PACFISH/INFISH Biological 

Opinion (PIBO): Effectiveness 

Monitoring Program Seven-Year 

Status Report 1998 Through 2004

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-162

September 2005
The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service

Abstract ______________________________________

Henderson, Richard C.; Archer, Eric K.; Bouwes, Boyd A; Coles-Ritchie, Marc S.; 

Kershner, Jeffrey L. 2005. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO): Effectiveness Monitoring Program seven-year status report 1998 through 2004. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p.

 The PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program was 

initiated in 1998 to provide a consistent framework for monitoring aquatic and riparian resources on most Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands within the Upper 

Columbia River Basin. This 7-year status report gives our funding sources, partners, and 

the public an overview of past activities, current business practices, products and publications, and future program directions. It is designed to increase accountability and summarize our accomplishments during the initial phase of the program.

Key words: PIBO, Effectiveness Monitoring, change detection, current condition, sampling protocol, budget 

The Author

Richard C. Henderson is a Fisheries Biologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit in Logan, UT. He earned his B.S. degree in fisheries biology from Colorado State University in Fort Collins in 1992. In 1998 he received his M.S. degree in fisheries biology 

from Utah State University, Logan. Rick joined the Forest Service in 1998 as the Project Manager for the 

PACFISH/INFISH Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

Eric K. Archer is a Fishery Biologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, in Logan, 

UT. Eric received a B.S. degree in fisheries management in 1996 and an M.S. degree in aquatic ecology 

in 2002 from Utah State University, Logan. Eric joined the Forest Service as a Fisheries Biologist in 1999 

and has worked as a Supervisor of Field Operations and Data Analyst for the PACFISH/INFISH Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

Boyd A. Bouwes is a Biogeographer for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, in Logan, 

UT. He received a B.A. degree in geography from the University of Wisconsin Madison in 1995 and an 

M.S. degree in biogeography from Portland State University in 2000. Boyd joined the Forest Service in 

1999 and has worked as the Assistant Supervisor of Field Operations and GIS Specialist for the PACFISH/INFISH Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 

Marc C. Coles-Ritchie is a Riparian Vegetation Ecologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, in Logan, UT. He received a B.A. degree in comparative literature from the University of Massachusetts and an M.S. degree in environmental studies from Bard College. Marc completed a Ph.D. 

degree in ecology from Utah State University in 2005. Marc became the Riparian Ecologist for the PACFISH/INFISH Effectiveness Monitoring Program in 2004. 

Jeffrey L. Kershner is a Washington Office Aquatic Ecologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit, in Logan UT. He completed a B.S. degree in 1976 at 

Humbolt State University, Humboldt, CA, in fisheries. He earned an M.S. degree in natural resources 

from Humboldt State University in 1982 and a Ph.D. degree in ecology from the University of California, 

Davis, in 1991.
Contents _____________________________

Page

Commonly Asked Questions ....................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................. 3

Sampling Summary ..................................................................... 4

PIBO Program Resources ........................................................... 5

Analysis and Results ................................................................... 6

Data Management and Distribution ........................................... 11

Interaction with Forest Service and BLM Staff .......................... 12

Interaction with Other Monitoring Programs .............................. 13

Future Direction and Study Questions ...................................... 14

Point of Contact ......................................................................... 15

Acknowledgments ..................................................................... 15

PIBO Publications and References Cited .................................. 16

Other References ...................................................................... 16

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing Address Publications Distribution 

 Rocky Mountain Research Station

 240 West Prospect Road

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005 1

PACFISH/INFISH Biological

Opinion (PIBO): Effectiveness

Monitoring Program Seven-Year

Status Report 1998 Through 2004

Richard C. Henderson

Eric K. Archer

Boyd A. Bouwes

Marc C. Coles-Ritchie

Jeffrey L. Kershner

Commonly Asked Questions _______________________

1. What is PIBO? PIBO stands for the PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion

Effectiveness Monitoring Program. The program was initiated to evaluate the

effect of land management activities on aquatic and riparian communities at

multiple scales and to determine whether PACFISH/INFISH management practices are effective in maintaining or improving the structure and function of

riparian and aquatic conditions. Our study area includes 20 USDA National

Forests and nine USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Field Units within

the Interior Columbia River Basin.

2. Who is PIBO? We have seven full time Forest Service employees with

backgrounds in fisheries, riparian ecology, geography, data management,

and support services. We also employ up to 45 seasonal technicians. We

are based in Logan, UT.

3. How is the PIBO program funded? The program is funded by Forest Service

Regions 1, 4, and 6 and the Oregon/Washington and Idaho State Offices of the

BLM. Funding for special projects has been provided by the Forest Service’s

Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit and Stream Systems Technology Center, Forest

Service Region 1, Oregon/Washington BLM, and the Salmon Challis National

Forest.

4. When will we begin reporting changes and trends in resource conditions?

In 2006 we will begin our second sampling rotation, when we resample sites

initially sampled in 2001. Comparing these two sampling periods will allow us

to begin describing changes in each attribute we measure. By 2010, approximately 1,000 stream reaches will have been resampled, giving us the ability to

describe change between the periods of 2001 to 2005 and 2006 to 2010. Assessments of trends in resource conditions will begin in 2011, because a

minimum of three samples are required for trend analyses.

5. How is the PIBO-EMP working with other large-scale monitoring programs to develop compatible sampling methods and sampling design?

We have worked extensively with the Northwest Forest Plan – Aquatic and

Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) to standardize sampling methods between our programs. Beginning in 2004 we will be using

identical methods for a core set of physical habitat attributes and macroinvertebrate sampling. In 2005, we will be participating in a sampling

protocol comparison study with other Federal and State monitoring programs.
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005

6. Is the PIBO program consistent with recommendations in the Forest Service Aquatic and Ecological Unit Inventory (AEUI) proposal? Yes. The

2004 standardized sampling protocol developed with the AREMP program is

consistent with the draft AEUI protocol for most attributes.

