filled Percent Reduction Creek XS Channel Cross- Cross- in Geomorphic Beaver Dam section Area section Area Channel Capacity Condition (sq. m) (sq. m) due to Water Basin 1 1.59 0.28 18 NIA Basin 2 3.29 0.45 14 NIA Basin 3 2.69 0.47 17 NIA Basin 4 1.35 0.07 5 NIA Basin 5 0.38 0.19 50 NIA Basin 6 1.81 0.11 6 NIA Basin 7 1.35 0.23 17 NIA Basin 8 10.25 0.31 3 NIA Basin 9 6.69 0.37 6 NIA Basin 10 7.99 0.14 2 NIA Basin 11 7.21 0.14 2 NIA Basin 12 4.42 0.41 9 NIA Basin 13 2.32 0.14 6 NIA Basin 14 5.57 0.47 8 NIA Basin 15 3.12 0.25 8 NIA Basin 16 3 0.74 25 NIA Basin 17 2.12 0.05 2 NIA Basin 18 0.87 0.05 6 NIA Basin 19 1.08 0.09 8 NIA Basin 20 2.35 0.05 2 NIA Basin 21 1.17 0.02 2 NIA Basin 22 1.37 0.1 7 NIA Basin 23 1.97 0.08 4 NIA Basin 24 5.39 0.09 2 NIA Basin 25 1.36 0.03 2 NIA Basin 26 3.19 0.04 1 NIA Basin 27 1.91 0.13 7 NIA Basin 28 2.16 0.08 4 NIA Muddy 1 4.23 0.21 5 NIA 621 622 Geomorphic Water-Filled Percent Reduction Survey Creek XS Channel Cross- Cross- in Geomorphic Beaver Dam Year section Area section Area Channel Capacity Condition (sq. m) (sq. m) due to Water 1995 Muddy 2 4.05 0.41 10 NIA 1995 Muddy 3 1.96 0.28 14 NIA 1995 Muddy 4 1.33 0.46 35 NIA 1995 Muddy 5 0.72 0.26 36 NIA 1995 Muddy 6 1.55 0.37 24 NIA 1995 Muddy 12 3.20 0.43 13 NIA 1995 Muddy 13 1.77 0.22 12 NIA 1995 Muddy 14 0.95 0.27 28 NIA 1995 Muddy 15 0.69 0.14 20 NIA 1995 Muddy 16 2.26 0.5 22 NIA 1995 Muddy 17 2.50 0.65 26 NIA 1995 Muddy 22 1.08 0.11 10 NIA 1995 Muddy 23 0.75 0.08 11 NIA 1995 Muddy 24 0.18 0.08 44 NIA 1995 Muddy 25 2.54 0.43 17 NIA 1995 Muddy 26 1.04 0.26 25 NIA 1998 Muddy 1 4.24 0.22 5 NIA 1998 Muddy 2 3.86 0.34 9 NIA 1998 Muddy 3 1.91 0.21 11 NIA 1998 Muddy 4 1.19 0.37 31 NIA 1998 Muddy 5 0.74 0.2 27 NIA 1998 Muddy 6 1.40 0.35 25 NIA 1998 Muddy 12 3.37 0.45 13 NIA 1998 Muddy 13 1.84 0.25 14 NIA 1998 Muddy 14 0.93 0.29 31 NIA 1998 Muddy 15 0.63 0.17 27 NIA 1998 Muddy 16 2.32 0.61 26 NIA 1998 Muddy 17 3.15 0.9 29 NIA 1998 Muddy 22 0.85 0.11 13 NIA 1998 Muddy 23 0.73 0.05 7 NIA 1998 Muddy 24 0.15 0.04 27 NIA 1998 Muddy 25 2.54 0.56 22 NIA 1998 Muddy 26 1.02 0.24 24 NIA 1995 Price 17 6.84 0.38 6 NIA 1995 Price 18 3.79 0.49 13 Remnant beaver dam 1995 Price 19 1.23 1.23 100 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 20 3.07 3.5 114 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 21 2.09 1.29 62 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 22 2.22 1.35 61 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 23 1.68 1.39 83 Intact beaver dam 623 Geomorphic Water-Filled Percent Reduction Survey Creek XS Channel Cross- Cross- in Geomorphic Beaver Dam Year section Area section Area Channel Capacity Condition (sq. m) (sq. m) due to Water 1995 Price 24 2.39 1.76 74 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 25 1.6 0.54 34 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 26 2.71 1.01 37 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 27 4.09 2.65 65 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 28 1.43 0.55 38 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 29 0.95 0.36 38 Intact beaver dam 1995 Price 30 1.63 0.5 31 Intact beaver dam 1998 Price 17 6.9 0.39 6 NIA 1998 Price 18 3.78 0.42 11 NIA 1998 Price 19 1.17 0.36 31 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 20 3.36 0.54 16 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 21 2.02 0.38 19 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 22 2.29 0.21 9 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 23 2.02 0.64 32 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 24 3.63 1.01 28 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 25 1.61 0.26 16 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 26 2.71 0.53 20 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 27 4.08 1.17 29 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 28 1.52 0.25 16 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 29 2.29 0.14 6 Failing beaver dam 1998 Price 30 3.49 0.18 5 Failing beaver dam 624 APPENDIXK ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT REQUIRED TO DECREASE THE GEOMORPHIC CHANNEL TO ITS PRE-DISTURBANCE CROSS-SECTION AREA 625 Creek Cross-sections Reach Av. Channel Total Sed. ~- -------·---- -------------- - ---------·----- -- -- ----- Length enlargement Require per Rl;!c1ch (m) in a given reach (cu. m) I ~-- -- (sq. m) -- Basin 1, 2 and 3 69 2.42 167 ---- -- Basin 4, 5, 6 and 25 100 1.13 113 ---- -- ---a------------- ----- Basin 7, 8, 9, 23 and 24 142 5.04 716 -~ -------- ----- -- Basin 10, 11, 12 and 13 163 5.39 879 -- e--------------·-- ·- Basin 14, 15 and 16 150 3.77 566 Basin 17, 18 and 26 100 1.96 196 - Basin 19,20,21,22 150 1.4 210 - Basin 27 and 28 100 1.91 191 ·-!