7. Can the results be used to answer status and trend questions at smaller

spatial scales (for example, individual Forests or BLM units)? Results from

sample size analyses suggest that we will be able to detect changes in resource

condition at the scale of individual Forests and BLM Field Offices (35 to 90

sites) for many of the attributes we measure. Comparisons between reference

and managed sites also support these results. We are beginning to work with

Forest Planning teams to determine how our study design and data collection

can be used to address their monitoring questions.

8. What have we learned about the current condition of aquatic and riparian

resources? Analyses have focused on whether our sampling methods can detect differences in the resource condition between managed and reference sites.

The assumption is that if the methods can detect differences, then they will be

useful in detecting changes from current management practices. We found significant differences for eight of 12 physical habitat attributes and for

macroinvertebrates, but no difference in riparian vegetation attributes. Analysis

of PACFISH/INFISH Riparian Management Objectives suggest that several of

the standards are unrealistic, especially wetted width:depth ratio and percent

undercut banks. Stratification of the data by Regions or State Offices suggests

that standards need to reflect local environmental factors.

9. How can the data, summary results, reports, and publications be accessed?

Information about the project can be found on our Web page or by contacting us

directly. Our Web site www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp.html includes an

overview of the program, sampling protocols, publications, and an employment

page. We have also developed a second site where original and summarized data

can be accessed for all stream reaches we sample. If you have further questions,

please contact us at PIBO@fs.fed.us.

10. Will PIBO become obsolete when Land Management Plans replace

PACFISH and INFISH with new aquatic conservation strategies? No.

We use a probabilistic sampling design to nearly randomly choose sample

sites. This approach is appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of aquatic

conservation strategies (ACS). As question 7 above describes, our sample

sizes should be adequate to assess the effectiveness of new ACS’s as Land

Management Plans are revised.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005 3

Introduction ____________________

The PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO)

Effectiveness Monitoring Program was developed in

response to monitoring needs addressed in the Biological Opinions for bull trout (U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) and steelhead

(U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine

Fisheries Service 1998). It provides a consistent framework for monitoring aquatic and riparian resources

within the range of the Pacific Anadromous Fish

Strategy (PACFISH) and the Inland Fish Strategy

(INFISH), and will determine whether land management practices are maintaining or improving riparian

and aquatic conditions at both the landscape and

watershed scales on Federal lands throughout the

Upper Columbia River Basin.

The program began with a pilot study in 1998 on

Forest Service lands within the Salmon River Basin

of central Idaho. In 2000, the Interagency Implementation Team (IIT) expanded the pilot study to include

Federal lands within the Interior Columbia River Basin.

This includes Forest Service lands within PACFISH and

INFISH (20 National Forests) and BLM lands that are

within PACFISH or contain bull trout (10 Field Offices

and Resource Areas). (Throughout this document we

use the term “Field Units” to include Forest Service’s

Forests and Ranger Districts, and BLM Districts, Field

Offices, and Resource Areas.) During the pilot study

we focused on evaluating sample methods, addressing

study design questions, and developing a centralized

team to implement the program. The study design was

finalized in the winter of 2000 (Kershner and others

2004b), and the PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring Program officially began in 2001.

This 7-year status report will give our funding

sources, partners, and the public an overview of past

activities, current business practices, products and

publications, and future program directions. It is

designed to increase accountability and summarize

our accomplishments during the initial phase of the

program.

Objectives and Study Design

The program goal is to determine whether

PACFISH/INFISH management practices are effective in maintaining or restoring the structure and

function of riparian and aquatic systems. The specific

objectives are:

1. Determine whether a suite of biological and physical attributes, processes, and functions of upland,

riparian, and aquatic systems are being degraded,

maintained, or restored across the PIBO landscape.

2. Determine the direction and rate of change in

riparian and aquatic habitats over time as a function of management practices.

3. Determine if specific “Designated Monitoring

Area (DMA)” practices related to livestock

grazing are maintaining or restoring riparian

vegetation structure and function.

The study area contains 3,547 subwatersheds

(sample units) with at least some Forest Service or

BLM ownership. A generalized random tessellation

stratified design (GRTS) was used to select subwatersheds to achieve a random, nearly regular sample pattern

throughout the study area (Kershner and others 2004a).

Approximately1,300 subwatersheds were selected for

sampling during the first 5 years (2001 through 2005).

Each of these subwatersheds will then be resampled

on a 5-year rotation beginning in 2006 (table 1).

The subwatersheds were divided into two groups

based on management history. A subwatershed was

considered “reference” if it was not grazed by livestock in the last 30 years, road densities were less than

Table 1—The table displays the sampling design at full implementation where 250 subwatersheds would be

sampled each year from 2001 through 2007. These sites will be resampled every 5 years. An additional

50 watersheds were selected for annual sampling (sentinel sites). The actual number of subwatersheds

sampled at half implementation in 2001 and 2002, and full implementation in 2003 and 2004, are shown

in parentheses.

Sampling

design category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Sentinel 50(38) 50(26) 50(48) 50(50) 50 50 50

Group 1 250(152) 250

Group 2 250(106) 250

Group 3 250(233)

Group 4 250(241)

Group 5 250
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005

0.5 km per km2, riparian road densities were less than

0.25 km per km2

, and there was no historic dredge or

hardrock mining in riparian areas. All other subwatersheds were considered “managed.”

Sample Site Selection

To address our first objective, we sampled an “integrator” reach in each randomly chosen subwatershed.

These sites were chosen because they are the most

likely location to show integrated effects from upstream

management actions, and 83 percent of these sites are

located in the most downstream response reach (defined as having a stream gradient less than 3 percent)

on Federal land with the remaining sites (17 percent)

at the downstream most transport reach (stream gradient between 3 and 5 percent) on Federal lands. The

design also requires at least 50 percent Federal ownership upstream of the site. A suite of physical stream

habitat attributes, riparian vegetation characteristics,

and macroinvertebrate samples are collected at these

sites.

To address our second objective, we randomly

selected 25 reference and 25 managed integrator sites

for annual sampling (sentinel sites).

Our third objective required us to sample a DMA

within each selected subwatershed where cattle grazing

occurs within the riparian area. The location of the

DMA is determined by the Field Units and is used for

annual “Implementation” monitoring (USDA 2003).

This link between implementation and effectiveness

monitoring provides an adaptive management feedback

process. Only riparian vegetation, stream bank, and

bankfull width measurements are collected at these

sites.

Field Sampling Protocols

In 1997 an interagency team was convened to determine which physical and biological attributes should

be measured to answer the program objectives

(Kershner and others 2004b). The original sampling

methods we used to measure the attributes came from

a variety of sources. Since 1998 we have continued to

evaluate and refine each of the methods based on

feedback from field crews and results from quality

assurance tests.

The stream habitat protocol includes methods for

assessing channel cross-sections, gradient, habitat

units, large wood, sinuosity, streambed substrate,

streambank parameters, water temperature, and aquatic

macroinvertebrates (Dugaw and others 2004). The

riparian vegetation protocol describes methods for

sampling the species composition along the greenline

and across the riparian area (Coles-Ritchie and others

2004a,b). Both protocols for the 2004 field season can

be downloaded from our Web site at www.fs.fed.us/

biology/fishecology/emp.

Sampling Summary______________

The PIBO program has sampled within all 20 National Forests, three Resources Areas within Oregon/

Washington BLM, and five of six Field Offices within

Idaho BLM. During the pilot years from 1998 to 2000,

196 subwatersheds were sampled. Since the start of

the first 5-year rotation in 2001, 783 subwatersheds

have been sampled (table 2, fig. 1). Additional sites

were sampled for protocol tests, annual quality control

assessments, and for a variety of special projects. This

information is summarized annually in reports tailored

for each Forest and BLM Field Unit.

Table 2—Summary of all reaches sampled from 2001 through 2004. The sum

of the number of subwatersheds is greater than the total due to multiple ownership in several subwatersheds. Similarly, the number of

reaches is greater than the number of subwatersheds due to both

integrator and DMA reaches within some subwatersheds.

Reaches Integrator reaches

location Subwatersheds Managed Reference DMA’s

Region 1 288 211 77 17

Region 4 232 169 59 53

Region 6 184 162 14 80

BLM Idaho 50 26 34

BLM OR/WA 39 9 28

Total 783 577 150 212
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005 5

 Detecting Change in Resource Condition

We will begin analyzing the dataset for changes in

the conditions of aquatic and riparian resources (Objective 1) in 2006. This is the first year of the second

rotation, when we begin resampling stream reaches

initially sampled in 2001. We will summarize the

change for nearly 250 sites each year until 2010. By

this time about 1,000 stream reaches will have been

resampled, giving us the ability to describe changes

between the periods of 2001 to 2005 and 2006 to 2010.

Assessments of trends in resource conditions will begin in 2011, since a minimum of three samples are

required for trend analyses.

PIBO Program Resources ________

Funding for the program has steadily increased since

1998. In fiscal year 1998, we received $70,000 from

Region 4 to initiate the program. The annual budget

increased to $1,298,000 in fiscal year 2004, with the

majority of funding coming from the three Forest Service Regions and two BLM State Offices (table 3).

Additional funding has been provided through partnerships with the Forest Service Fish and Aquatic Ecology

Unit, Forest Service Stream Systems Technology Center, Utah State University, BLM Washington Office,

and individual Forests. Funding from partners has

ranged from $0 to $75,000 annually, accounting for

up to 6 percent of our budget.

Figure 1

Figure 1—The figures show the study area and the 783 subwatersheds sampled between 2001 and 2004.
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005

The annual cost for each Forest Service Region or

BLM State Office was based on two criteria. The first

was the percent of subwatersheds within the PIBO

area managed by the Region/State. Subwatersheds

with mixed ownership (BLM and Forest Service) were

divided equally. The second factor was the percent of

subwatersheds that are grazed. These criteria resulted

in the three Regions funding about 90 percent of the

program and the BLM about 10 percent.

In fiscal year 2003, approximately 91 percent of the

funding was spent in direct support of monitoring

activities and 9 percent was spent on indirect costs

associated with support services and facilities (fig. 2).

Salary and travel accounted for the majority of expenses

(76 percent). We expect the proportion of funding in

each category to remain constant, with the exception

of partnership funds that fluctuate annually.

Table 3—Funding levels by administrative unit for fiscal year 1998 through 2004, and estimated funding for fiscal year 2005. Amounts are in thousands of dollars.

Administrative FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY

unit 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

FS Region 1 0 0 $70 $168 $138 $380 $380 $390

FS Region 4 $70 $70 $70 $168 $168 $380 $380 $380

FS Region 6 0 0 $225 $168 $168 $365 $365 $365

ID BLM 0 0 $70 $70 $70 $70 $70 $70

OR/WA BLM 0 0 0 $72 $72 $72 $72 $72

Partnerships 0 $40 $40 $40 $15 $75 $31 $128

Total $70 $110 $475 $686 $631 $1342 $1298 $1405

The program staffing consisted of 26 Federal personyears of effort in fiscal year 2003 (fig. 3). The staffing

level within each job group has been changing as we

approach the structure needed to implement the program efficiently. We expect the final structure to have

a slightly greater emphasis on analysis and information

management.

Analysis and Results ____________

 Evaluations of Sampling Methods

We conducted five studies to describe the repeatability

(observer variability) associated with each sampling

method, and the implications of this variability for

detecting change.