-----------·- --------- ----------~----------- - Basin TOTAL 974 2.88 3038 ------------------- ------------- ---- i--------------- ---~- - --------------- ---------- -- --- ------ - I--------------- - f----- - - - --- ----- --- ----- ---- Muddy 1,2,26,30,31,32 200 1.84 368 ----------- -- Muddy 3,4 210 1.1 231 -~--- -~ ~~ - 5, 6 150 0.71 107 ---- +------------------- Muddy 7,8,9 68 1.61 109 ----------- ------ Muddy ____ 10, 11 149 1.09 162 ~r- --~-----"""·-- -- Muddy ____________ 12, 13,25 152 1.72 261 ~ --t-------- ------ --- ~---------- 14, 15 149 0.36 54 --- -------- -- -------- --- -- -- Mudd)' ____ 16, 17 149 1.66 247 ------- ~ -- 1----------------- - Muddy 18, 19 149 1.08 161 ----- Muddy 22 107 1.03 110 ---- Muddy 23,24 149 0.46 69 ----- -- -- Muddy TOTAL 1632 1.29 1879 ------- ---- ----- ---------------~--------- !-----------------~-- ----------- ------ --- - --- ------ ----------------------- ---------------- ----------!-------------- ----+-- -- ----- ----- -- Price Creek 2 152 4.3 654 -- --t-----------------~ ------------- -- Price Creek 13, 14, 15,33 115 1.39 160 .------------------- --- ---------------- ------ Price Creek 16, 17, 18 100 4.81 481 ------ Price Creek 19, 20, 21 100 2.03 203 - -- ------------- Price Creek 22 - 27 200 2.35 470 --- - ---- ---------- ---- Price Creek _________ 28, 29 100 1.09 109 --------- ----------- ----- t----------- ----- -- Price Creek 30 100 1.53 153 ------------ ---- --------- --- -- 152' Price Creek (W. Fk) 4, 5 0.37 56 -- ------ -------~------- -- Pric~_Creek (W. Fk) 6, 7 152 0.37 56 ------ ----- ------- - ]>rice Creek (W. Fk) l_l, 32 100 0.11 11 ~ ~------ ---- - - - ------- Price TOTAL 1271 1.835 2353 -- --- Hayground 1 150 1.33 200 --------------- Hayground 2,3 150 0.87 131 ---- --- Hayground 4,5,6 115 1.52 175 626 Creek Cross-sections Reach Av. Channel Total Sed. ·-f--------------.·- Length enlargement Require per Rea~h (m) in a given reach (cu. m) I (sq. m) ·-- ·--·- --- Hayground 7, 8,9 115 0.55 63 -~--·------- -- - ·----- ----------·--· --i---------- - --- - Home 1, 2 113 0.43 49 ~---·--··· ·---"·-- ··-·--· ---- ·-- ··- - .. -. -··--------.-· - -·----~. ------- --- -- Lower Burro 1, 2 100 1.45 145 --- Lower Burro 3,4 114 1.64 187 ---· ·- Lower Burro 5 137 1.3 178 f-- ··---~-. ---- -··--···----- ~----- ---- ·--- ---------~----·---- i--------------~·------~--------- -- -- Lower Stinky . __ 1_,_I 57 0.825 47 ~-------~-------------·-- ----- -- Lower Stinky 3 57 0.43 25 ·- ~----- ---- --I--- - ------- -- Lower Stinky 4,5 152 0.93 141 ·----- --~------------1------ ------- --- ---·----~----·- - Mandan 1, 2 152 0.66 100 - Mandan 3, 4, 5, 6 150 1.03 155 ----- ~-- ----- White Mts TOT AL 1562 1.00 1596 ~- --~ ·-- -~--- ------- ~--- ------- ---- -- 1 Total sediment required= (average geomorphic channel enlargement for a given reach) x reach length. - i -f------·--··F ___ --- -- -------- -- -·- ----- - Foot ball field= 110 m x 49 m = 5390 sq. m BIBLIOGRAPHY Abruzzi, W. S. (1995). "The social and ecological consequences of early cattle ranching in the Little Colorado River basin." Human Ecology 23: 75-98. 627 Apple, L. L., Smith, B. H., Dunder, J. D. and Baker, B. W. (1984). The use of beavers for riparian/aquatic habitat restoration of cold desert, gully-cut stream systems in southwestern Wyoming. American Fisheries Society/Wildlife Society Joint Chapter Meeting, Logan, Wyoming. Ashworth, P. J. (1996). "Mid-channel bar growth and its relationship to local flow strength and direction." Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 21: 103-123. Bailey, V. (1936). North American Fauna: The mammal and life zones of Oregon: 218-222. Balling, R. C. and S. G. Wells (1990). "Historical rainfall patterns and arroyo activity within the Zuni River drainage basin, New Mexico." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 80(4): 603-617. Beedle, D. L. (1991). Physical dimensions and hydrologic effects of beaver ponds on Kuiu Island in southeast Alaska. Forest Engineering. Corvallis, Oregon State University: 94. Beeson, C. E. and P. F. Doyle (1995). "Comparison of bank erosion at vegetated and non-vegetated channel bends." American Water Resources Bulletin 31(6): 983-990. Bengeyfield, P. and D. Svoboda (1998). Determining allowable use levels for livestock movement in riparian areas. A WRA Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources, Reno, NV. Bryan, K. (1927). "Channel erosion of the Rio Salado, Socorro County, New Mexico." U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 790: 17-19. Bryan, K. (1928a). "Historic evidence on changes in the channel of Rio Puerco, a tributary of the Rio Grande in New Mexico." Journal of Geology 36: 265-282. Bryan, K. (1928b ). "Change in plant associations by change in ground water level." Ecology 9: 474-478. Buckley, G. L. (1992). Desertification of the Camp Creek drainage in central Oregon, 1826 - 1905. M. A. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene: 136. 628 Bull, W. B. (1964). "History and causes of channel trenching in western Fresno County, California." American Journal of Science 262: 249-258. Bull, W. B. (1997). "Discontinuous ephemeral streams." Geomorphology 19: 227-276. Burkham, D. E. (1970). "Precipitation, stream:flow, and major floods at selected sites in the Gila River drainage basin above Coolidge Dam, Arizona." U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper(655-B): Bl-B33. Burkham, D. E. (1972). "Channel changes of the Gila River in Safford Valley, Arizona 1846 - 1970." U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 655 - G: 1-24. Burns, D. A. and J. J. McDonnell (1998). "Effects of a beaver pond on runoff processes: comparison of two headwater catchments." Journal of Hydrology 205: 248-264. Burroughs, R. D., Ed. (1961). The natural history of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Michigan State University Press. Butler, D.R. (1989). "The failure of beaver dams and resulting outburst :flooding: A geomorphic hazard of the Southeastern piedmont." Geographical Bulletin- Gamma Theta Upsilon 31(1): 29-38. Butler, D.R. and G. P. Malanson (1995). "Sedimentation rates and patterns in beaver ponds in a mountain environment." Geomorphology 13: 255-269. Campbell, K. L., Kumar, S. and Johnson, H.P. (1972). "Stream straightening effects on flood-runoff characteristics." American Society of Agricultural Engineering Transactions 15: 94-98. Case, R. L. and J.B. Kauffman (1997). "Wild ungulate influences on the recovery of willows, black cottonwood and thin-leaf alder following cessation of cattle grazing in northeastern Oregon." Northwest Science 71(2): 115-126. Chittenden, H. M. (1954). The American fur trade of the Far West: A history of the pioneer trading posts and early fur companies of the Missouri Valley and the Rocky Mountains and of the overland commerce with Santa Fe. Stanford, Academic Reprints. Clary, W. P. (1999). "Stream channel and vegetation responses to late spring cattle grazing." Journal of Range Management 52: 218-227. 629 Clements, D. B. (1985). Public Land Surveys -- History and Accomplishments. Plotters and Patterns of American Land Surveying: A collection of articles from the archives of the American Congress on Surveying and Mappizng (sic). R. Minnick. Rancho Cordova, Landmark Enterprises: 102-108. Clifton, C. F. (1987). Effects of vegetation and land use on the channel morphology of Wickiup Creek, Blue Mountains, Oregon. Geography. Madison, University of Wisconsin: 106. Colton, H. S. (1937). "Some notes on the original condition of the Little Colorado River: A side light on the problems of erosion." Museum Notes: Museum of Northern Arizona 10(6): 17-20. Cooke, R. U. and R. W. Reeves (1976). Arroyos and environmental change in the American Southwest. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Cottam, W. P. and G. Stewart (1940). "Plant succession as a result of grazing and of meadow desiccation by erosion since settlement in 1862." Journal of Forestry 38: 613-626. Cronon, W. (1983). Changes in the Land -- Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York, Hill and Wang. D'Arrigo, R. D. and G. C. Jacoby (1991). "A 1000 -year record of winter precipitation from northwestern New Mexico, USA: a reconstruction from tree-rings and its relation to El Nino and the Southern Oscillation." The Holocene 1(2): 95-101. Dallas, D.S. (1997). Managing livestock with a focus on riparian areas in the Ruby River watershed: Sharing what we've learned about the practical application of the Beaverhead Riparian Guidelines and other improved riparian management strategies. Dillon, Montana, USDA Forest Service, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest: 45. Dellenbaugh, F. S. (1912). "Cross cutting and retrograding of stream beds." Science 35(904): 656-658. Denevan, W. M. (1967). "Livestock numbers in nineteenth-century New Mexico, and the problem of gully in the Southwest." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 57(4): 691-703. Devito, K. J. and P. J. Dillon (1993). "Importance of runoff and winter anocia to the P and N dynamics of a beaver pond." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 2222-2234. Dobyns, H.F. (1981). From Fire to Flood: Historic human destruction of Sonoran Desert riverine oases, Ballena Press. Donahue, D. L. (1999). The Western Range Revisited: Removing Livestock from Public Lands to Conserve Native Biodiversity. Norman, University of Oklahoma. Dunne, T. and L. Leopold (1978). Water in Environmental Planning, W. H. Freeman and Company. 630 Dunne, T. (1980). "Formation and controls of channel networks." Progress in Physical Geography 4: 211 - 239. Dunne, T. (1990). Hydrology, mechanics and geomorphic implications of erosion by subsurface flow. Groundwater geomorphology: the role of subsurface water in earth-surface processes and landforms. C. G. Higgins and D.R. Coates, Geological Society of American Special Paper. 252: 1-28. Edwards, 0. T. (1939). Beaver Report: Malheur National Forest. John Day, USDA Forest Service. Fouty, S. C. (1996). Beaver trapping in the southwest in the early 1800s as a cause of arroyo formation in the late 1800s and early 1900s (abs.). Geological Society of America -- Cordilleran Section, Portland, OR, Geological Society of America. Friedman, J.M., Osterkamp, W.R. and Lewis, W.R. (1996). "The role of vegetation and bed-level :fluctuations in the process of channel narrowing." Geomorphology 14: 341-351. Gamougoun, N. D., Smith, R. P., Wood, M. K. and Pieper, R. D. (1984). "Soil, vegetation, and hydrologic responses to grazing management at Fort Stanton, New Mexico." Journal of Range Management 37(6): 538-541. Gellis, A. C., Cheama A. Laahty, V. and Lalio, S. (1995). "Assessment of gully-control structures in the Rio Nutria watershed, Zuni Reservation, New Mexico." Water Resources Bulletin 31(4): 633-646. Graf, W. L. (1984). "The geography of American field geomorphology." Professional Geographer 36(1): 78-82. Grasse, J.E. and E. F. Putman (1950). "Beaver: Management and Ecology in Wyoming." Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Bulletin 6: 75 p. 631 Gregory, H. E. (1917). "Geology of the Navajo Country: A reconnaissance of Parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah." U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 93. Gregory, H. E. and R. C. Moore (1931). "The Kaiparowits Region: A geographic and geologic reconnaissance of parts of Utah and Arizona." U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 164. Gunderson, D.R. (1968). "Floodplain use related to stream morhplogy and fish populations." Journal of Wildlife Management 32(3): 507 - 514. Hall, J. G. (1960). "Willow and aspen in the ecology of beaver on Sagehen Creek, California." Ecology 41(3): 484 -494. Harrelson, C. C., Rawlins, C. L. and Potyondy, J.P. (1994). Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated guide to field techniques, U. S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Hastings, J. R. and R. M. Turner (1965). The Changing Mile. Tucson, The University of Arizona Press. Heede, B. H. (1966). Design, construction and cost ofrock check dams. Fort Collins, USDA, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Hendrickson, D. A. and W. L. Minckley (1984). "Cienegas -- Vanishing climax communities of the American Southwest." Desert Plants 6(3): 131-17 5. Hillman, G. R. (1998). "Flood wave attentuation by a wetland following a beaver dam failure on a second order boreal stream." Wetlands 18(1): 21-34. Hooke, J. M. (1995). "River channel adjustment to meander cutoffs on the River Bollin and River Dane, northwest England." Geomorphology 14: 235 - 253. Hubert, W. A., Larka, R. P., Wesche, T. A. and Stabler, F. (1985). Grazing management influences on two Brook Trout streams in Wyoming. Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses: First North American Riparian Conference, Tucson, Arizona, U.S. D.A. Forest Service. Hupp, C.R. and A. Simon (1991). "Bank accretion and the development of vegetated depositional surfaces along modified alluvial channels." Geomorphology 4: 111- 124. 632 Hupp, C.R. and W.R. Osterkamp (1996). "Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphic processes." Geomorphology 14: 227-295. Irwin, L. L., Cooke, J. G., Riggs, R. A. and Skovlin, J.M. (1994). Effects oflong-term grazing by big game and livestock in the Blue Mountains forest ecosystems, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Ives, R. L. (1942). "The beaver-meadow complex." Journal of Geomorphology 5: 19- 25. Johnson, W. C., Dixon, M. D., Simon, R., Jenson S. and Larson, K. (1995). "Mapping the response of riparian vegetation to possible flow reductions in the Snake River, Idaho." Geomorphology 13: 159-173. Johnston, C. A. and R. J. Naiman (1990). "The use of a geographic information system to analyze long-term landscape alteration by beaver." Landscape Ecology 4(1): 5-19. Kauffman, J.B. and W. C. Krueger (1984). "Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications .... A review." Journal of Range Management 37(5): 430-438. Keigley, R. B. (1997). "An increase in herbivory of cottonwood in Yellowstone National Park." Northwest Science 71(2): 127-136. Keller, C.R. and K. P. Burnham (1982). "Riparian fencing, grazing, and trout habitat preferences on Summit Creek, Idhao." North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2: 53-59. Knighton, D. (1998). Pluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Knox, J.C. (1977). "Human impacts on Wisconsin stream channels." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 67(3): 323-342. Kondolf, G. M., Cada, G. F., Sale, M. J. and Feldando T. (1991). "Distribution and stability of potential salmonid spawning gravels in steep boulder-bed streams of the eastern Sierra Nevada." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 177-186. Kondolf, G. M. (1993). "Lag in stream channel adjustments to livestock exclosure, White Mountains, California." Restoration Ecology(December): 226-230. 633 Lawler, D. M. (1992). Process dominance in bank erosion systems. Lowland floodplain rivers. P.A. Carling and G. E. Petts. Chichester, Wiley: 117 - 143. Leopold, L. B. (1951 ). "Vegetation of southwest watersheds in the nineteenth century." Geographical Review 41: 295-316. Leopold, L.B. and T. Maddock, Jr. (1953). "The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications." U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252: 56. Leopold, L. and T. Maddock (1954). The flood control controversy. New York, The Ronald Press Company. Love, D. W. (1979). Quaternary fluvial geomorphic adjustments in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Adjustments of the Fluvial System. D. D. Rhodes and G. P. Williams. Dubuque, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company: 277-308. Magilligan, F. J. and P. F. McDowell (1997). "Stream channel adjustments following the