Salary

69%

Macroinvert's

4%

Partnerships

7%

Equipment

4%

Travel

7%

Indirect 7%

Figure 2—PIBO program expenditures, by category, fiscal

year 2003.

Figure 3—PIBO program employees, by job group, fiscal

year 2003.

Fieldwork 

64%

Reports

%7 

Information Management 

10%

Analysis

8%

Administration

10%
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005 7

Repeatability of Physical Habitat Methods—In

2000 and 2001 we assessed the repeatability of stream

reach measurements for each physical habitat and

riparian vegetation attribute. The studies described

the precision of individual measurement techniques,

variability among crews (repeatability, fig. 4), sample

sizes needed to detect changes, and temporal (seasonal)

variation throughout the sampling season (Archer and

others 2004, Roper and others 2002). As a result, the

sampling methods were refined to improve repeatability and, in a few situations, resulted in switching to

new methods.

Particle Count Methods—Our initial tests in 2000

resulted in poor repeatability of streambed particle

counts. In an attempt to improve repeatability, we

conducted several additional studies in 2001 to further

define the sources of variability (Olsen and others,

accepted). These studies led to changes in our sampling methods beginning in 2002.

Repeatability of Riparian Vegetation Methods—

Initial tests of our riparian vegetation sampling methods

showed that technicians had difficulty consistently

describing vegetation community types. As a result, it

would be difficult to detect changes until a major shift

in the species composition occurred (Coles-Ritchie

and others 2004a,b, fig. 5). In 2002 we tested a revised

method, and in 2003 we switched to describing species

cover (instead of community type cover) within systematically spaced plots. Preliminary results from quality

assurance tests show that these changes improved repeatability, and provide more detailed information on

species, percent cover, invasive species, and rare

plants.

Plant Identification—In 2003 we tested the accuracy

of plant identification by vegetation technicians in the

field and the implications of misidentifications on vegetation analyses (Coles-Ritchie and Kelly, in prep.).

The results have been used to improve training and

modify species collection protocol.

Comparison of Particle Count Methods—In 2003

we compared differences in the estimates and precision

of a transect based method and a habitat based method

for measuring stream bed substrate (Archer and Roper,

in press; fig. 6). Results from the two methods were

similar, which convinced us to change our methods in

2004 to be consistent with other large-scale sampling

programs.

Comparisons of Resource Conditions in

Managed and Reference Watersheds

Recent analyses have focused on whether our sampling

methods can detect differences in the resource condition between managed and reference subwatersheds.

The assumption is that if the methods can detect differences, then they will be useful in detecting changes

from current management actions. The ability to account

for environmental, spatial, and geomorphic differences

between managed and reference sites was inherent to

the approach. We addressed this using step-wise regression and analysis of covariance.

Comparisons between reference and managed sites

were conducted separately for physical stream habitat

attributes, riparian vegetation, and macroinvertebrates.

Physical Stream Habitat Attributes—We examined

integrator sites from 62 reference stream reaches and

199 managed stream reaches. An unbalanced, incomplete block analysis of covariance was performed on

each of the habitat variables using geology type as the

block effect and bankfull width, stream gradient, and

average precipitation as the covariates.

There were significant differences in most measures

of stream habitat between reference and managed

watersheds (table 4). The analysis of covariance was

effective for comparing data across a large, relatively

heterogeneous landscape where sample reach stratification may be impractical or sample sizes are limited.

(Kershner and others 2004b).

Figure 4—Average residual pool depths for six crews

(symbols) at each of six stream reaches.

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Residual Pool Depth (m)

1 6 2 3 4 5

Site
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005

1

2

3

4

5

6

Crew

Percent of Steps

C AAQ

C ANE

CARO

C AAQ/DECE

CARO/DECE

CACA

B R IN

POPR

ABLA/CACA

SAPL/C AAQ

SAWO /C AAQ

Other

Late Seral

Stability 

Rating

Wetland 

Rating

Y 9 93

Y 9 85

Y 9 93

Y 6 82

Y 8 83

Y 8 73

N 3 57

N 3 51

Y 8 49

Y 10 85

Y 10 78

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 20 40 60 80 100

Particle Size (mm)

Cumulative Percentile

Habitat method

Transect method

Figure 5—The percentage of steps in each community type described by six technicians at

Jack Creek. The stability, late successional, and wetland ratings are listed for each community.

Figure 6—Particle count distributions for two methods used to characterize stream

bed substrate. The difference in the median particle size (D50) was 4 mm.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005 9

Riparian Vegetation—We examined stream

reaches in both managed and reference subwatersheds

to determine if we could detect differences in riparian

vegetation attributes. In the first analysis, riparian

vegetation was evaluated in relation to environment,

management, and stream variables. Similarity indices

and ordinations were used to compare all sites based on

the relative cover of community types. Stream reaches

Table 4—Unadjusted means and standard deviations of

variables reported for reference and managed

watersheds. Variables in bold were significantly

different between reference and managed

watersheds.

Managed Reference

Dependent variables Mean (stdev) Mean (stdev)

Width to depth ratio* 23.9 (12.7) 22.6 (13.7)

Residual depth (m) 0.33 (0.15) 0.41 (0.17)

Percent pools 48.7 (20.4) 53.8 (21.5)

Bank stability (%) 74.6 (18.3) 79.9 (16.8)

Bank angle (∞) 108.6 (23.6) 93.7 (22.8)

Undercut percent 28 (18.1) 39.2 (18.1)

Undercut depth (m) 0.09 (0.07) 0.13 (0.07)

Pool tail fines (%) 29.9 (27) 21.3 (22.7)

Riffle fines (mm) 24.9 (22.5) 24.7 (20.6)

D16 (mm) 10.8 (11.4) 10.2 (10)

D50 (mm) 36.6 (27) 33.8 (29.1)

D84 (mm)** 83.1 (57.3) 79.1 (66.1)

*Significant when streams were greater than 5 m wide

**Significant when streams were greater than 8 m wide

were grouped into four riparian types: (1) conifer-alder

forests, (2) wet sedge-willow sites, (3) dry-grazed

sites, and (4) steeper-shrub sites. The dry-grazed sites

were more impacted by management than the other

riparian types. Precipitation and elevation explained

the greatest amount of variance. These techniques

found little difference between managed and reference

sites across the entire study area (Coles-Ritchie 2004,

chapter 3).

We also used a wetland rating system to evaluate

riparian vegetation at a site. At the small scale, we

compared wetland ratings inside and outside of riparian exclosures at 14 sites. Wetland ratings within

exclosures were 12 percent higher than wetland ratings

in adjacent outside exclosure sites (fig. 7).

At the larger scale, data from 325 riparian sites were

evaluated using the wetland rating in relation to management, environment, and stream channel variables.

There was no difference in the wetland rating between

managed and reference sites (Coles-Ritchie 2004,

chapter 4).

Macroinvertebrates—We compared aquatic macroinvertebrate information from integrator reaches

within 59 reference and 186 managed subwatersheds.

Data from reference reaches were used to build a

multimetric and a multivariate model. The results from

the multimetric model indicate that 37 percent of the

managed reaches were biologically impaired. The

multivariate model found 50 percent of the managed

reaches to be impaired.

Figure 7—A plot of multimetric scores and multivariate scores for the 245 reaches evaluated in this

study. The vertical dashed line indicates the score to the left of which only 10 percent of the minimally

managed multimetric values occur. The horizontal dash line indicates the score below which only 10

percent of the minimally managed multivariate scores occur.

30

20

10

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Multimetric Score

Multivariate Score

Managed

Minimally Managed
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005

Interestingly, the two models agreed on the classification of reference reaches but were dramatically

different when determining the impairment of managed

sites (Roper and others, in prep.; fig. 8).

Summary—These analyses show that the effects of

land management activities can be detected at the large

scale for many physical stream habitat attributes and

macroinvertebrates but not for riparian vegetation. The

results support: (1) the need to address environmental

differences between reference and managed sites, (2) the

importance of using a wide variety of analytical techniques, and (3) the need for improved stratification

techniques to make appropriate comparisons of conditions among sites (for example, between a Region or

Forest).

Sample Size Analyses for Detecting

Change

We used three approaches to test our ability to detect

changes in resource condition. Our first approach used

the total variance estimates from the method evaluation studies to calculate the number of sites needed to

detect a change between two strata (see, for example,

the reference and managed sites previously described;

Archer and others 2004, Roper and others 2002). The

other analyses looked at detecting changes between

two time periods. Sample sizes are given for all three

approaches (Roper and others 2003, table 5). Of the

three approaches, the resampling design (table 5, last

column) most closely approximates the PIBO study

design.

The sample size estimates suggest: (1) that given a

sample size of 1,300 sites, we should be able to detect small changes for most stream habitat attributes;

(2) that at the scale of an individual Forest (where we

will sample from 35 to 90 sites), we should be able to

detect a 20 percent change for at least half of the attributes; and (3) that at the scale of an individual

District it is unlikely we will detect meaningful

changes.

Table 5—Sample size estimates for detecting a difference of at least 20 percent, with a type I and type II error rate

of 0.1. Numbers listed are the number of samples required in each strata or time period.

Number of sites needed to detect differences between:

Stream habitat Time 1 and time 2 when Time 1 and time 2 when

 attribute Two strata sites are randomly chosen the same sites are resampled

Gradient (%) 226 211 34

Sinuosity 14 27 7

Bank angle (∞) 22 20 9

Undercut depth (m) 81 157 46

Bank undercut (%) 98 101 57

Bank stability (%) 4 20 17

Bankfull width (m) 66 47 15

Width: depth ratio 79 60 32

D50 (mm) 193 271 87

Percent fines 198 333 61

Percent pools 17 53 17

Residual pool depth (m) 27 102 19

Figure 8—The greenline wetland ratings for 14 pairs of

exclosure and outside exclosure sites. Community types

were used to describe the vegetation cover and to calculate

the wetland ratings.

100

75

50

25

0

0 5 10 15

Site

Wetland Rating

Outside Exclosures

Within Exclosures
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005 11

PACFISH/INFISH Riparian Management

Objectives

The PACFISH and INFISH documents described

Riparian Management Objectives (RMO’s) for physical stream habitat attributes and water temperature so

that they would be used as interim standards until

completion of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Planning document. A number of concerns have surfaced regarding the RMO’s, including:

(1) the “one size fits all” approach to setting standards,

(2) unrealistic descriptions of healthy stream channels,

and (3) sampling methods were not described. To

address these issues we used data from 357 sites and

looked at the percent of time that RMO’s were met

(table 6).

Our results suggest several of the standards are

unrealistic, especially wetted width:depth ratio and

percent undercut banks. Stratification of the data by

Region suggests that standards need to be tailored to

local environmental factors. For example, 77 percent

of reference sites in Region 1 (N=32) met the large

woody debris standard compared to only 44 percent

in Region 4 (N=43). This suggests that factors such as

precipitation, forest type, and so forth may need to be

incorporated when developing standards. We are currently working on developing appropriate standards

for each RMO.

Livestock Designated Monitoring Areas

(DMA)

We will begin analyzing data from DMA sites in

2004. These analyses will focus on describing the relationships between effectiveness monitoring (EM) data

and the implementation monitoring (IM) information

collected by the Field Units at these sites. This will

provide a link between implementation monitoring

objectives and the resource conditions that result from

management under these guidelines. At the large scale,

we will address the following questions:

1. Is the condition of sites that meet IM objectives

different than those that do not?