elimination of cattle grazing." Journal of American Water Resources Association 33(4): 867-878. Martinez, 0. (1992). Field observation on beaver use. Dillon, MT, USDI, BLM Dillon Resource Area. Internal Memo. McKenney, R., Jacobson, R. B. and Wertheimer, R. C. (1995). "Woody vegetation and channel morphogenesis in low-gradient, gravel-bed streams in the Ozark Plateaus, Missouri and Arkansas." Geomorphology 13: 175-198. McLane, C. F. (1978). Channel network growth: an experimental study: Unpublished. Fort Collins, Colorado State University: 100. Medina, A. L. and S. C. Martin (1988). "Stream channel and vegetation changes in sections of McKnight Creek, New Mexico." Great Basin Naturalist 48(3): 375- 381. Meentemeyer, R. K. and D.R. Butler (1999). "Hydrogeomorphic effects of beaver dams in Glacier National Park, Montana." Physical Geography 20(5): 436-446. Meisel, M. (1924). A Bibliography of American Natural History -- The Pioneer Century, 1769-1865. Brooklyn, The Premier Publishing Company. 634 Meko, D. M. (1990). Inferences from tree rings on low frequency variations in runoff in the interior western United States. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Pacific Climate (PACLIM) workshop. J. L. Betancourt and A. M. MacKay. California, California Department of Water Resources: 123-127. Meko, D., Hughes, M. and Stockton, C. (1991). Climate change and climate variability: the paleo record. Managing water resources in the west under conditions of climate uncertainty, Scottsdale, Arizona, National Academy Press. Minitab Inc. (1997). Minitab statistical software, Release 12. U.S.A. Morisawa, M. (1964). "Development of drainage systems on an upraised lake floor." American Journal of Science 262: 340-354. Morisawa, M. (1985). "Development of quantitative geomorphology." Geological Society of America Centennial Special 1: 79-107. Mowry, A. D. (2003). Processes and controls of stream channel adjustment to cattle exclosures in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon, M.A. Thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR Myers, T. J. and S. Swanson (1996). "Temporal and geomorphic variations of stream stability and morphology: Mahogany Creek, Nevada." Water Resources Bulletin 32(2): 253 - 265. Naiman, R. J., Mellillo, J.M. and Hobbie, J.E. (1986). "Ecosystem alteration of a boreal forest stream by beaver (Castor canadensis)." Ecology 67: 1254-1269. · Naiman, R. J., Johnston C. A. and Kelley, J.C. (1988). "Alteration of North American streams by beaver." BioSciences 38(11 ): 753-762. Ogden, P. S. (1950). Peter Skene Ogden's Snake Country journals. London, The Hudson's Bay Record Society. Olson, R. and W. A. Hubert (1994). Beaver: Water resources and riparian habitat manager. Laramie, University of Wyoming. Osterkamp, W.R. and J.E. Costa (1987). Changes accompanying an extraordinary flood on a sand-bed stream. Catastrophic Flooding. L. Mayer and D. Nash. Boston, Allen and Unwin: 201-224. Overton, C. K., Chandler, G. L. and Pisano, J. A. (1994). Northern/Intermountain Regions' Fish Habitat Inventory: Grazed, Rested, and Ungrazed Reference Stream Reaches, Silver King Creek, California. Ogden, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Intermountain Research Station. 635 Parker, M., Wood, F. J., Smith, B. H. and Elder, R. G. (1985). Erosional downcutting in lower order riparian ecosystems: Have historical changes been caused by removal of beaver? Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian Conference, Tucson, AZ, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pattie, J. 0. (1831 ). The personal narrative of James 0. Pattie: The 1831 edition. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press. Phillips, P. C. (1961). The Fur Trade. Norman, University of Oklahoma. Pizzuto, J. E. (1984). "Bank erodibility of shallow sandbed streams." Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 9: 113-124. Pizzuto, J.E. (1994). "Channel adjustments to changing discharges, Powder River, Montana." Geological Society of America Bulletin 106: 1494 - 1501. Platts, W. S. and R. L. Nelson (1985). "Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation(July-August): 374-379. Ray, A. J. (1975). "Some conservation schemes of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1821- 50: an examination of the problems of resource management in the fur trade." Journal of Historical Geography. 1(1): 49-68. Reagan, A. B. (1924). "Stream aggradation through irrigation." The Pan-American Geologist 42: 335-344. Retzer, J. L., Swope, H. M., Remington J.D and Rutherford, W. H. (1956). "Suitability of physical factors for beaver management in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado." State of Colorado, Department of Game and Fish. Technical Bulletin No. 2. Rinne, J. N. (1988). "Grazing Effects on Stream Habitat and Fishes: Research Design Considerations." North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8: 240-247. Ripple, W. J. and E. J. Larsen (2000). "Historic aspen recruitment, elk, and wolves in Northern Yellowstone National Park, USA." Biological Conservation 95: 361- 270. 636 Rosgen, D. L (1996) Applied river morphology. Wildlands Hydrology, Pagosa Springs. Ruedemann, R. and W. J. Schoonmaker (1938). "Beaver-dams as geologic agents." Science 88: 523-525. Schaffer, P. W. (1941). Beaver on trial, Soil Conservation Service. Schulz, T. T. and W. C. Leininger (1991). "Nongame wildlife communities in grazed and ungrazed montane riparian sites." Great Basin Naturalist 51: 286-292. Schumm, S. A. (1973). "Geomorphic thresholds and complex response of drainage systems." Pluvial geomorphology. M. Morisawa (ed.). Binghamton, NY: New York State University Publications in Geomorphology: 229-309. Schumm, S. A. and R. W. Lichty (1963). "Channel widening and flood-plain construction along Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas." U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 352 - D: 71 - 88. Schumm, S. A., Harvey, M. D. and Watson, C. C. (1984). Incised Channels: Morphology, Dynamics and Control. Littleton, Water Resources Publications. Scott, M. L., Friedman, J.M. and Auble, G. T. (1996). "Pluvial process and the establishment ofbottomland trees." Geomorphology 14: 327-339. Sedell, J. R. and Froggatt, J. L. (1984). "Importance of streamside forests to large rivers: The isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A., from its floodplain by snagging and streamside forest removal." Verh. International Verein. Limnol. 22: 1828-1834. Shankman, D. and T. B. Pugh (1992). "Discharge response to channelization of a coastal plain stream." Wetlands 12(3): 157-162. Shankman, D. (1996). "Stream channelization and changing vegetation patterns in the U.S. coastal plain." The Geographical Review 86(2): 216-232. Shaw, G. and D. Wheeler (1997). Statistical Techniques in Geographical Analysis. London, David Fulton Publishers. Shields, F. D. J., Knight, S.S. and Cooper, C. M. (1995). "Rehabilitation of watersheds with incising channels." Water Resources Bulletin 31(6): 971-982. Singer, F. J., Mark, L. C. and Cates, R. C. (1994). "Ungulate hebivory of willows on Yellowstone's northern winter range." Journal of Range Management 47(6): 435-443. 637 Smith, D. G. (1976). "Effect of vegetation on lateral migration of anastomosed channels of a glacier meltwater river." Geological Society of America Bulletin 87: 857- 860. Soil Survey Staff (1975). Soil Taxonomy. Agriculture Handbook No. 436. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Stockton, C. W. and H. C. Fritts (1968). Conditional probability of occurrence for variations in climate based on widths of annual tree rings in Arizona. Tucson, University of Arizona, Laboratory of Tree-ring Research. Stuber, R. J. (1985). Trout habitat, abundance, and fishing opportunities in fenced vs unfenced riparian habitat along Sheep Creek, Colorado. Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses: First North American Riparian Conference, Tucson, Arizona, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Swift, T. T. (1926). "Date of channel trenching in the Southwest." Science 63(1620): 70-71. Thome, C.R. and N. K. Tovey (1981). "Stability of composite river banks." Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 6: 469-484. Thome, C. R. (1982). Processes and mechanisms of river bank erosion. Gravel-bed Rivers. R. D. Hey, J. C. Bathurst and C. R. Thome. New York, John Wiley and Sons: 227-287. Trimble, S. W. and A. C. Mendel (1995). "The cow as a geomorphic agent -- a critical review." Geomorphology 13: 233-253. Underwood, A. J. (1997). Experiments in ecology: Their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. USDA Forest Service (1937). A preliminary report on beaver transplanting in the national forests of Oregon. Malheur National Forest, Oregon. 24 p. USDA Forest Service (1944). Historical summary of Malheur National Forest wildlife conditions. Malheur National Forest, Oregon. 638 USDA Forest Service (1947). Preliminary investigation of existing wildlife conditions. Malheur National Forest, Oregon. USDA Forest Service (1992). Upper Ruby Cattle and Horse Allotment Management Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Book 1 (Analysis and Appendices A-J). Sheridan, USDA Forest Service, Beaverhead National Forest, Sheridan Ranger District, Montana. USDA Forest Service (1993a). West Fork of the Black River watershed and fisheries restoration project: Implementation Plan. Apache-Stigreaves National Forests, Springerville Ranger District, Arizona: 14 p. USDA Forest Service (1993b). Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Diamond Bar Allotment Management Plan. Gila National Forest, Mimbres Ranger District, Arizona. USDI Bureau of Land Management (1990). Price Creek Allotment Management Plan# 30040, Allotment Evaluation. Butte District, Dillon Resource Area, Montana. USDI Bureau of Land Management (1992a). Price Creek Allotment Management Plan. Butte District, Dillon Resource Area, Montana. USDI Bureau of Land Management (1992b). Beaver management in the Dillon Resource Area, Environmental Assessment No. MT-076-92-006. Butte District, Dillon Resource Area, Montana. USDI Bureau of Land Management (1993). Muddy Creek Management Plan. Butte District, Dillon Resource Area, Montana. USDI Bureau of Land Management (1999). Muddy Creek Allotment Analysis. Butte District, Dillon Resource Area, Montana. US General Accounting Office (1988a). Public rangelands: Some riparian areas restored but widespread improvement will be slow. Washington, D.C., U.S. General Accounting Office. US General Accounting Office (1988b). Rangeland management: More emphasis needed on declining and overstocked grazing allotments. Washington, D. C. US General Accounting Office (1992). Rangeland management: More emphasis needed on declining and overstocked grazing allotments. Washington, D. C. Warren, E. R. (1926). "A study of the beaver in the Yancey region of Yellowstone National Park." Roosevelt Wild Life Annals of the Roosevelt Wild Life Forest Experiment Station 1(1 and 2): 191. Weber, D. J. (1971). The Taos Trappers: The Fur Trade in the Far Southwest, 1540- 1846. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press. 639 White, C. A. (1996). Initial points of the rectangular survey system. Westminster, The Publishing House. Wiens, K. C. (2001). The effects ofheadcutting on the bottomland hardwood wetlands of the Wolf River near Memphis, Tennessee. Biology. Cookeville, TN, Tennessee Technological University: 92. Winegar, H. H. (1977). "Camp Creek Channel Fencing --- Plant, Wildlife, Soil , and Water Response." Rangeman's Journal 4(1): 10 -12. Winn, F. (1926). "The West Fork of the Gila River." Science 64(1644): 16-17. Wolman, M. G. (1954). "A method for sampling coarse river-bed material." Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 35(6): 951-956. Womack, W.R. and S. A. Schumm (1977). "Terraces of Douglas Creek, northwestern Colorado: An example of episodic erosion." Geology 5: 72-76. Work, J. (1945). The journal of John Work-- January to October 1835. Victoria, B. C., Charles F. Banfield. Zierholz, C., Prosser, I. P., Fogarty, P. J. and Rustomijo, P. (2001). "In-stream wetlands and their significance for channel filling and the catchment sediment budget, Jugiong Creek, New South Wales." Geomorphology 38: 221-235.