2. Is the trend in resource condition different at sites

that meet IM objectives versus those that do not?

3. What is the relationship between the type of IM

monitoring (bank alteration, residual stubble

height, and so forth) and the resource condition?

At the scale of a single site, local specialists may use

the information to validate or change annual use standards or grazing management within their allotments.

Data Management and

Distribution ____________________

Data Management

The technology used to enter field data and the development of a database has been an evolving process. As

of 2003, all field data were entered into data recorders

(physical habitat) or handheld computers (riparian

vegetation). This information was imported directly

into a Microsoft Access database. After the field season,

each data set is run through a series of quality assurance

queries to identify outliers, typing errors, and missing

values. The final step is to calculate reach level summary values for each attribute.

Annual Reports

Each year we produce 25 versions of a summary report. These include a report for each of the 20 National

Forests, three Forest Service Regions, and two BLM

State Offices (Anderson and others 2004, fig. 9). Each

annual report contains an overview of the program; study

design and methods; overview of what’s new; maps

of sample locations by BLM State, Forest Service

Region, or Forest; graphical display of the results for

Table 6—Summary of the percent of reaches throughout the study area that met or

exceeded PACFISH/INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMO’s).

Managed Reference All

Variable RMO’s N=265 N=92 N=357

Pools / mile Varies 78% 67% 75%

Wetted W:D ratio <10 1% 2% 1%

% undercut banks >75 3% 16% 5%

Bank stability >80 82% 84% 82%

LWD / mile >20 46% 59% 50%

Max. temp.(spawning habitat) 60∞ F 25% 53% 32%

Max. temp. (rearing habitat) 64∞ F 43% 69% 49%
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005

most variables; and data tables with summary values

for each attribute at each site. The reports are distributed during our spring meetings with each Field Unit.

Compatibility with NRIS Water and Terra

We began working with Natural Resource Information Systems (NRIS) Water Module in 2003 to move

our physical stream habitat data into the NRIS system.

The data migration will be completed by fall 2005.

New information will be placed in each Forests NRIS

database annually. We are also working toward

migrating riparian vegetation data into the NRIS

Terrestrial Module.

PIBO-EMP Web Site

Information about our program can be found on our

Web site at www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp.

The website includes an overview of the program,

sampling protocols, annual reports, publications, and

an employment page. If you have additional questions,

please contact us at PIBO@fs.fed.us.

Data Access Web Site

We frequently receive requests for site specific data,

data summaries for a Forest or group of Forests, or

attribute information for collaborative research projects.

To provide quick and easy access to this information,

we developed a Web site where all summary information and original data can be viewed and downloaded.

We also hope to add all photographs and reach description pages by summer 2006. This information can be

accessed through a “Data Access” link on the PIBO

Web site.

Interaction with Forest Service and

BLM Staff ______________________

Annual Meetings

We interact with the Forest Service Regions, BLM

State Offices, and Field Units through Field Unit visits,

on demand presentations, professional society meetings,

and the Web site. Each spring we visit each Forest

Supervisor’s Office and BLM District / Field Office

where we give a presentation about the program, distribute reports and publications, discuss logistics for the

coming field season, and receive feedback about the

program and the products we produce. We have made

the following additions based on this feedback:

1. We now summarize water temperature data to determine “impairment” under the Clean Water Act.

Information on impairment criteria was gathered

from the five State regulatory agencies.

2. In 2003 we began collecting plant species data. This

allows us to report on the presence or absence and

percent cover for sensitive, threatened, or endangered

species, and State-designated weed species.

3. The Western Bio-Monitoring Center developed a

predictive model that provides a water quality score

for each site based on the macroinvertebrate assemblages (RIVPAC’s Model). We provide the results

from this model as one approach to summarizing

the invertebrate composition at each reach.

Monitoring Coordination Meetings

At the request of the Regional Executives, we participated in seven monitoring coordination meetings with

various Field Units in 2001 and 2002. The goal was to

identify redundancy and compatibility between the IM

and EM programs, and the monitoring conducted by the

Field Units. Findings were compiled, reviewed by the

Field Units, and reported to the executives.

Figure 9—Example of an annual report.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005 13

Regional Teams

We interact with the Regional and State Offices

through the IIT and IM task team. We also participate

in other task teams such as the R4 and ID BLM Stubble

Height team and the R1 Streambank Alteration Team,

and we attend numerous Regional and State meetings

for resource specialists each year.

Professional Society Meetings

We give presentations at range, fisheries, geomorphology, water quality, and vegetation related professional

society meetings each year. These meetings provide

contact with other monitoring programs and Forest

Service and BLM personnel throughout the country.

Partnership Projects

Recently we began working with the Field Units to

address additional aquatic monitoring needs. These

have included one-time sampling of additional sites,

evaluating sampling methods for implementation

monitoring, and long-term additions to our annual

sampling.

Lost River Ranger District—The Lost River

Ranger District of the Salmon-Challis National Forest

needed current condition information on grazing

DMA’s for an environmental impact statement. The

Salmon-Challis National Forest provided funding for

us to collect bank stability, greenline successional status, and woody regeneration information at 20 sites.

Oregon BLM—The OR/WA BLM provided funding in 2003 to sample 16 additional subwatersheds in

southeastern Oregon. Subwatersheds were chosen by

Resource Area personnel, and we selected sample

reaches following our normal protocol for integrator

reaches. Reports were produced and distributed to

each Resource Area.

Forest Service Region 1 Streambank Alteration

Team—In 2003, we worked with Region 1 personnel

conducting a study that compared the bank alteration

estimates, observer variability, and the effect of training

associated with three streambank alteration methods

(Heitke and others, in review; fig. 10). Results will be

used to develop a single sampling method with a known

level of precision. Funding was provided by the National

Fish and Aquatic Ecology unit, Region 1, and our

program.

Idaho BLM Priority Sites—In 2004 we will begin

sampling 10 additional stream reaches annually on

Idaho BLM lands. These stream reaches are considered high priority areas by the Field Offices and will

be resampled every 3 years. Funding will be provided

by the BLM State Office.

Interaction with Other Monitoring

Programs ______________________

Standardizing Sampling Methods

We have worked extensively with the Northwest Forest

Plan – Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring

Program (AREMP) to standardize sampling methods between our programs. Beginning with the 2004 sampling

season, we began using identical sampling methods for a

core set of physical stream habitat attributes and macroinvertebrates. This will allow us to combine data and

answer aquatic monitoring questions over a larger geographic area. These methods are also consistent with the

current Forest Service Aquatic Ecological Unit Inventory

protocol.

Comparison of Riparian Vegetation

Sampling Methods

We worked with the Forest Service Terrestrial

Ecological Unit Inventory Team (TEUI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), and

the Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis

(FIA) Program, to identify similarities and differences

Figure 10—The figure shows the mean percent alteration

estimate, standard deviation of observer variability, and the

effect of training on alteration estimates and observer

variability for three streambank alteration sampling methods.

Fixed Width

Method

Variable Width

Long Method

Variable Width

Short Method

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Trained

Un-trained
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005

among the riparian vegetation sampling methods. Data

were collected using four methodologies at 23 sites

within the John Day River basin in 2003. This information will help us move toward a standardized

national riparian vegetation sampling methodology.

Comparison of Physical Habitat Sampling

Methods

In 2002 we participated in a study that compared six

physical habitat protocols used by the Forest Service

and EPA (fig. 11). The results identified the strengths

and weaknesses of the sampling methods used by each

program (Whitacre 2004). This information also provided the framework for integration with the AREMP

program.

In 2005, we will participate in an expanded study

being coordinated by the Pacific Northwest Aquatic

Monitoring Partnership. This study includes seven

monitoring programs, and results will provide a basis

for standardizing sampling methods among programs.

Interagency Teams

We participate in a variety of interagency teams

addressing monitoring and ESA listed species. These

include the Bonneville Power Administration /U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation - Research Monitoring and

Evaluation program, Pacific Northwest Aquatic

Monitoring Partnership, Forest Service Aquatic and

Ecological Unit Inventory Team, and informal workgroups

with other large-scale monitoring programs.

Figure 11—Estimates of protocol means and measurement

precision for percent pool habitat on three streams in

Oregon. Symbols represent reach means for each crew.

AREMP EMAP PIBO R10 R6

0

25

50

75

100

0

25

50

75

100

0

25

50

75

100

Linney Creek

Oak Grove

Still Creek

Sampling Protocol

Percent Pools

Future Direction and Study

Questions______________________

We plan to have a well developed and comprehensive

monitoring program by the end of the first sampling

cycle. To achieve this goal we will focus on the following issues.

Sampling Method Assessments

Methods for measuring channel shape at a reach

scale vary considerably among monitoring programs.

We are working with a graduate student to evaluate

whether four commonly used methods accurately

characterize the sample reach.

Another graduate student is assessing the costs and

benefits of adding a fish sampling component to our

program.

We are also investigating the ability of our vegetation sampling method to adequately detect the presence

or absence, and measure the abundance of, noxious

weeds within the riparian area.

Smaller Scale Monitoring Questions

We are currently working with the Blue Mountain

Forest Planning Team to determine whether some

Land Management Plan monitoring questions can be

answered by our program.

We are also working to describe the relationship

between riparian vegetation and streambank attributes

such as bank stability, bank angle, and the percent of

undercut banks in streams representing a variety of

channel types and geomorphic conditions.

Assessing Change Detection

We are continuing to evaluate how to best define

current conditions, deviation from reference condition,

and the appropriate strata to use in these analyses.

We have a joint proposal with the Geospatial Technical Center to assess the feasibility of using remote

sensing to consistently describe both natural and human

caused disturbance upstream from sample sites. We

will then focus on describing relationships between

reach level data and watershed scale disturbance.

Additional Questions

We are continuing to work with other large-scale

monitoring programs to develop standardized sampling

methods and analytical techniques so that data can be

combined across multiple programs.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005 15

Our program has been conducting additional projects

and assignments at the request of the Field Units. We

are currently assessing how to best integrate these

projects and produce quality products that are usable

to multiple groups while still meeting our original

mission.

Point of Contact ________________

PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring Program

Forestry Sciences Lab

860 N. 1200 E., Logan, Utah 84321

Phone: 435-755-3560

Fax: 435-755-3563

Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/

fishecology/emp.html

Email: PIBO@fs.fed.us

Acknowledgments ______________

We thank the Regional Foresters from Forest Service

Regions 1, 4, and 6, and the Oregon/Washington and

Idaho BLM State Directors for funding this program.

We are especially grateful to Linda Ulmer and the Interagency Implementation Team for their support and

guidance on policy issues. We continue to receive support from the many Forest Service and BLM personnel

at Field Units throughout the study area. We are greatly

appreciative and acknowledge that their assistance is

invaluable to the program.

We are extremely grateful for our interactions with

technical experts outside the program. We acknowledge

the dedication of the Interagency Team that developed

our Monitoring Plan and who continue to support our

program. We also thank Dave Turner, Tony Olsen, and

Phil Larsen for their guidance in developing our study

design and with data analysis. Our interaction with

other monitoring programs has greatly improved our

understanding of monitoring. So, thanks to everyone

with the AREMP, EMAP, FIA, IDEQ, ODEQ,

ODFW, and WDE programs.

Many of the analyses and publications are a result of

graduate student cooperation with Utah State University.

We thank Dave Roberts and Jack Schmidt for advising

students and Yong Cao, Chuck Hawkins and Mark

Vinson for the identification and analysis of

macroinvertebrates. We are greatly indebted to Darek

Elverud, Darren Olsen, and Heath Whitacre. Your graduate work has greatly improved our program.

As with any program, we would be hopelessly lost

without our support services staff. A special thanks to

Linda Baer, Michele Bills, Sheryl Ware, Julie Rowberry,

Pat Wicks, and Patty Ybright-Jessop.

Many of our current and past employees deserve

special recognition. Greg Kliewer has managed our

database since 2002 and is responsible for renovating

our data management system. We would be lost without the budget management skills of Deanna Vinson.

We thank Chris Abbruzesse, Alex Anderson, Tony

Burrows, Ryan Colyer, Mae Culumber, Dax Dugaw,

Dave Galbraith, Jeremiah Hietke, Andy Hill, Ali Kelly,

Carrie Kennedy, Dave Meanea, Chad Mellison, and

Darrin Olsen. Finally, we sincerely appreciate the

energy, dedication, and hard work of over 110 summer

field technicians. This program would not exist without your efforts (fig. 12).

Figure 12—The 2003 summer

field technicians and staff.
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. 2005

PIBO Publications and References

Cited __________________________

PIBO Publications

Anderson, A.; Kliewer, G.; Dugaw, D. 2004. Effectiveness monitoring project for streams and riparian areas within the upper

Columbia River basin, annual Report. Logan, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Annual reports are

produced for each of the 20 National Forests, three Forest Service Regions, and two BLM State Offices.

Archer E. K.; Roper, B. B. [In preparation]. Comparison and precision of two substrate sampling techniques. Logan, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory.

Archer, E. K.; Roper, B. B.; Henderson, R. C.; Bouwes, N.;

Mellison, S. C.; Kershner, J. L. 2004. Testing common stream

sampling methods for broad-scale, long-term monitoring. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-122. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 15 p.

Coles-Ritchie, M. 2004. Evaluation of riparian vegetation data and

associated sampling Techniques. Logan, UT. Utah State University: 204 p. Dissertation.

Coles-Ritchie, M.; Henderson, R. C.; Archer, E. K.; Roper, B. B.;

Kennedy, C.; Kershner, J. L. 2004a. The repeatability of riparian

vegetation sampling methods: how useful are these techniques

for broad-scale, long-term monitoring? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-138. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 18 p.

Coles-Ritchie, M.; Henderson, R.; Culumber, M.; Kelly, M. 2004b.

Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas: sampling protocol for riparian vegetation parameters. Unpublished

paper on file at: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/fishecology/emp.

32 p.

Coles-Ritchie, M.; Kelly, A. [In preparation]. Assessing accuracy

in plant identification in a riparian monitoring protocol. Logan,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory.

Dugaw, D.; Anderson, A.; Archer, E. K.; Henderson, R. C.;

Kershner, J. L. 2004. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and

riparian areas: sampling protocol for stream channel parameters.

Unpublished paper on file at: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/

fishecology/emp. 62 p.

Heitke, J.; Henderson R. C.; Roper B. B.; Archer, E. K. [Submitted]. Evaluation of two streambank alteration methods. Journal

of Range Management.

Kershner, J. L.; Archer, E. K.; Coles-Ritchie, M.; Cowley, E.;

Henderson, R. C.; Kratz, K.; Quimby, C.; Turner, D. L.; Ulmer,

L. C.; Vinson, M. R. 2004a. Guide to effective monitoring of

aquatic and riparian resources. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR121. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 57 p.

Kershner, J. L.; Bouwes, N.; Roper, B.; Henderson, R. C. 2004b.

An analysis of stream habitat conditions in reference and managed watersheds on some federal lands within the Columbia

basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.

24:1363-1375.

Olsen, D. S.; Roper, B.; Kershner, J. L.; Henderson, R. C.; Archer,

E. K. [Accepted]. Sources of variability in conducting pebble

counts and their potential influence on the results of stream

monitoring programs. Journal of the American Water Resources

Association.

Roper, B. [In preparation]. The use of macroinvertebrates to evaluate differences in reference and managed watersheds within the

Columbia Basin. Logan, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory.

Roper, B.; Kershner, J. L.; Archer, E.; Henderson, R. C.; Bouwes,

N. 2002. An evaluation of physical habitat attributes used to

monitor streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38: 1-10.

Roper, B. B.; Kershner J. L.; Henderson R. C. 2003. The value of

using permanent sites when evaluating steam attributes at the

reach scale. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 18:585-592.

Other References

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, US

Fish and Wildlife Service, USDC NOAA Fisheries. 2003.

Implementation monitoring program module for Pacfish/Infish

and the 1998 Biological Opinions for salmon, steelhead, and

bull trout – program manual. On the Web at: http://

www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/teams/fisheries/pac_infish/

pac_infishhome.htm.

USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered and threatened

wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the

Klamath River and Columbia River distinct population segments

of bull trout final rule. Federal Register June 10, 1998 (Volume

63, Number 111, Pages 31647–31674) 50 CFR Part 17, RIN

1018-AB94.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service.

1998. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation. Biological Opinion, Land and Resource Management Plans for

National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Resource Areas in the Upper Columbia River Basin and Snake River Basin

Evolutionarily Significant Units., Northwest Region, Seattle,

Washington.

Whitacre, H. 2004. Comparison of USFS and EPA stream protocol

methodologies and observer precision for physical habitat on

Oregon and Idaho streams. Logan, UT: Utah State University.

72 p. Thesis.
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper


The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all 

or part of an individualʼs income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAʼs TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

 To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

 The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of 

the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs 

of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and 

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

 Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, 

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple 

use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada 

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah 

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah 

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah 

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526 

 

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION