AN ABSThACT OF ThE ThESIS OF in
Terry N. Grimes
Fisheries for the degree of Master of Science presented on cç
Title:
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN RAINBOW TROUT (SALMO GAIRDNERI) POPULATIONS
ANp STREAM ENVIRONNTS IN EASTERN OREGON STREAMS
Abstract approved:
Carl E. Bond
The rainbow trout populations (Salino gairdneri) and the physical characteristics of eleven head.water tributaries of the middle fork of the John Day R. and the John Day R.
were studied during the summers of
1978 through 1980.
Fish were shocked with a DThIGO backpack electroshocker amid captured. with dip nets.
Population sizes were estimated using the single mark-recapture technique.
Elevation, temperature, stream gradient and characteristics of flow were measured at each of
50 sites.
Methods were developed to describe mathematically the quantity and quality of components of trout habitat, including pooi habitat, instream cover, streamside cover and spawning habitat.
Bivaxiate correlation analysis, principle component analysis (pdA) and multiple regression analysis were employed to illuminate correlations between trout population size and physical characteristics of streams.
Average late summer stream widths ranged from .65 to 3.6
in.
Elevations ranged from 1170 to 1561 i.
Stream gradients ranged from 0.1 to
6. L, Average late sunurier flows ranged from L to 366 1/s.

During 1978 - 1980, numbers of age 0 trout per 15.2 m site length ranged from 0.0 (0.0 g) to 57.8 (76.5 g).
Numbers of ages I and. II trout ranged from 1.5 (19.9 g) to 39.3 (292.2 g).
The average number of age 0 trout per 15.2 m site length in all streams was 3L5 (35.8 g) in 1978, 1i4.7 (10.7 g) in 1979 and 13.6 (11.3 g) in 1980., The average number of ages I and II trout was 8.2 (i1.i g) in 1978,. 18.0 (131.9 g) in 1979 and. 10.7 (123.2 g) in 1980.
Results of the correlation analysis and. the PCA revealed that age 0 and ages I and II trout were inhabiting different habitats within the same stream.
Age 0 trout were inhabiting shallow water (riffles) over spaing-size substrate and were associated with aquatic vegetation.
Ages I and II trout were inhabiting deep, swift water and deep, high quality pools.
Based upon the results of the correlation analysis and. the PCA, a multiple regression model was developed to determine how numbers of ages I and II trout would respond. to alterations of stream habitat.
The dependent variable was population size of ages I and. II trout in
1979.
The variance in the dependent variable was best explained by including the number of class 1 and class 2 pools and the number of age 0 trout in 1978 as the independent variables.
Increasing the number of class 1 and class 2 pools resulted in increased numbers of ages I and II trout.

Correlations Between Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri) Populations and Stream Environments in Eastern Oregon Streams by
Terry Neill Grimes
A ThESIS submitted to
Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Completed December 18, 1980
Commencement June 1981

Professor of Fisheries in charge of major
Head of Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Dean of Gra4late School
I
Date thesis is presented December 18, 1980
Typed by Melody Grimes for Terry Neill Grimes

ACIGOWLEDGEMENTS
I take this opportunity to thank all of the people who made this project a success.
Carl Bond, my advisor, provided guidance and encouragement throughout the course of the project.
Carl also contributed to the editing and revising of the manuscript.
David Burton, Stan Nowakowski and. Mark Fritsch assisted with the collection of the field data.
My wife, Melody, provided constant encouragement and support and contributed generously to the financial well-being o± our family.
Melody also typed most 0±' the manuscript.
I also wish to thank my God and Creator, who provided me with the desire, ability and opportunity to study His creation.
This project was funded by the United States Forest Service, and I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Forest Service.

INTRODUCTION
The Study Area
ThODS
The Stream Environment
Study Sites
Characteristics of Flow
Elevation
Stream Gradient
Cattle Activity
Water Temperature
Pool Habitat
Instream Cover
Streaxnside Cover
Spawning Habitat
Stream Morphology and Channel Stability Rating
Stream Bed Composition
Fish Populations
Data Collection
Estimation of Population Size
Length-Weight Relationships
Correlating the Trout Population Data with the Environnental Data
Data Matrix
Correlation Analysis
Principal Components Analysis
Multiple Regression Analysis
RESULTS
The Stream Environment
Characteristics of Flow
Elevation
Stream Gradient
Cattle Activity
Water Temperature
Pool Habitat
Instream Cover
Streaniside Cover
Spawning Habitat
Stream Morphology and Channel Stability Rating
Stream Bed. Composition
Fish Populations
Data Collection
Estimation of Population Size
Length-Weight Regression Equations
1
3
10
22
23
23
23
25
10
10
19
20
20
20
12
15
15
16
19
10
11
11
11
11
22
22
25
25
25
25
25
32
32
37
37
38
38
38
48
48
55

Correlating the Trout Population Data with the Environmental Data
Correlation Analysis
Principal Components Analysis
Multiple Regression Analysis
Sunuiary of Results
DISCUSSION
Recomxnenations
LITERATUBE CITED
APPENDIX
55
55
62
66
72
74
84
87
93

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
2.
Map of study area.
Photographic exaniples of the L categories of streaniside cover.
Page
17

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Characteristics of flow recorded during the summer o±
1979.
Site elevations, gradients, and. maximum water temperatures recorded during the summer of 1979.
Characteristics of the stream and the riparian zone recorded during the summer of 1979.
Pool habitat characteristics recorded during the summer of 1979.
Number of pools according to class recorded during the summer of 1979.
Values for the stream reach inventory of Pfankuch(1975) recorded during the summer of 1979.
Composition of the stream bed recorded during the summer of 1979.
Numbers of non-game fish captured during 1978-1980.
Among-stream average values of fork length divisions among ages 0, I, and II trout.
Summary of data used to estimate population size at select sites using the removal method.
Estimates of size and biomass of rainbow trout populations in study streams during 1978-1980.
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for 55 biological and environmental variables.
Correlations significant at the 95 percent level of confidence are followed by an asterisk.
Summary of significant correlations (c .05) between trout population variables and both trout population variables and environmental variables.
The sign of correlation is enclosed within parentheses.
Factor loadings generated by the Principle Components
Analysis.
Factor loadings followed by an asterisk contributed to greater than 1C% of the variation within a variable with respect to a particular factor.
Page
26
28
30
33
35
39
44
49
50
51
52
56
61
63

Table
15.
16.
17.
18.
A comparison of Petersen population size estimates for ages I and. II trou in 19?9 with estimates predicted. by regression models and Y2.
A comparison of Petersen population size estimates for ages I and II trout in 1979 with estimats predicted by increasin the number of class 1 pools (i') and class
2 pools (Y1) by 1 per 15.24 in site length.
Steelhead spawning ground summary for1a 22-year period,
John Day District, 1959 through 1980.
Number and. bioniass per square meter of age 0 and. ages I and II trout.
Page
68
70
75
78

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A
B
C
D
Location of the study sites.
Sites are ordered as proceeding domstream and correspond with the map in Figure 1.
Sites were assigned names instead of numbers.
Fork length-frequency distributions for juvenile steelhead and rainbow trout captured from study streams during 1978-1980.
Arrows indicate the approximate divisions between age classes 0, I, II, and 111+.
Table of mark-recapture data used to estimate population sizes from 1978 to 1980.
Ninety-five percent confidence limits are enclosed within parentheses.
Regression equation characteristics for the logarithm of weight regressed on the logarithm of length.
Page
93
9
105
112

CORRELATIONS BEflEEN RAINBOW TROUT (sALN0 GAIRDNI) POPULATIONS
AND STREAM ENVIRONMENTS IN EASTERN OREGON STREAMS
INTRODUCTION
Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) inhabit many streams that drain forests and rangelands of western North America.
To survive within this arid and semi-arid region, trout must have adequate food and living space within waters with a suitable temperature regime (Bowers, Hosford,
Oakley and Bond 1979; Everest and Chapman 1972; Stewart 1970; Lewis 1969;
Chapman 1966; McAfee 1966), and they must be able to reproduce successfully.
These streams provide habitat not only for resident trout populations, but also for anadroiaous populations of rainbow trout (steelhead) and chinook salmon (Oncorhy-nchus tshawytscha).
Adult anadromous salmonids spawn within these streams, and their offspring must rear one to three years in freshwater prior to their migration to the sea
(Reiser and Bjornn 1979; Platts and Partridge 1978; Hoar 1976; Everest and Chapman 1972; McAfee 1966; Bjornn 1965).
Throughout eastern Oregon and much of the West, land-use practices have contributed significantly to a decline in numbers of resident and anadromous salmonids.
Dams on the Columbia R., irrigation, deleterious mining and logging practices, and heavy grazing by sheep and cattle - all have been responsible for losses of salinonid habitat
(Behn.ke 1978; Crouch 1978; Everest 1978; Graul and. Bissell 1978; Joint
Task Force of the Western Regional Planning Committee 1977; Compton
1939).
An understanding of the relationship between stream environments

2 and trout populations must preceed. an understanding of how land-use practices affect production of stream-dwelling salrnonid.s
S evera].
researchers have developed objective techniques for illuminating these relationships (Binns and Eiserman 1979; Birins 1977; Stewart 1970;
Lewis 1969; Herrington and Dunham 1967; H. Newhouse, unpublished report, Nez Perce National Forest, Grangeville, ID).
These techniques require measurement of stream habitat components, which are analyzed mathematically to acquire information concerning the trout populations.
Cooper (1977) has applied some of these techniques to learn how cattle grazing impacts the stream environment,
Though the general effects of cattle grazing upon rangelands are well-known (Thomas, Maser and Rodick 1979; Severson and Bold.t 1978;
Sartz and Toistead 1974; Miller 1972; Lusby 1970; Alderfer and Robinson
1947; Chandler 1940; Van Doren, Burlison, Gard, and Fuelleman 1940;
Chapman 1933), few studies have been conducted to determine the effects of cattle grazing upon rangeland.s and streams east of the Cascades
(Platts 1975).
Realizing this, the United States Forest Service (USFS) in 1976 began the Oregon Range and. Related Resources Validation Area
Project.
The long-term goals of the Validation project are: (1) to determine how implementation of different grazing strategies would alter the species composition and standing crop of the stream fishery and (2) to determine how changes in water quality and flow wrought by cattle grazing would affect fish populations.
The productivity of the range and related resources, including fish and. wildlife populations will be determined during the first 5 years of the study.
During the last 5 years, researchers will assess the

effects of different management strategies on resource productivity.
The fishery aspect of the Validation Project will assess impacts of different grazing strategies upon stream environments and stream salinonids.
This thesis is an outgrowth of the Validation Project.
The study was conducted between June 1978 and September 1980.
The objectives were:
(1) to describe the size, biomass and.
age structure of trout populations at specific sites on 11 streams;
(2) to describe the physical characteristics of aquatic habitat at each site and
(3) to develop correlations between the stream environment and juvenile steelhead and rainbow trout populations.
Saunders and Smith (1962) and others (Gunderson 1968; Everest and Chapman 1972) have reported a partitioning of habitats between fingerlings and larger trout.
I hypothesize that a similar partitioning should exist within headwater streams in eastern Oregon.
3
The Study Area
The middle fork of the John Day R. (Middle Fork) flows to the northwest through the Greenhorn Mountains in Maiheur National Forest in Grant County, Oregon en route to its confluence with the north fork of the John Day River.
The Middle Fork meanders through cattle pasture along Grant Co. Rt. 20 for approximately 32 km (20 mi) between the old sawmill at Bates and the intersection of Rt 20 and USFS Rt. 36.
The river descends from an elevation of 1292 m (14239 ft) near Bates to
1128 m (3700 ft) near the Rt. 36 intersection, an average drop of
5. 1 rn/kin (27 ft/mi).

The Greenhorn Mountains and vicinity contain a great variety of rock types.
The "alpine" areas, from the crest of Vinegar Hill down to an elevation of about 152LI in (5000 ft), consist predominately of
Pre-Tertiary rocks (i.e., older than 60 million years) which originated in the suturing of island arc and oceanic terranes.
Serpentinite
L.
mixture on Vinegar Hill encloses Perinian (270 - 250 my) perid.otite, gabbro, arc-derived sediments and basic volcanics and oceanic cherts.
To the south of Vinegar Hill, Permian metasediinents of island arc origin are abundant, and serpentinite diminishes.
Jurassic (178 my) tonalite and granod.iorite intrude the Perinian rocks of Dixie Butte and the
Greenhorns and form steep cliffs of Sunrise Butte at the head of Granite
Boulder Cr.
To the west and south of Vinegar Hill Tertiary volcanics are increasingly abundant,
Ash from the eruption of Mount Mazama 6,600 years ago occurs as a white, gritty deposit up to 1.8 in deep in some valleys.
The latest geologically significant deposits in the area are gravelly glacial moraines which form high narrow ridges along Granite Boulder Cr. south of Sunrise Butte.
Recent geologic deposits include several large landslides, one which formed. Magone Lake, and ordinary alluvium associated with all stream valleys (E. Mullen 1978).
The John Day region receives approximately L0 cm (16 in) of precipitation annually (Highsmith 1973).
Most occurs as snowfall between
October and March.
Accumulation of snow 2514 cm (ioo in) deep is common in the mountains, and snow usually remains at higher elevations until mid-July.
The region usually receives less than 5 cm of rain during
July, August and September.

5
In 1977, the USFS began the Oregon Range Validation Project, a long-term, study designed to assess the impacts of cattle grazing on
USFS lands.
The USFS chose 10 watersheds within the Nalheur National
Forest as areas on which to study the effects of cattle grazing on resident rainbow and juvenile steelhead trout populations (Figure 1 and Apperd.ix A).
Though all streams are tiny first or second order streams located within approximately a 13.3 km radius of one another, the streams flow at a variety of elevations through a variety of vegetation types.
Ragged Cr. descends 6.L. kin from an elevation of 1707 in to 1097 in where it enters the Middle Fork.
The stream is partially shaded by
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), poriderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), alder (Alnus spp.), and vine maple (Acer circinatuin).
Fallen timber frequently crosses the stream, making foot travel difficult.
Long Cr. at Flood Meadow flows at 152L in along the eastern border of a natural mountain meadow.
The surface of the s-bream is largely exposed, a few scattered lod.gepole pines (Pinus con±.orta) providing the only shade.
Strong winds and. spongy meadow soil make it difficult for trees to grow in Flood Meadow.
Beaver (Castor canadensis) have constructed numerous dams and lodges along the upper end of Flood Meadow.
Long Cr. is aptly named, for it flows northwest for 35 km before entering the Middle Fork approximately 13.8 km east of Ritter.
Little Boulder Cr. is well-shaded by Douglas-fir, grand fir
(Abies grandis), alder and vine maple.
In a distance of 7.2 kin, the stream drops from an elevation of 1829 in to 1189 in.
No fish are present in that section of stream above the culvert 'jder USFS Rt. 108.
The

stream probably froze solid in the past, killing all fish, and none have since beeh able to ascend the 3_L,5 in vertical drop beneath the culvert.
Fish are present in pools inunediately beneath the culvert.
Caribou Cr. begins at 1615 in near Twin Buttes and flows 5.6 km before entering the Middle Fork at 1189 in.
The adjacent slopes are sparsely forested with ponderosa and lodgepole pines, but these trees provide very little stream shade.
A cattle trail winds along the stream.
Although the Validation Project is not examining Camp Cr., data were collected during 1978-79 to supplement data previously collected by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).
The three upstream sites on Camp Cr. are within a cattle exclosure.
Protected from cattle activity, alders along the stream have grown in high and provide ample shade for the stream.
Scattered lodgepole pines provide additional shade.
The upper sites are at an elevation of 1L487 in.
In contrast to the upstream sites, the vegetation along the banks of the downstream sites consists almost exclusively of grasses.
The few diminutive alders that are attempting to grow along the banks are nubbled back annually during grazing season.
A lone lodgepole pine provides the only shade.
The lower sites are at an elevation of 1426 in.
The left (east) and right (west) forks of Little Butte Cr. begin at
11433 and 16146 in, respectively, and flow down the slopes of Dixie Butte to the Middle Fork at 1158 in, a distance of 3.7 and 14.5 kin, respectively.
Both streams are bordered by grasses and spindly alders approximately
3 m high, and coimnon chokecherry (Prunus
Virginia) occasionally winds about the alders.
Deciduous western larch (Larix occidentalis) growing away from the stream provides shade during early morning and late after-

E*] noon and litter input during the fall.
The uppermost sites on the right fork are in the edge of a grand fir-Engelmann spruce (Picea engelma.nnii)
-big huckleberry (Vacciniuxn meinbranaceum) forest (Franklin and Dyrness
1966).
The headwaters of Vinegar Cr. are approximately 1L.9 km from their confluence with the Middle Fork at 1250 in.
At 1536 in, upper Vinegar Cr.
is well-shaded by Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and alder 1 to 3.5
in high.
Lower Vinegar Cr., at 127L in, flows through a valley that is frequented by cattle.
The banks are covered primarily with grasses, and gaunt alders provide the only appreciable shade.
Vincent Cr. flows through a field of overturned boulders, a remnant of nineteenth century gold mining activity.
During late summer, the stream intermittently disappears beneath the rubble, rendering Vincent
Cr. a hostile environment for rainbow trout and juvenile steelhead.
Willows (Salix spp.) and alders provide minimal stream shade.
Tinker Cr. and Lake Cr. enter the John Day at Mt. Vernon via the east fork of Beech Cr. and Beech Cr.
At 1L90 m, thinned stands of lodgepole and ponderosa pines and an occasional Douglas-fir provide little shade for Tinker Cr.
Although Lake Cr. is heavily shaded by a dense Douglas-fir and grand fir forest, the stream does not carry enough water to support a resident or anadromous fish population.
Lake Cr.
is only 1.6 kin long and feeds Magone Lake at 152'4- in.
Rainbow trout were the only fish present at inost of the sample sites.
Long Cr., Camp Cr., Vincent Cr., and lower Vinegar Cr. also contained speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus).
Torrent sculpins (Cottus rhotheus) inhabited lower Vincent Cr. and Vinegar Cr.
I frequently

observed avian predators, including belted kingfishers (Negaceryle alcyon), great blue herons (Ardea herodias) and osprey (Pandion haliaetos), along the Nid.d.le Fork and. its tributaries.
On several occasions, I watched garter snakes (Thainnophis elegans) feed upon trout and. dace in Vinegar Cr. and Vincent Cr.

10
T1TH0DS
The data that I collected are to be used as baseline data for the
Validation Project.
I developed a method that could be used by researchers who would repeat this study at the conclusion of the Validation
Project.
The method was designed to quantify the quality of trout habitat.
Data were collected during the summers of 1978-1980 during the period of low flow.
During the sununer, trout are subjected to harsh environmental conditions.
Low stream flows and elevated stream temperatures cause decreased levels of dissolved oxygen and living space, which impose stress upon the trout populations.
The Stream Environment
Study Sites
During 1977, the ODFW established two study sites on Little Butte
Cr., east fork, two on Little Butte Cr., west fork, and two on Long Cr.
at Flood Meadow.
During the suinniers of 1978 and 1979, I established an additional 44 study sites, 15,24 m (so ft) long, along eight headwater tributaries of the Middle Fork and two tributaiies of the John Day.
Each site was marked at either end by a metal fence post or a length of concrete reinforcing rod painted red and white.
In 1980, I replaced three stakes that had. been removed from sites on upper Vinegar Cr.
Characteristics of Flow
At each site, I measured stream width at 15.24 in intervals above and below and at 3.05 m (10 ft) intervals within the site.
Tater depth

11 was measured to the nearest centimeter at 30.5 cm (1 ft) intervals across the stream.
To acquire an estimate of velocity, I added a fluorescent dye at 3 locations within each site and recorded the time required for the dye to travel 3.05 in (10 ft).
Multiplying the average cross-sectional area by the average velocity at each site yielded an estimate of average flow.
levation
I read the approximate elevation of each site from USFS topographic maps.
Stream Gradient
I measured stream gradient using a clinometer.
Cattle Activity
The presence of cattle hoof marks has been used to indicate ungulate damage (Cooper 1977).
To acquire a direct estimate of cattle activity within the riparian zone, I visually estimated the percentage of ground. surface that was covered with cattle hoof marks.
I neglected to collect hoof mark data from Little Boulder Cr. and Caribou Cr.
Water Temperature
At the onset of the study, I had eicpected to acquire stream temperature data from USFS stations that had been established along most of the study streams.
Due to mechanical failure at several stations and the time required to process stream temperature strip charts, I was unable to obtain adequate information.
Fortunately, I had recorded stream temperatures at the sampling sites on most occasions using a

12 hand-held thermometer, and these data were used in lieu of the USFS data, which should become available to futuie investigators.
Pool Habitat
This category and the 3 that follow were adapted from Newhouse
(unpubl.).
Because the method of pool habitat assessment that I used differed somewhat from that proposed by Newhouse and because Newhouse's manuscript is unpublished, I present a complete description of my methodology here.
Information borrowed (with permission) from Newhouse's manuscript is enclosed within quotation marks, and deviations from
Newhouse's wording are enclosed within brackets.
Newhous&s pool rating system is similar to that developed by
Herrington and Dunham (1967) and Platts and Partridge (1978).
All 3 authors provide quantitative means of describing the 3 major aspects of pool habitat - pool size, depth and cover.
"The pool habitat criteria are:
5 Points
A.
One of the following:
One or more class 1 pools1 per
[6 m (iso ft) or 61 m (200 ft with at least 3 of stream area in class 1, 2 and/or 3 pools, but not to exceed 65-7 of total area.
B.
One or more class 1 pools per [6 or 61 in] with at least 35% of stream in class 1 pools, and total area of class 1 pools not to exceed 65-70%.
1.
"Refer to pool classification method for criteria to rate pools into classes."

4 Points One of the following:
A.
Class 1, 2 and/or3 pools exceed 70% of total stream area per
13
[46 or 61 J.
B.
Stream area consists of 20-35% of class 1 pools; no class 2 or 3 pools per [46 or 61 rn].
C.
Class 2 and 3 pools comprising 35% or more of stream area; no class 1 pools per [46 or 61 xj.
D.
Stream area consists of 20-35% of class 1, 2 and/or 3 pools with at least 2 of the above pool classes represented per
[46 or 61 ijj
3 Points
A.
One of the following:
Stream area consists of a combination of class 1, 2 and/or 3 pools with at least 2 pool classes represented and total area of above pools not to exceed 10-20% per
[46 or 61 n.
B.
Two or more class 2 pools present per 6 or 61 j
, not to exceed 10-20% of stream area; no class 1 or 3 pools.
C.
Two or more class 3 pools per r46 or 61 rn], to include 20% or
D.
more of stream area; no class 1. or 2 pools.
One or more class 1 pools per [46 or 61
, not to exceed 10-20 of stream area; no class 2 or 3 pools.
2 Points One of the following:
A.
Class 3 pools comprise less than 20% of stream area per [46 or
61 m] ; no class 1 or 2 pools.
B.
Less than 10% of stream per [46 or 61 m] in class 2 pools; no class 1 or 3 pools.
C.
Class 3 and class 2 pools comprise less than 10% of stream

14 area per
1 Point or 61 in]; no class 1 pools
A.
No class 1, 2 or 3 pools per 6 or 61 ml.
Pool classification method:
Size
Rate 3 - If pool is much longer or wider than average width of stream.
Rate 2 - If pool is about as wide or long as the average width of stream.
Rate 1 - If pool is much shorter or narrower than average width of stream.
Depth
Rate 4 - If deepest part of pool is greater than 46 cm (18 in).
Rate 3 If deepest part of pool is between 30 cm (1 ft) and 46 cm.
Rate 2 - If deepest part of pool is between 15 cm (6 in) and 30 cm.
Rate 1 - If deepest part of pool is 15 cm or less.
Cover
Rate 3 - If pool has abundant cover greater than 75% of streain
Rate 2 - If pooi has partial cover jbetween 10 and 75% of stream
Rate 1 - If pool is exposed less than 10% of streani
A final classification of pool class is based on the total number of quality points for all 3 quality factors as follows:
Total Rating Pool Classes
[9-10
8 points points
6-7 points
4-5 points
3 points
3
4
5
1
2
Note: [The total of 6 points for a class 3 pool must contain 2 points for depth and 2 points for size.'ij

15
Instream Cover
Instream cover provides "hiding places" for fishes and includes submerged logs, boulders, overhanging banks, submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, deep water, turbulent water, submerged. brush and shade (Bowers, et al. 1979; Binns 1977; Lorz 1970; Stewart 1970;
Gunderson 1968; Herrington and Dunham 1967; MacCrinunon and Kwain 1966;
Saunders and Smith 1962; Boussu 1954; Newhouse unpubi.).
I visually estimated the amount of instream cover using Newhouse's approach, whereby a site is assigned a rating of:
"3 Points - If stream has abundant cover greater than 75% of stream
2 Points - If [the] stream has partial cover between 10 and 7 of stream
1 Point - If [the stream] is exposed less than 10% of stream ."
Streamside Cover
Tall trees, riparian vegetation such as alders and willows, and tall streainside grasses provide streamside shade cover for trout (Bowers, et al. 1979; Stewart 1970; Herrington and Dunham 1967; Boussu 1954).
As Newhouse, I assigned a rating of:
'4 Points - 1±' streambank is medium to heavily covered or shaded by growth of tall trees or dense riparian vegetation.
3 Points - If streambank is bordered or shaded by growth of tall brush or dense riparian vegetation.
Thinly scattered tall trees may be present but are not the dominating feature.
(Alders, hawthorns, willows, tall grasses and herbs could be present.)

2 Points
1 Point
If strearabank is medium to heavily covered with tall grasses and forbs or low shrubs or a combination of these plants.
If streambank is covered with scattered low grasses, forbs, or shrubs, or banks are barren of vegetative cover (soil, rock, etc.) or a combination of these"
(Figure 2).
16
Spawning Habitat
Newhouse recommended measuring substrate type, velocity and. depth as indicators as spawning habitat.
Because I sampled only during the suiiuner, the velocities and depths that I encountered would not be the same as those encountered by late spring spawners.
Thus, I restricted my measure of suitable spawning habitat to an estimation of the amount and size of substrate present during late sunnier.
I visually estimated the amount of spawning gravel present at each site, according to Newhouse's criteria, which may be summarized as follows:
Rate 5 - If "35% or more of stream channel bottom material [] in
.6 cm to 5 cm gravel size in areas of 30 cm2 or more per [46 or 61
Rate 4 - If "20-35% of channel bottom material [is] in .6 to 5 cm gravel size in areas of 30 cia2 or more per [46 or 61 ."
Rate 3 If "10-20% of channel bottom material [isi in .6 to 5 cm gravel size in areas of 30 cm2 or more per
[6 or 61 mJ ."
Rate 2 - If "less than 10% of channel bottom material [isi in

17
Figure 2.
Photographic examples of the 4 categories of streamside cover.
A.
4-point classification.
B.
3-point classification.

Figure 2.
(continued).
ii:]
C.
2-point classification.
D.
1-point classification.

19
.6 to 5 cm gravel size in areas of 30 cm2 or more per
[L.6or61.n
Rate 1 - If "no channel IDottom material [] in .6 to 5 cm gravel size in areas of 30 cm2 or more per
[ or 61
Stream Norphology and. Channel Stability Rating
The rating system described by Pfankuch (1975) was used to evaluate
15 aspects of stream morphology and channel stability.
Stream Bed Composition
I visually estimated the percentage of the stream bed. covered by bedrock, large boulders (equal to or greater than 91 cm in diameter), small boulders (30 cm to 91 cm in diameter), large rubble (15 cm to
30 cm in diamnter), small rubble (8 cm to 15 cm in diameter), coarse gravel (2 cm to 8 cm in diameter), fine gravel (.2 cm to 2 cm in diameter), and sand, silt, clay and muck (Pfankuch 1975).

20
Fish Populations
Data aouection
Each site as sampled by block-netting both ends of the site and working upstream shocking with a DIRIGO backpack electroshocker.
The
DIRIGO electroshocker delivers a maximum 600-volt DC-pulse current and is powered by a 1L'-amp motorcycle battery.
Usually, I operated the shocker and an assistant collected the fish using a dip net or an aquarium net.
Captured trout were placed in buckets of water and anesthetized with tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222) or benzocaine.
During 1978 and
1979, the trout were weighed to the nearest gram on a triple beam balance and measured fork length to the nearest millimeter.
During 1980, trout were measured but not weighed.
Scales were removed from the left side of the body just anterior to the dorsal fin from 10-15% of the trout.
Lastly, the upper lobe of the caudal fin was clipped, and the trout were placed in recovery buckets before being returned to the stream.
Speckled dace and. sculpins were neither measured nor weighed.
Estimation of Population Size
Length- frequency distributions were constructed to determine the approximate divisions between the different age classes (Appendix B).
Age analysis of scales ias used to derive a more precise estimate of the divisions between the age classes (Everhait, Eipper and Youngs 1975;
Bagenal 1978).
I hal originally intended to calculate separate estimates of population size for ages 0, I, II, and 111+ trout; however, I encountered so few ages II and 111+ fish that I decided to group ages I and. II togeth-

21 er.
This grouping was advantageous for two reasons.
It produced larger numbers that were more amenable to my method of analysis.
Additionaly, in these streams, approximately 50% of the steelhead. smolt in the second year and. approximately 50% sinolt in the third year (Errol Claire,
ODFW, personal communication; McAfee 1966; Reiser and Bjormi 1979).
By separating ages I and II from age 111+, I theoretically was able to isolate most of the older resident rainbows from the younger residents and steelhead.
To estimate population size, I subjected the data to a form of the familiar Petersen index that has been modified to accomodate small sample sizes (Bailey 1951; Chapman 1951; Ricker 1958): where
N = N (a + 1)
R+1
N = the estimate of population size,
N the total number of marked individuals,
C = the number of individuals in the second sample, includmarked and unmarked individuals,
R = the number of marked individuals in the second sample.
Ninety-five percent confidence limits were calculated according to Ricker (1937).
The major assumptions o± the Petersen index are that the population remains closed, i.e., that no births, deaths, immigration or emigration occur, and that marked and. unmarked individuals have the same probability of being caught.
Related assumptions are that animals do not lose their marks, that all marks are reported when marked animals are recaptured, and that upon release, marked animals redistribute themselves randomly throughout the population (Bagenal 1978; Ricker 1958; Seber

1973).
22
At those sites where I suspected that emigration had occurred, I resanpled the trout populations using the removal method (Zippin 1958).
The removal method is based upon the premise that, assuming that equal capture effort is expended upon each pass, progressively fewer fish will be caught on successive passes.
The capture data are fitted to an algebraic equation that provides an estimate of population size.
Length-Weight Relationships
Length-weight regression equations were calculated for the 1978 and
1979 data using the log transformation of the formula:
b where log W = log a + b log L and
W weight (g)
L = length (mm) a the y-intercept b the slope of the regression line (Bagenal
1978).
Calculations were performed using the Statistical Interactive Programraing System (sips) and the Cyber 73 computer at Oregon State University.
Correlating the Trout Population Data with the Environmental Data
Data Matrix
The data were compiled into a 3L x 55 matrix containing 3L observations on 55 variables.

Correlation Analysis
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient provides a single number that describes the strength of the relationship between two variables, accoing to the formula: x1 x2 r
) (x
23
Correlation analysis was used to determine the degree of covaxiance between the variables within the data matrix, and calculations were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (sss)
(Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbreriner and Bert 1970).
Principal Components Analysis
Correlation analysis describes the strength of association between pairs of variables.
In contrast, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) describes the strength of association between a matrix of variables (Nie, et al. 1970; Pimentel 1979).
PCA was used to extract the variability within the original data matrix and to portray that variability along new, fewer axes.
Used in this manner, PCA was primarily a data reduction tool.
With this particular data set, PCA identified which environmental variables were primarily responsible for the variability within the biological variables.
Multiple Regression Analysis
Multiple regression analysis can be used as a predictive tool and as a descriptive tool (Neter and Wasserman 1974; Nie, et al. 1970;
Snedecor and Cochran 1967; Pinientel 1979).
As a descriptive tool, mul-

tiple regression was used in conjunction with correlation analysis and
24
PCA to describe mathematically the relationship between the independent
(environmental) variables and the dependent (biological) variables.
As a predictive tool, multiple regression was used. to discover how changes in the pool habitat variables would affect the population size of ages I and II trout.
where
The general form of the regression equation is:
Y=A+BX +BX +...+B.X.
11 22 ii
Y = dependent variable
X= independent variable
A = slope of the regression line
B1 the regression coefficient (Neter and Wasserman
1974; Nie, et al. 1970; Snedecor and Cochran 1967)
Based upon the output from the correlation analysis and the PCA, two regression models were developed.
The number of ages I and II trout in 1979 was the dependent variable in both models.
Different conibinations of the independent variables, maximum summer stream temperature recorded in 1978, number of class 1 pools, number of class 2 pools, stream width, logarithm of stream width, and velocity were paired with the dependent variable until a "best fit" was achieved.
The "best fit" was based upon an examination of the R2 coefficients, the adjusted R2's, the F-values required to enter or remove independent variables from the equation, and the reduction in sum of squares of error (SSE).
The regression equations were calculated using SPSS.

RESULTS 25
The Stream Environment
Characteristics of Flow
Each stream was characterized by a unique average width, depth, velocity and flow (Table 1).
The streams ranged in average width from
.65 m (Vincent Cr.) to 3.60 m (Little Boulder Cr.).
Average depth ranged from 1 cm (Vincent Cr.) to 23 cm (Long Cr.).
Summer low flows ranged from L 1/s (Lake Cr.) to 366 1/s (upper Vinegar Cr.).
Except for Vincent Cr., each stream carried adequate water to maintain a pererinial flow.
During the latter part of each summer, Vincent Cr. disappeared intermittently beneath nineteenth-century mining rubble.
Elevation
The study sites ranged in elevation from 1170 in to 1561 in (Table 2).
Stream Gradient
Stream gradient varied from 0.1% to 6.L% among the study sites (Table 2).
Surprisingly, no correlation was readily apparent between stream gradient and elevation.
Generally, streams that drained steeper slopes flowed at swifter velocities than did. streams that drained more gradual slopes.
Cattle Activity
As indicated by the percentage of ground surface that was covered with hoof marks, cattle activity was prevalent within the riparian zones
(Table 3).
I observed the activities of cattle and concluded that cat-

Table 1.
Characteristics of flow recorded during the summer of 1979.
26
Stream/Site
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
Average
Long Cr.
ILe
Francine
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Karen
Average
Camp Cr.
Nancy
Q,ueenie
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Average
Mean
Width
(in)
Mean
Depth
(cm)
Mean
Velocity Flow
(m/s) (l/s)
10
8
4
7
76
48
89
71
6
64
60
48
151
222
165
146
116
148
154
246
166
54
50
63
56
8
12
9
9
9
26
25
19
21
23
4
7
6
6
8
7
7
6
8
10
9
8
6
9
7
1.82
1.31
1.24
1.46
2.38
2.13
3.13
2.55
2.19
1.32
1.76
2.07
2.01
2.23
2.10
3.10
1.98
2.34
1.79
2.30
2.74
2.41
4.08
5.14
3.60
.50
.53
.40
.53
.49
.06
.30
.50
.45
.33
.06
.08
.14
.09
.37
.40
.37
.38
.39
.36
.31
.35
33
.49
.40
W/D
15
13
19
10
14
37
28
49
64
44
110
40
34.
61
48
50
35
44
32
16
24
38
42
37
39

27
Table 1.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr., w.±'.
Veronica
Ursula
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Wanda
Xavier
Vinegar Cr. (lower) olanda
Z oAnne
Andrew
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bart
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred.
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Nicah
Average
Mean
Width
(in)
Mean
Depth
(cm)
Mean
Velocity
(m/s)
Flow
(1/a)
1.59
2.09
1.84
3.59
1.17
1.26
1.18
'1.35
1.24
.86
.58
.72
2.86
3.35
3.22
0,00
0.00
1.53
1.70
.65
.51
.46
.48
.85
.31
.33
.32
.00
.00
.28
.05
.06
.48
.39
.41
.28
.39
.17
.12
.14
0
0
5
2
1
8
8
8
8
7
6
6
7
4
5
4
5
6
5
12
43
54
366
70
84
77
0
0
22
2
5
5
3
4
32
27
22
31
W/D
58
102
80
24
24
26
48
30
36
19
33
38
47
53
50
34
41

Table 2.
Site elevations, gradients, and maximum water temperatures recorded during the summer o± 1979.
Elevation Gradient
(in) (%)
Maximum Water
Temperature l78 179
( C) C)
(
Stream/Site
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
NFSU
NFSL
Cathie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Francine
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Pam
Obadith
Nancy
Queenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Tracy
Shelia
NFSU
NFSL
Average
0.1
0,1
0.1
0.2
0.1
5.0
5.9
4.1
6.4
5.3
2.2
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.0
.8
1.1
1,0
1292
1280
1280
1285
1487
1487
1426
1463
1231
1220
1225
1280
1220
1170
1223
1524
1524
1524
1524
1524
1475
1439
1426
1414
1438
4.4
4.2
3.6
41
3.7
3.6
3.6
20.0
18.9
12.2
14.2
12.8
16.7
20.0
16.5
11.1
11.1
11.1
15.0
18.6
18.3
17.0
11.7
13.9
13.3
14.2
13.0
14.7
16.1
6.4
4.7
11.6
14.4
15.5
20.0
17.1
18.3
13.3
21.7
18.3
18.0
13.9
14.4
13.3
13.3
13.9
18.9
27.8
21.7
17.5
21.7
20.6
22.2
21.7
17.8
15.6
16.7

Table 2.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr., w±.
Veronica
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yolar4a
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bart
Chris
Fred.
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Micah
Average
Elevation
Grient
(in) (%)
Maximum Water
Temperature
1978
179
(°a) ( C)
1317
1219
1268
1536
127'4
1274
1274
124k
1244
1231
1231
1237
1500
1487
1487
12487
1490
1561
1548
1555
4.9
4.2
4.6
2.8
1.9
1.1
1.5
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.9
1.1
0.2
0.6
2.3
2.3
2.3
10.0
10.0
13.3
16.7
15.0
13.9
13.9
21.1
17.5
23.9
23.9
21.1
19.4
16.1
15.0
17.9
15.0
17.2
16.1
29

Table 3.
Characteristics of the stream and the riparian zone recorded during the suinnier of 1979.
30
Instreain
Cover
Streamside Spawning
Cover Habitat
Hoof
Marks Stream/Site
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
NFSU
NFSL
Cathie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Francine
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Pam
Obthiah
Nancy
Queenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Tracy
Shelia
NFSTJ
NFSL
Average
1
2
2
1.7
2
3
1
1.7
2
3
3
3
3.7
3
2
2
2
2.2
3
2
2
2.3
3
3.0
2
3
4
4
3.2
3
5
5
5
4.5
2
3
3
2.7
2
3
4
3.0
3
3
3
3.3
3
2
2
2.7
3
2
2.5
4
4
3
3.7
2
2
3
2
2.2
1
1
1
1
1.0
1
1
1
1.0
3
3.5
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
-
60
50
-
-
0
80
0
27

31
Table 3.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr., w.f.
Veronica
Ursula
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Wanda
Xavier
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yoland.a
ZoAnne
Andrew
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bart
Chris
David lijh
Fred
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
JO1
Kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Micah
Average
Instream Streamside Spawning
Cover Cover Habitat
Hoof
Marks
2
2,0
3
2.5
1
1
1
1.0
2
2
2
1
1.8
2
2
2.0
2
2.0
1
1.2
1
1
1
1
1.0
3
3
3.0
3
1
2.0
1
3
4
4.0
5
5
5
5.0
1
2.5
2
1.5
5
3
2
3.0
2
41
C
0
10
13
85
85
90
85
86
75
90
83
20
8
53
35

32 tie favored the riparian areas and would avoid them only if they were physically excluded (e g., through fencing) or if they had to expend a large amount of energy to enter and leave the riparian zone (e.g., to descend and ascend the steep slopes leading to Little Boulder Cr.).
Cattle hoof marks are valid indicators of cattle activity only for that season daring which the measurements are taken.
For instance, the absence of hoof marks from Ragged. Cr. indicates only that cattle had not yet entered the Ragged Cr. watershed for the 1979 grazing season, I observed cattle along Ragged Cr. daring the summer of 1978.
A more perinanent recoi'd. of activity is needed to document the presence of cattle within the area daring times past.
Water Temperature
Water temperatures recorded during the summer of 1979 were on the average 3.9°C higher than those recorded daring 1978, 17.7 and 13.8°C, respectively (Table 2).
Recorded temperatures exceeded 21.1°C on
(10/68) of the sampling occasions and 23.8°C on only one occasion.
Recorded temperatures did not exceed 20.0°C during 1978.
Pool Habitat
The pooi habitat data were separated into two categories: descriptive pool characteristics and number of poois according to class (Table
4 and Table 5).
The former category permits an examination of the degree of individual contribution of pool size, depth and cover to the total pool points.
The latter category simply records the number of pools present according to class.
The data in Table 4 and Table 5 are best explained by example.

Table Li.
Pool habitat characteristics recorded during the summer of
1979.
33
Stream/Site Size
Pool Habitat Characteristics
Depth Cover Points
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
Average
Long Cr.
Francine
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Karen
Average
Camp Cr.
Nancy
Q,ueenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Average
1.9
1.5
l.Li.
1.6
Li.0
2.6
3,0
3.3
3.2
1.9
2.3
2.6
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.3
2.2
2.0
2. 0
2.1
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.3
2.1
2.6
2.3
2.1
2.0
1 .
1.8
1.6
2.1
1.8
2,1
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.2
2.0
2.6
1.2
1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.9
2.0
2.3
1
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.8
1.8
1.7
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.3
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
2
3
5
3
3.2
2
2
3
2.3
Li
3
2
3.0
3
3
3.0
1i
2
3
3.0
14.
Li

34
Table 4.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr., w.f.
Veronica
Ursula
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yolanda
Z oAnne
Andrew
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bart
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Nicah
Average
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.8
2.9
1.8
2.6
3.0
2.6
2.1
2.4
2.2
1.7
2.2
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.7
3.0
2.8
Size
Pool Habitat Characteristics
Depth Cover Points
4
...5
4
3
1.24.
2.6
1.6
2.
1.8
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.6
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.3
1.5
1.2
1.3
4.0
4
3
5
0
0
2
2
1.0
3.7
3
2
2.5
5
4
2
2
2.0
2.
2.
2.1
2.2
1.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
4
...0
1.0
0.4
2.0
1.6
2.3
1
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7

Table 5.
35
Number of poois according to class recorded during the summer of 1979.
Stream/Site
1
Number of Pools According to Class
2 3
4
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
NFSU
NFSI
Cathie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Francine
NFSTJ
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
dy
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Obadiab
Nancy ueenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Tracy
Shelia
NFSIJ
NFSL
Average
0
0
0
0.0
2
1
1
1.3
0
0
4
1
1
1.5
0
2
2
3
1.8
2
0
1
1.0
1
0
1
0
0.5
0
0
3
0
.8
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0.5
8
6
6.7
0
2
1
3
1.5
3
7
5
6
5.3
3
1
2
2.0
4
0
3.7
O
7.0
3
10.5
11
6.3
0
2+
0
0
1.0
16
4
1
15
9.0
10
5
5
6.7
2+
2
11
5.7
1

36
Table 5.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr., w.f.
Veronica
Ursula
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Watha
Xavier
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yolazda
ZoArine
Ardrew
Average
Vincent Cr.'
Bart
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred.
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
Kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Nicah
Average
1
Number of Pools According to Class
2 3
4
0
0
0.0
2
1
0
0.5
1
1
1
2
1.3
0
0
0.0
0
0
2
0
0.4
0
0
0.0
1
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
1
0
.3
0
0
0.0
2.0
8
4
6
0
4.5
4
2
3.0
0
0
1
0
0.2
3.0
2'
2
1
13.5
7
1
4.0
0
5
1
0
1.5
6
9
7.5
0
0
0
1
0.2

37
Consider the average pool values for Ragged Cr.
The pool habitat characteristics reveal that, with respect to size, the typical pool in
Ragged Cr. was nearly as wide or long as the average stream width (2.10
was shallow (between 15 cm and 30 cm deep) and had partial cover.
A typical section of Ragged Cr. contained no class 1 pools, 1.0 class 2 pools, 6.7 class 3 pools and 6.3 class L pools.
In reality, an individual site either did or did not contain a particular class of pool; fractional pools did not exist.
For purposes of data analysis, however, fractional pools were perniissable and provided a more accurate record of the number of pools present within a particular segment of stream.
Generally, deeper stream sections received a higher number of pool depth points and had a higher number of class 1 and class 2 pools than did more shallow sections.
Most sites had no or 1 class 1 pools with progressively increasing numbers of class 2, 3, and Li pools.
Instream Cover
Except for Vincent Cr., all streams had sites that had at least partial instreaxn cover, and. much of Little Boulder Cr. and the east fork of Little Butte Cr. had abundant instream cover (Table 3).
Streamside Cover
The amount of streamside cover varied considerably from stream to stream (Table 3).
The banks of Long Cr., Caribou Cr., Vincent Cr. and.
Tinker Cr. were virtually barren except for scattered low grasses.
A streamside cover rating 1 was usually associated with greater than 85% coverage of the riparian zone by cattle hoof marks.
Because the stream

banks of Vincent Cr. are composed almost entirely of coarse gravel and small and large rubble, cattle hoof marks do not accurately reflect the extent of cattle activity within the riparian zone of Vincent Cr.
Spawning Habitat
All sites except ZoAnne on Vinegar Cr. and Micah on Lake Cr. had at least some suitable-size spawning gravel, and Ll (16/3L) of the sites had at least 20% of their bottom material in gravel .6 to 5 cm in d.iaineter (Table 3).
Stream Norphology and Channel Stability Rating
According to Pfankuch's (1975) total reach score ra.ting, the total rating for each site fell within the "good" range (39-76) or the "fair" range (77_11L) (Table 6).
No sites fell within the "poor" (115+) or the
"excellent" (33-38) range.
Little Boulder Cr., Vinegar Cr. and. Vincent
Cr. had. average total reach scores that fell within the "good" range.
The average total reach scores for all other streams fell within the
"fair" range.
The 15 components of the stream morphology and channel stability rating will be discussed in the discussion section as they related to the trout population data0
Stream Bed Composition
Though the composition of the stream bed varied from stream to stream, each stream bed, except that of Long Cr., consistently had no bedrock and less than L1% large boulders (Table 7).
The sites that were located at the lower end of Flood Meadow on Long Cr. were composed in part of 20 to 25% exposed bedrock and no large boulders.
Fine gravel

Table 6.
Values for the stream reach inventory of Pfankuch (1975) recoied during the summer of 1979.
39
Stream/Site
Ragged Cr.
Aimabelle
NFSU
NFSL
Cathie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Francine
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Pam
0ba.iah
Nancy
Queenie
Rachel
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Tracy
Shelia
NFSTJ
NFSL
Average
2
4
2
8
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
6
8
8
8
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.
Stream Inventory ai Channel
Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch
1975)1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
6
6
6
2
2
4
3
2
2
4
4
4
6
6
5
3
5
2
2
3
7
7
5
6
4
4
4
7
7
7
8
6
9
12
9
7
4
4
3
3
3
6
12
6
8
3
3
3
3
9
6
6
3
9
3
5
6
9
9
9
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
6
6
6
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
2
2
4
16
8
9
14
16
16
8
12
8
12
10
16
12
16
12
14
12
9
8
8
6
5
4
4
2
2
4
6
3
2
4
2
4
3
2
4
2
3
6
4
4
8
8
8
8
8
2
4
4
6
4
6
6
4
8
8
8
6
2
5
6
4
8
8
8
6
6
6
8
10
10

Table 6.
(continued.)
Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr., w.f.
Veronica
8
8
8 Average
Vinegar Cr.
(upper)
Wanda
Xavier
Vinegar Cr.
(lower)
Yolanda
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bart
Chris
Fred.
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Nicah
Average
4.
4.
24.
2
4.
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
3
4
2
3
1.
Stream Inventory and Channel
Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch 1975)
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9
12
10
6
5
4.
4.
2
2
2
2
4
3
5
4.
5
6
5
4.
5
3
3
3
4.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
9
5
6
4
4
4
4.
10
11
10
6
7
7
8
7
9
12
8
12
5
4
24.
24.
9
10
9
6
4
4
4
4.
4.
4.
4
4
4.
2
2
4
4.
4
4
4
4.
3
3
6
5
2
4
2
3
4
6
2
6
3
3
5
7
8
8
7
8
8
8
2
2 5 34
16
12
4
124.
2
2
2
2
2
4.
6
4.
4
4
8
4.
6
5
5
14
16
14
16
15
6
5
5
8
10
9
12
16
14
8

41
Table 6.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Stream Inventory and Channel j975)1
Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch
12.
13.
15.
9,
10, 11.
14.
Total
Score
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
NFStJ
NFSL
C athie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Francine
NFSIJ
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
MFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Pam
Obadiah
Q.ueenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Tracy
Shelia
NFSTJ
NFSL
Average
12
8
12
11
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
7
8
12
8
9
24.
8
8
8
7
12
16
14
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
5
4 12
4 10
12
11
8
12
18
16
4
3
4
4
4 16 6 4
79
816
6 4 80
610
6 2 71
610
6 3
69
610
6 3 75
4 8
2 8
4 8
6 16
4 10
12
12
9
6
6
3
4
2
4
3
66
82
93
108
87
82
89
102
91
6
6
6
6
7
8
16
10
5
8
4
6
12
13
10
12
8
8
8
16
14
15
18
18
18
18
18
6
14
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
57
80
79
90
101
74
88
105
110
107

42
Table 6.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Stream Inventory and. Channel
Stability Evaluation (Pfankuch
1975)1
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Total
Score
Little Butte Cr., w.±.
Veronica
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yolarid.a
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bart
Chris
Fred.
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Micah
Average
8 1
4
9
12
3
8
8
3
3
1
1
4
Li'
8
8
8.2
2
Li'
6 6
6
9
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
12
8
4
4
7
12
14
12
12
12
12
10
11
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
8
12
8
10
8
8
8
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
6
Li'
8
6
6
3
Li'
12
9
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
12
12
6
7
8
12
10
3
3
3
4
Li'
Li'
4
Li'
4
3
3
4
Li'
4
Li'
Li'
94
3
4 105
3 99
264
77
68
70
66
70
72
71
71
93
104
102
98
99
98
98
98

43
Table 6.
(continued)
1.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1+.
15.
The ity
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
15 categories of the stream reach inventory and evaluation (Pfankuch 1975) are:
1ardforni slope mass wasting or failure (existing or potential) debris jam potential (flotable objects) vegetative bank protection channel capacity bank rock content channel stabilobstructions,flow deulectors, sediment traps cutting deposition rock angularity brightness consolidation or particle packing bottom size distribution and. percent stable materials scouring and deposition clinging aquatic vegetation (moss and. algae).

Table 7.
Composition of the stream bed recorded during the summer of
1979.
Bedrock
Stream Bed Composition (%)
Large
Boulders
Small
Boulders
Large
Rubble Stream/Site
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
NFSIJ
NFSL
Cathie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Fraricine
NFSIJ
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Pam
Obadiah
Queenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Tracy
Shelia
NFSU
NFSL
Average
0
0
0
0,0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
25
11.3
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
1
2
0
3
0
1.2
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
2
0
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
0.0
1
0.5
0
3.3
0
0
0
2
0.5
15
2
5
5
6,7
2
10
5.0
10
1
10
7.0
3.0
0
.5.0
1
0
7
3
2.8
10
0
10
4O
22.5.
30
15
10
18.3
10
15
2
16.7
5
8
6.5

L5
Table 7.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr., w.f.
Veronica
Ursula
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Warid.a
Xavier
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yolanda
ZoAnn.e
Andrew
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bart
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Micah
Average
Bedrock
Stream Bed Composition (%)
Large
Boulders
Small
Boulders
Large
Rubble
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
3
1.5
10
1
10.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
3
5
1
2
2.7
6.0
35
0
0
0
2
0.5
0
0
0.0
27.3
25
Li.O
1
20
25.0

Table 7.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Ragged Cr.
Annabefle
NFSTJ
NFSL
Cathie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Francine
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Pam
Obad.iah
Nancy
Queenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Tracy
Sheila
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Small
Rubble
Stream Bed Composition (%)
Coarse
Gravel
Fine Sand, Silt
Gravel Clay, Muck
35
20
29.3
5
10
15
10
10.0
40
40
40
20
35.0
50
30
2
27.3
10
15
15
13.3
10
15
12.5
20
10
30
60
25.0
15
25
20
20.0
30
28.3
4
30
20
25
19.8
30
20
30
20
25.0
20
25
22.5
40
13
30
27.7
10
15
20
5
12.5
3
4
2
5
3.5
4
4
20
9.3
10
14
15
13.0
30
40
34.5
5
2
10
5.7
80
45
18
30
43.2
0
45
30
15
30.0
30
10
20.0
10
10
8.0
4
10
5
6.3

L47
Table 7.
(continued)
Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr.., w.f.
Veronica
Ursula
NPSU
NFSL
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Warida
Xavier
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yoland.a
ZoAnne
Andrew
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bart
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Micah
Average
Small
Rubble
Stream Bed Composition (%)
Coarse
Gravel
Fine Sard, Silt
Gravel Clay, Muck
40
40.0
50
20
12
27.3
26
15
20
26.0
0
2
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.0
40
30
35.0
30
10
1
18.3
23
15
34
23.0
25
25
25
0
26.2
25
12
18,5
10
9.0
4
13.2
45
40
50
0
46.2
25
1
14.7
13
15
10
60
18
39.0
1.3
10
10
20
0
10.0
30
33
25
26.5
15
80
47.5
1 2
8.5
1
0

and silt or clay blanketed more than 5 of the stream bed in Long Cr., east fork of Little Butte Cr., Tinker Cr. and Lake Cr.
Fish Populations
Data Collection
Different species of fish responded differently to the current produced by the electroshocker.
Of the 3 species of fish encountered rainbow and steelhead. trout, speckled dace and torrent sculpins - the trout were easiest to locate and capture.
Upon detecting the current, the trout would dart or thrash about and. flash their silvery undersides.
The more drably colored dace would. frequently dive between rocks on the stream bottom, making extraction and capture difficult.
Sculpins would either lie still on the bottom or move only slightly when shocked, making themselves d.iificult to locate, much less capture.
Though I did not estimate the sizes of speckled dace and torrent sculpin populations, I did record the number captured at each site (Table 8).
Sites not listed in Table 8 contained neither d.ace nor sculpins.
Estimation of Population Size
The length-frequency distributions (Appendix B) and the age analysis of scales revealed that the mean maximum length of age 0 trout varied among sampling seasons while the mean maximum length of ages I and
II trout remained near constant (Table 9).
On the average, the trout grew 60 mm during their first year and 37 nun during their second. year.

Table 8.
Numbers of non-game fish captured during 1978-1980
1978
Number of Speckled Pace
1979 1980 Stream/Site
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Francine
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Obadiah
Pam
Nancy
Queenie
Rachel
Average
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yolanda
ZoAnne
Andrew
Average
VincenL Cr.
Bartholomew
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred
Average
4
60
2
6
59
26.2
10
14
6
9
9
7.6
-
-
-
-
1
6
8
8
9
6.4
2
2
0
L4
50
19.6
4
20
22
9.2
d
37
0 d
7.4
1.
These sites were dry during the 1979 sampling period.
0
2
0
30
51
16.6
6
15
16
12.3
2
0
0
0
1
0.6
6
4
5
12
52
15.8
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
Number of Torrent Sculpins
1978 1979 1980 d d
0
0 d
0.0
1
5
6
4.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.2
1
3
3
2.3

50
Table 9.
Among-stream average values of fork length divisions among ages 0, I,.and II trout.
Year
1978
1979
1980
Grand
Mean
Age
Average Maximum Length (mm)
0
Age I Age II
70
54.
64.
63
121
122
126
123
160
157
163
160
At most of the sampling sites on most sampling occasions, I believe that most of the assumptions of the Petersen index were upheld.
However, I believe that downstream migration of age 0 trout may have ocóurred in
Caribou Cr. between the first and second sampling occasions during the sununer o± 1980.
Between the mark and recapture periods, the study area received severe afternoon thundershowers that caused the discharge of
Caribou Cr. to increase considerably.
Upon resampling the Caribou Cr.
sites the day after the storm hed occurred, I captured so few marked age
0 trout that I suspected that the fingerlings had. moved downstream toward the Middle Fork during the period of high water.
Estimates of population size provided by the removal method (Table
10) were consistently lower than estimates provided by the Petersen method (Table 11).
Using the removal method, estimates of population size could not be calculated for those sites where the number of fish captured during a latter pass exceeded the number captured during a former pass.
Because I suspected that migration had. occurred in Caribou Cr. in
1980, I substituted the population size estimates calculated by the removal method for estimates calculated by the Petersen method.
The esti-

51
Table 10.
Summary of data used to estimate population size at select sites using the removal method.
1
Number of Trout Captured per Pass
2 3
N
90 Percent con.f. un.
Stream/Site a
Long Cr.
NFSL
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Nancy
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Average
0
30
21
29
29
30
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
8
7
8
9
1
0
0
0
/
0
/1
/
0
/
/
/
0
3
4
4
4
4
0
41
35
48
43
50
43.4
12
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
_2
41 - 42
35-36
47 - 49
42-43
49-51
-
-
-
-
-
Long Cr.
NPSL
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Camp Cr.
Nancy
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Average
1
1
6
0
3
3
4
1
3
3
0
5
2
1
1-
2
1
1
2
/
1
3
0
1
/
0
1
0
0
0
/
2
/
/
/
0
1.
2.
Additional passes were not mode.
The table entry was either negative or could not be calculated.
2
4
7
5
-
13
3
12
0
4
6.4
4-5
5-6
-
7-8
12-1
-
-
3-5

Table Ii.
Estimates of size and biomass of rainbow trout populations in study streams during 1978-1980.
Stream/Site
Number of Age 0 Trout
1978 1979 1980
Biomass (g) of Age 0 Trout
1978 1979 1980 1978
Number of Ages
I and II Trout
1979 1980
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
NFSU
N1SL
Cathie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Franc Ins
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NF'S
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
N FSIJ
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Obad lab
Pam
Nancy
Queenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Tracy
Shelia
NF'SU
HFSL
Average
21
1
34
40
70
33.2
51
23
168
8
7
51.4
0
1
15
47
132
48.7
16
46
36
47
40.2
57
48
78
58
48
57.8
0
0 o
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
44
37
16
57
48
40.4
0
0
0
7
1
2.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
4
7
3
2
3.7
0
3
1
0
1.0
15
16
18
5
7
12.2
41
35
48
43
50
43.4
0
0
5
6
11
5.5
0
0
1
0
0
0.2
8
3
6
0
0
3.4
8
10
16
12
11.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
5.5
15.9
5.5
12.5
16.3
12.6
0.0
25.1
3.7
30.3
25.1
30.3
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.5
0.6
21.3
25.7
44.9
21.2
52.3
39.5
177.2
7.3
6.4
56.9
0.0
0.8
14.6
14.6
128.4
47.6
15.8
45.4
60.3
35.5
46.4
39.5
75.2
63.3
77.0
76.5
63.3
76.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.7
13.7
30.7
15.4
15.1
12.9
17.7
15.9
18.4
16.0
2.1
0.8
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
13,3
13.3
16.6
19.9
19.1
23.9
25.4
28.6
8.0
11.1
19.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
Biomass (g) of Ages
I and II Trout
1978 1979 1980
7
2
2
5
4
4.0
0
3
27
35
21
21.5
0
0
1
1
8
2.0
6
20
12
7
2
9.4
2
13
18
20
26
15.8
1
2
4
1
2.0
2
14
37
20
20
18.6
8
13
9
15
11
11.2
0
3
3
0
1.5
23
8
7
18
12
13.6
12
51
40
50
13
33.2
0
18
18
60
40
34.0
4
2
17
4
6o
15.4
0
8
8
30
14
12.5
16
13
4
5
2
8.0
14
2
20
11
11
11.6
3
7
18
3
10
8.2
4
6
9
1
4.0
0.0
0.0
17.7
17,7
141.6
34.4
26.5
172.4
238.8
265.3
344.9
212.3
18.7
37.3
74.6
18.7
37.3
151.2
43.2
43.2
108.0
86.4
86.4-
117.1
390.4
273.3
136.7
39.0
175.7
0.0
29.5
265.9
344.7
206.9
216.7
102.4
35.6
31.2
80,1
53.4
62.3
95.6
15.9
319.7
398.4
103.6
262.9
0.0
121.7
121.7
405.7
270.5
229.9
11.6
81.3
214.9
116.1
116,1
116.1
66.1
107.4
74.4
123.9
90.8
90.8
0.0
29.9
29.9
0.0
19.9
119.2
96.8
29.8
37.2
14.9
59.6
74.5
37.3
316.8
74.5
931.8
287.0
0.0
86.8
86.8
325.3
151.8
135.6
33.7
78.6
202.0
33.7
112.2
92.0
215.5
30.8
307.8
169.3
169.3
178.5
22.9
34.4
51.6
5.7
22.9
kr'.

Table Ii.
(continued)
Stream/site
Little Butte Cr., w.f.
Veronica
Ursula
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Wanda
Xavier
Average
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yolanda
ZoArine
Andrew
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bart
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Micah
Average
Number of Age 0 Trout
1978 1979 1980
Biomass (g) of Age 0 Trout
1978 1979 1980
0
0
32
11
10.7
14
0
26
72
28.0
27
20
4
8
14.7
0 0
0 10
-
0.0
5.0
0 18
42 0
35 0
-
31.7
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
30
6
22
174
38
54.0
-
61 0
0 50
42
48
0
0
72 0
-
54.6
0.0
0 0
0 0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.1
8.9
8.9
2.8
0.0
5.3
14.6
5.7
36.9
27.3
5.5
10.9
20.1
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
17.7
8.8
0.0
12.7
29.7
24.8
22.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.0
2.7
10.0
0.0
0.0
79.2
0.0
17.3
-
0.0
24.6
50.2
41.1
34.5
39.5
59.2
45.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1978
Number of Ages
I and II Trout
1979 1980
Biomass (g) of Ages
I and II Trout
1978 1979 1980
3
3
4
2.5
-
1
1
3
4
0
1.8
0
0
0.0
34
49
35
39.3
0
0
125
17
0
28.4
7
0
7
3
4.2
17
8
12.5
4
0
7
7
4.5
3
15
9.0
24
0
23
15.7
24
1
51
13
9
19.6
28
8
3
1
8
9.6
0
0
0.0
36.2
36.2
48.2
0.0
36.2
45.2
0.0
45.2
19.4
25.8
176.0
82.8
129.4
21.2
0.0
37.1
37.1
23.8
54.9
279.0
167.4
254.8
255.6
-
367.2
0.0
262.3
245.0
292.2
167.2
0.0
143.6
-
0.0
6.0
829.2
305.2
112.8
77.8
0.0
188.4
53.9
117.3
49.6
66.1
16.5
16.5
0.0
33.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
300.4
85.8
32.2
10.7
85.8
103.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

54 mates for Caribou Cr. provided, by the removal method were used in all analyses.
Population sizes of age 0 and ages I and. II trout were subjectto marked annual fluctuations (Table 11 and Appendix a).
Age 0 trout in
Caribou Cr. were an apparent exception.
Production of numbers o± age 0 trout in Caribou Cr. remained near constant at approximately 41 trout per average site, though biomass of age 0 trout in Caribou Cr. decreased by 68.1% between 1978 and 1979 and increased, by 27.0% between 1979 and
1980.
Averaging across all streams, the number of age 0 trout decreased by 57.4 % and bioinass decreased by 70.1% between 1978 and 1979.
Between
1979 and 1980, average number of age 0 trout decreased by 7.5% while average biomass increased by 3.?%.
The 119.5% increase in average number per site of ages I and II trout between 1978 and 1979 probably reflects the strength of the 1978 year class.
In contrast, average biomass increased by only 15.6% between 1978 and 1979.
By 1980, both number and biomass of ages I and II trout hed declined, though both were still above 1978 levels.
Trout were absent only from Lake Cr. and the NFS site on Little
Boulder Cr.
Lake Cr. probably does not carry enough water to support a viable trout population (Table 1).
Upper Little Boulder Cr. probably froze solid in the past, killing all fish, and none have since been able to ascend the approximately 12 m drop beneath the culvert under USFS road 108.

55
Length-Weight Regression Equations
The slopes and Y-intercepts of the regression equations were siinilar (AppendixD).
Among aU streams and. years, the average regression equation was: log W 3.1780 log L - 11.9308.
The length-weight regression equations developed from 1978 and 1979 data were used to calculate biomass from 1980 length data.
Correlating the Trout Population Data with the Environmental Data
Correlation Analysis
Within any given year, the number and biomass of an age class exhibited. near perfect correlation (Table 12).
Therefore, the terms "age
0 trout" and "ages I and II trout" will for the remainder of the thesis refer to either number or biomass of age 0 or ages I and II trout, respectively.
The correlation analysis revealed that age 0 and ages I and II trout were occupying different habitats (Table 12 and Table 13).
Age 0 trout correlated negatively with components of pool habitat and flow, while ages I and. II trout correlated positively With those same components.
Age 0 trout were occupying slow, shallow sections o± stream over spawning-size gravel and were associated with aquatic vegetation.
Ages
I and II trout were occupying deep, high flow areas and deep, high quality pools.
Though age 0 trout in 1978 correlated positively with only one environinental variable, particle distribution, tha± correlated negatively

Table 12.
Pearson produc--nioment correlation coefficients for
55 biological and. environmental variables.
Correlations significant at the 95 percent level of confidence are followed by an asterisk.
56

Total
.
55
Silt 54.
53.S.GtaVe1
Gravel Coarse 52.
Rubble So. 51.
C' C'
;.o'ml- to
C' a, a, cO a
Rubble
L. 50.
Boulders So. 49.
CCC
Boulders 1. 48.
C' t.J
C a,
Bedtock 47.
Veget.
A.
46.
__ p
Scouring 45.
Dist. Part. 44. a o
Packing Particle 43.
Brightne3s 42.
Angularity Rock 41.
DepositiOn 40.
Cutting 39.
ObstructionS 38.
"C o a -.w tsy
,Q
S at,
"5 to,Mfl
;' r t to
.
, a p . a tn

Table 13.
Age 0, 76 Age 0, 79 Age 0, 80
Particle distributiom
(4)
Ages 1 & 2, 79 (+)
Ages 1 & 2, 78
Elevation (+)
Width (+)
Flow (+)
Pool points (+)
Pool depth (+)
Class 1 pools
(+)
Brightness (+)
Age 0, 78
Ages 1 & 2, 79 (+)
Elevation
Hoof marks (+)
Streamside cover (-)
Aquatic vegetation
Small gravel
()
(+)
Stream
(-)
Small rubble (-)
Aes 1 & 2, 79
Width
()
Depth
(+)
Flow (+)
Pool size (+)
Pool depth (+)
Pool points
(+)
Class 1 pools (+)
Cutting (+)
Deposition
Small gravel
Age 0, 78 (+)
Ages 1 & 2, 78 (+)
Temperature, 79
(4)
Elevation
(-)
Hoof marks
(-)
Depth
(-)
Velocity (-)
Flow
(-)
Width/depth
(-)
Pool depth
(-)
Pool cover
(-)
(-)
Class 2 pools
(-)
Bank vegetation (+)
Cutting
Small rubble (+)
Coarse gravel
(+)
Ages
1 & 2, 80
Class 2 pools
(+)
Class pools
(-)
Bedrock
(4)
Ages 1 &

with small boulders and large and small rubble and positively with small gravel and silt.
The positive correlation with particle distri-
62 bution may then indirectly reflect a correlation between age 0 trout in
1978 and. spawning-size gravel, but the evidence is so meager that I consider the conclusion to be tenuous.
The correlation between ages I and II trout in 1979 and age 0 trout in 1978 and the correlation between ages I and
trout in 1980 and ages
I and II trout in 1979 probably reflects the overthelniing strength of the 1978 year class.
Principal Components Analysis
Only those components in the unrotated data matrix with corresponding elgenvalues greater than 1 were included in the final orthogonal rotation (Table 114').
Of the original 55 components, components
1 through 14 had. eigenvalues greater than 1 and accounted for 91.7% of the variability within the original data set.
Components 2 through 4,
9 and 10, and 12 through 14 are not displayed in Table 14 because those components did not load heavily on both environmental and biological variables.
Interpretation of the PCA is achieved by examining both the magnitude and the sign of the component loadings (Nie, et al. 1975; Pimentel
1979).
Component loadings less than .3162 were disregarded because they contributed to less than 10% of the variation within a variable with respect to a particular component
(.31622 = .100).
For example, with respect to components 1 and 11, the number of age 0 trout in 1980 decreased with increasing elevation, hoof marks, stream width, depth, velocity and flow, pool size, depth, cover and total pool points, instream

Table 14.
Factor loadings generated by the Principle Components Analysis.
Factor loadings followed by an asterisk contributed to greater than ten percent of the variation within a variable with respect to a particular factor.
Variable
Hum. 0, 80
Hum. 1&2, 80
Hum. 0, 78
Hum. 1&2, 78
Hum. 0, 79
Hum. 1&2, 79 l3io. 0, 78
Bio. 1&2, 78
Blo. 0, 79
Bio. 1&2, 79
Temp., 78
Temp., 79
Elevation
Hoof Marks
Width
Depth
Velocity
Flow w/D
Pool Size
Pool Depth
Pool Cover
Pool PoInts
Instr. Cover
Stmsd. Cover
Spawning Hbt.
Class 1 Pools
Class 2 Pools
Factor 1
_.568011*
.11212
.08)03
.28565
-. 03169
.27865
.09929
.36626*
.0)206
.367314*
-.28193
-.26260
.62015*
.40110*
.61112*
.81)87*
.66243*
.69898*
-.10343
.5071J*
.871441*
.781444*
.77013*
.53393*
-.08246
.03819
.35103*
.56176*
Faclor 5
.06463
.14001
.98103*
.36612*
-.02799
.140036*
.97957*
.42627*
-.01109
.140124*
-.09664
-.00018
.16002
.06591
.32037*
.18086
-.17196
.20438
.07768
.03809
-.01123
-.05443
.05971
-.07384
-.16081
.01267
-14352
-.01858
Factor 6
-.03765
-.0)299
-.010140
-.15170
.93593*
-.08669
-.00026
-.20051
.94148*
.06952
-.02982
.12955
.01661
.314000*
-.11993
-.19155
.05703
-.25309
.10987
.25805
.08218
.09213
.17449
-.07672
.406414*
.23554
-.03204
.08540
Factor 7
-.10475
.09079
.10758
.77588*
- .08983
.48327*
.12605
.80999*
-.07762
.47097*
-.21133
.01897
.05194
.02945
.29024
-.00543
-.18617
-.03193
-.00475
.13414
.22285
.12649
.25438
.11187
.11031
.18193
.63130*
.00233
Factor 8
.12774
.78008*
.06176
.09745
-.06499
.46113*
.04732
.03800
.00068
.43070*
-.02965
.22173
_.08505
.03035
-.12287
.13295
.06885
.13946
-.11464
.23404
.08345
-.214828
.18892
.05903
-.12995
.23309
.06382
.54168
Factor 11
.51606*
-.02710
.02439
-.02582
.09417
.14184
.127)3
-.10715
-.00817
.09269
.08285
.06438
-.17147
- .33259*
.22307
-.18076
-.03696
-.03956
.89637*
.45497*
.03564
.10946
.16553
-.11003
.07561
.13434
.03019
.01462

Table 14.
(continued)
Variable
Class 3 Pools
Class 4 Pools
Stm. Gradient
Bank Slope
Mass Wasting
J)ebris
Vegetation
Ch. Capacity
Bank flock
Obstructions
Cutting
Deposition
Angularity
Brightness
Packing
Part. Dist.
Scouring
Aquatic Veg.
Bedrock
L. Boulders
Sm. Boulders
L. Bubble
Sm. Rubble
Coarse Gravel
Fine Gravel
Silt
Total Points
Factor 1
.19494
-.00888
.03078
- .03638
- .09862
.09754
.57547W
-.45585k
.19194
.11800
.51885*
-.25988
.29265
-.06046
-.15540
.00867
-.00285
.38862*
.41669*
.16833
-.05187
.32384W
-.03782
-.17393
-.11396
.27288
-.00880
Factor 5
-.14772
.12897
-. 10196
- .00878
- .04695
.18712
-.04534
-. 15647
.19286
.23803
.09820
-.15674
-.12035
.00568
.28843
.37954*
-.08744
.35427*
-.28567
-.10470
.10443
.24112
-.23536
.08797
-.18044
.18465
.10261
Factor 6
.12365
-.16160
-. 18572
- .08370
.011)415
.25092
-.01622
.34949*
-.04270
- .00884
.311810* p18596
-.25973
.00394
.13032
.18834
- .26640
.38O22
.23226
-.12059
.03144
-.08368
-.28911
.22230
.43601*
-.14743
.18915
Factor 7
-.12473
_.46606*
-. 14391
.04086
-.00218
.16049
.16667
.24965
-.08898
-.16776
.07481
.05442
-.11917
.23097
-.20415
.05981
.05992
-.08825
-.27790
.13265
-.12339
.11942
-.05944
-.10005
.01543
.12175
.01871
Factor 8
.13020
_.53396X
-. 19164
- .03798
.05089
-.10115
-.12627
-.26132
-.02370
-.04571
-.15300
-. 15058
-.10276
-.12569
.05600
-.10656
-.07393
-.07253
.47943W
-.03279
-.09228
.05621
-.03777
.16572
-.06083
-.15019
-.20590
Factor ii
.10356
.08562
.07706
- * 02015
.07756
-.21725
.07778
.24700
-.16889
-.08680
-.35170
-.23402
-.10022
-.05090
.12615
-.18898
.09218
.02774
-.10972
.03393
-.13051
.04010
.39451*
-.00084
-.07011
-.23976
-.16951

65 cover, class 1 and. class 2 pools, bank cutting and. bedrock (Table 14).
The number of age 0 trout in 1980 increased with increasing bank vegetation, aquatic vegetation, channel capacity, large rubble and small rubble and. width-depth ratio.
The biomass of ages I and II trout in 1978 and. 1979 varied with the same environmental variables as did the number of age 0 trout in 1980, but in inverse fashion.
The results o± the multivariate PCA confirmed the results of the bivariate correlation analysis.
Age 0 trout were associated positively with aquatic vegetation and. spawning substrate, and. negatively with deep water, deep, high quality pools, high velocity and flow and bedrock.
Ages I and. II trout were associated negatively with spawning substrate and. positively with deep, high quality pools, deep water and high velocity and. flow.
Both the PCA and the correlation analysis revealed an apparent contradiction regarding age 0 trout, cattle hoof marks and bank cutting.
Age 0 trout in 1979 were associated positively with hoof marks and bank cutting, whereas age 0 trout in 1980 were associated negatively with those same characteristics.
From a mathematical standpoint, the negative association in 1980 probably reflected: (1) an increase in the number of age 0 trout in 1980 per site in Ragged Cr. from 0.0 to 12.2 and a decrease in the number of age 0 trout in 1980 in lower Vinegar Cr. and.
Tinker Cr. from 31.7 and 54.6 to 0.0 and. 0.0, respectively, combined with, (2) near equal numbers of age 0 trout between 1979 and 1980 within the other study streams.
I can only speculate as to why the average number of age 0 trout between 1979 and. 1980 increased in Ragged Cr. aM decreased in lower

Vinegar Cr. and Tinker Cr.
In 1979, Ragged Cr. exhibited no hoof marks and minimal bank cutting, while lower Vinegar Cr. exhibited a relative-
66 ly higher percentage of hoof marks and severe bank cutting (Table 3 and
Table 6).
The increased number of age 0 trout in 1980 in Ragged Cr. may have reflected a general increase in 1980 spawning within the upper John
Day drainage (Table 1L1.).
The possibility of successful spawning in Ragged Cr. was enhanced by a minimum of fine gravel and bottom silt (33.L)
(Table 7).
In contrast, most of the stream bed of Tinker Cr. was covered by fine gravel and silt (77.1%).
Perhaps this heavy layer of fine sediment precluded successful spawning in Tinker Cr. during 1980.
I am unable to explain the drastic reduction in the number of age 0 trout between 1979 and 1980 in lower Vinegar Cr.
Vinegar Cr. appears to have adequate depth, flow and substrate to support successful steelhead spawning, growth and development.
Had spawning occurred in lower Vinegar Cr0 and Vincent Cr., I suspect that 1980 age 0 trout would have correlated positively with hoof marks and bank cutting.
Multiple Regression Analysis
Two multiple regression models were developed.
The number of ages
I and II trout in 1979 was the dependent variable for both models.
In model 2, the number of class 1 and 2 pools were the independent variables.
In model
2' the number of class 1 and class 2 pools and the number of age 0 trout in 1978 were the independent variables.
The models are:
29.74 (Class 1 pools) + 6.86129 (Class 2 pools) + 4.193
R2 .705

= 31.74193 (Class 1 pools) + .12841 (No. Age 0, 78) + 5.15117 (Class
2 pools) + .96812
R2 = .880
67
Different combinations of independent variables, which had previously associated with the dependent variable in the correlation analysis and the PCA, were entered into the analysis, but only those included withii models and Y2 met the "best fit" criteria.
Adding additional variables resulted in higher R2 values, but the adjusted R2 values began to decline, the SSE decreased at a decreasing rate, and the F-values to enter or remove a variable from the equation were so high that the.
addition of additional variables did not contribute significantly to the precision of the models.
The population size estimates predicted. by models and Y2 were compared with the Petersen population size estimates (Table 15).
The percent residual error for model ranged from 3 to L000%.
The percent residual error for model ranged from 0 to 500%.
Though model Y2 accounted for a greater proportion of the variation within the dependent variable, may be less desirable from a management standpoint because it requires precise Iiowledge of the number of age 0 trout present in the previous yeax.
Such information would seldom be available.
Increasing the numbers of class 1 and class 2 pools per stream length increased the number of ages I and II trout (Table 16).
This increase is consistent with the design of the models.
I urge caution in the interpretation of these results, however, because models and assumed the relationship between the independent and dependent variables

Table IS.
A comparison of Petersen population size estimates for ages 1 and 2 trout in 1979 with estimates predicted by regression models and
Population
Size
Residual
Error
Percent
Error
2
Residual
Error
Percent
Error
Stream/Site
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
NFSU
NFSL
Cathie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Francine
NFS1J
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NFS
Gwen heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
Obadiah
Pam
Nancy
Queenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., 1.1.
Tracy
Shelia
NbSU
NFSL
Average
0
18
60
40
34
31
40
50
13
33
8
37
20
20
23
7
15
14
10
9
13
11
I
1
2
4
32
100
11
38
34
18
40
25
32
4
4
4
4
18
4
11
11
4
11
8
18
11
11
13
3
-22
-2
8
-1
4
14
40
-29
4
-5
-3
-4
-3
8
2
-2
2
-4
-33
-16
-16
3
10
6
7
7
6
9
18
16
13
15
37
36
17
33
1
23
107
23
40
14
:3
13
10
1
6
3
.80
.22
.15
.18
3.00
10.00
6.00
.22
.43
.27
.21
.10
.55
.04
.62
.03
u
.78
.67
.72
.12
.50
.89
.80
.80
.25
.76
.65
.65
.80
.78
.00
.36
u
.17
.78
.42
.18
.19
.10
.12
.31
.00
.39
.57
.13
.29
.00
5.00
.50
1
3
47
-17
6
6
4
-6
4
0
-9
-4
-2
-4
8
7
0
4
-2
-28
-13
-13
0
5
1

Table 15.
(continued)
Population
Size Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr., w.f,
Veronica
Ursula
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Wanda
Xavier
Average
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yolanda
S oAnne
Andrew
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bartholomew
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Micah
Average
1.
The entry value was undefined.
13
5
4
13
113
34
42
39
71 o
28 o o o
2
3
4
1 o o o
4
4
4
48
11
4
8
4
4
18
4
8 ii
11
41
18
22
4
4
4
Residual
Error
35
35
-23
-38
-31
4
4
-53
4
-20
8
7
40
18
20
4
4
1
-1
0
Percent
Error
.33
.20
.00
2.69
2.69
2.67
1.75
40.00
u
10.00
.68
.90
.79
U u
.75
u
.71
U
U
Residual
Error
Percent
Error
-2
-1
-2
.67
.20
.50

Table 16.
A comparison of Petersen population size estimates for ages
I and. II trout in 1979 with estimats predicted by increasing the number of class 1 pools (j) and class 2 pools ('j) by 1 per 15.24
in site length.
70
Stream/Site
Population
Size + SD Y'j
SD
Ragged Cr.
Ann.abelle
NFSTJ
NFSL
Cathie
Barbie
Average
Long Cr.
Ester
Diane
Francine
NFSTJ
NFSL
Average
Little Boulder Cr.
NPS
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody
Lisa
Karen
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Camp Cr.
0baia.h
Pam
Nancy
Queenie
Rachel
Average
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Tracy
Shelia
NFSU
NFSL
Average
0
18
60
40
34
31
40
50
13
33
8
37
20
20
10
9
13
11
23
7
15
14
1
1
2
47
33
40
40
(39 56)
(24 42)
(31 49)
(31 49)
63
47
77
54
61
33
61
129
40
67
(54 72)
(39 56)
(68 86)
(45 63)
(52 70)
(24 42)
(52 70)
(120 138)
(31 49)
(58 76)
25
11
18
18
(16 34)
(
2 20)
(
( 9 - 27)
9
- 27)
11
39
107
18
45
41
25
55
32
39
(32 o)
(16 - 34)
(46 64)
(23 - 41)
(30 - 49)
(
2 - 20)
(30 - 49)
(100 - 116)
( 9 - 27)
(36 - 54)
33
40
37
47
40
40
42
33
33
33
33
(24
(24
(24
(24
- 42)
- 42)
- 42)
- 42)
(39 - 56)
(31 - 49)
(31
- /4.9)
(33
- 51)
(24 = 42)
(31 - 49)
(28 - 46)
11
18
15
25
18
18
20
11
11
11
11
2 - 20)
(
(
2 -
20)
( 2 -
20)
(
2 - 20)
(16 - 34)
(
9
- 27)
( 9
- 27)
(11 29)
(
2 - 20)
( 9
- 27)
(
6 24)

Table 16.
(continued)
Stream/ Site
Little Butte Cr, w.f.
Veronica
Ursula
NFSU
NFSL
Average
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Wanda
Xavier
Average
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yoland.a
Z oAmie
Andrew
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bartholomew
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Nicah
Average
Population
Size
?j
Y SD
3
5
4
13
13
34
42
39
0
0
71
0
28
0
2
3
4
1
0
0
0
33
33
33
(24 42)
(24 42)
(24 * 42)
77
77
(68 86)
(68 86)
40
33
37
(31 49)
(24 42)
(28 46)
33
33
47
(24 42)
(24 42)
(38 56)
33 (24 42)
37
(28 146)
140
40
70
(31 14.9)
(31 49)
(61
79)
47 (38 56)
51 (42 60)
33
33
33
(24 42)
(24 -
142)
(24 42)
Y Y SD
11
11
11
(
2 20)
( 2 - 20)
(
2 * 20)
18
18
43
25
29
11
11 ii.
22
11
25
11
15
55
18
11
15
(46 - 64)
(46 - 64)
(
9 - 27)
(
2 - 20)
( 8 - 24)
(
(
2 - 20)
2 - 20)
(16 - 34)
( 2 20)
(
8 - 24)
(
9 - 27)
( 9 27)
(39 -.
57)
(16 - 314)
(29 - 38)
(
(
(
2 - 20)
2 - 20)
2 - 20)
71

72 to be linear.
In reality, this relationship is likely to be linear only across some as yet undefined, range.
Thereafter, the relationship probably becomes curvilinear, and adding more pools will not result in increased numbers of ages I and II trout.
Suzrunary of Results
1 The stndy streams are small.
Average late suniiier widths in 1979 ranged from .65 m (Vincent Cr.) to 3.60 m (Little Boulder Cr.).
Average depth ranged from 1 cm (Vincent Cr.) to 23 cm (Long Cr.).
Average flows ranged from 4 1/s (Lake Cr.) to 366 1/s (upper Vinegar Cr.).
2.
Rainbow trout were present at all sites except the NFS site on Little Boulder Cr. and the two sites on Lake Cr.
Speckled dace were present in Long Cr., Camp Cr., lower Vinegar Cr. and Vincent Cr.
Torrent sculpins were present in lower Vinegar Cr. and at the Elijah site in
Vincent Cr.
3.
Averaging across all streams, age 0 trout per 15.24 m site numbered
34.5 (35.8 g) in 1978, 14.7 (10.7 g) in 1979 and 13.6
(11.3 g) in 1980.
Ages I and II trout numbered 8.2 (114.1 g) in 1978, 18.0 (131.9 g) in
1979 and 10.7 (123.2 g) in 1980.
4.
Age 0 trout correlated positively with spaiiing-size gravel and aquatic vegetation and. negatively with elevation, water depth, velocity, flow, pool habitat characteristics (size, depth and cover), class I and class 2 pools.
Ages I and II trout correlated positively with flow, pool habitat characteristics, class 1 and class 2 pools, and negatively with spawning-size substrate.
5.
Age 0 and ages I and II trout occupied different habitats within the same stream.
Age 0 trout occupied shallow riffles over spawning-

size gravel and. were associated with aquatic vegetation.
Ages I and II trout occupied deep, high flow waters and deep, high quality pools.
73

74
DISCUSSION
The average number of age 0 trout per site within all study streams decreased from 34.5 in 1978 to 14.7 in 1979 and 13.6 in 1980.
Marked annual fluctuations in the number of age 0 trout are not unusual; such fluctuations typically reflect fluctuations in the number of returning steelheaxl.
According to data collected by Errol Claire (ODFw, pers.
comm.), the 1979 spawning season produced the least redd.s per mile within the John Day district since 1959 (Table 17).
Claire attributed the poor spawning season to a drought that occurred in 1974-75, which resuited in decreased survival of juvenile steelhead, and. to excessive harvest of steelhea from the Columbia H. during the autumn of 1978.
Though redds per mile increased from 1.0 in 1979 to 3.6 in 1980, a potential increase in the average number of age 0 trout per site was offset by the lack of successful spawning in two previously productive spawning streams, Vinegar Cr. and Tinker Cr.
The correlation analysis and the PCA associated age 0 trout in 1980 with no environmental variables other than particle distribution.
Because age 0 trout in 1979 and 1980 correlated positively with shallow, slow water, aquatic vegetation and spawning substrate, I suspect that possible correlations between age 0 trout in 1980 and. environmental variables were masked by the large numbers and ubiquity of age 0 trout in
1980.
The maximum fork lengths of ages 0, I, and II trout (63, 123 and
160 mm, respectively) within the study streams are comparable to lengths of rainbow trout captured from other streams in Oregon and Idaho.
Everest and Chapman (1972) recorded fork lengths of ages 0, I and II steel-

TabJ,e 17. Steelhead. spawning ground. suinznar
Day District, 1959 through l98O.
for a 22-year period, John
75
Year
Number of
Streams Surveyed
Miles
Surveyed Steelheth Redds
Redds Per
Mile
1959
1960
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
1970
1
2
9
1980
Mean
5-'
6
7
8,
6
10
8
10
11
13
19
23
25
23
27
21
8
16
25
14
14
21
30
35
34
-
18.7
53.5
76,4
38.0
34.0
59.8
75.5
102.7
78.7
92.1
55,3
14.5
22.0
24.5
26.5
30.5
43,5
45.0
69.0
78.0
74.5
91.5
6.o
22.5
22
4
21
8
69
19
76
58
18
41
21
4
12
42.9
30
60
56
56
47
51
68
141
61
108
194
166
184
216
266
344
1103
905
358
806
530
181
409
402
167
302
308
535
438
81
328
378.7
1.
Data were contributed by Errol Claire, District Biologist, Oregon
Department of' Fish and Wildlife, Canyon City.
2.
1968 was a low water year characterized by an absence of spring runoff.
Irrigation claimed entire stream flows on several tributaries, causing spawning escapement to be nil in some areas.
The poor count is reflected in redd per mile figures for that season.
3.
Counts were low due to high water in spring, which smoothed. out early redds and caused poor counting conditions.
4.
The low number of redds was attributed to
:
1) low survival of fingerlings and. yearlings due to drought conditions that occurred in 1974-1975, 2)heavy catches of steelhead. from the Columbia R.
during autumn of 1978.
5.3
4.4
8.9
5.2
7.1
7.3
1.0
3.6
7.2
7.4
8.8
6.8
6.9
7.1
6.1
7.6
16.0
11.6
438
8.9
8.1
8.0
7.6

76 head captured from two small Idaho streams at 60, 125 and 160 mm, respectively.
Hanson (1979) recorded average total lengths of age 1+ and age 11+ steelhead captured from two Idaho streams at 113 rrini and
158 nun, repsectively.
Osborn (1968) recorded lengths of ages 0 and I rainbow trout captured from Elder Cr. in central Oregon at 83 and 123 mm, respectively.
Osborn did not specify whether he measured standard length or fork length.
The similarity of the lengths of the different age classes indicates that growth rates within the study streams are comparable to growth rates in other streams governed by similar environmental conditions.
Age 0 trout in 1979 were 10 to 16 nun smaller than their counterparts in 1978 and. 1980 (Table 9).
The small size of age 0 trout in 1979 may be attributed to the protracted cold winter of 1979.
During a typical winter, less than 15 cm of snow remain on the ground by the end of
March (Highsmith 1973).
Upon entering the study area in late April of
1979, I discovered approximately 30 cm of snow along the Middle Fork
(1250 m) with drifts approximately a meter deep and progressively deeper snow at higher elevations.
In contrast, during the last week of April in 1980, I discovered no snow below approximately 1525 m.
I suspect that snow-melt and cool weather combined to minimize stream temperatures at least through late spring of 1979.
The incubation period of rainbow trout progressively increases from
19 days at 15.6°c to 31 days at 10.00C to 80 days at 4.4°c (Embody 1934).
Cool stream temperatures during the spring of 1979 probably caused delayed hatching and slowed growth of eggs and trout, thus contributing to the small size of age 0 trout in 1979.

77
Biomass per in2 was similar to that reported by Osborn (1968) and
Reiser and Bjornn (1979).
Osborn (1968) reported an average bioniass of rainbow trout from Elder Cr. at 7.7L g/m2.
Reiser and Bjornn (1979) reported biomass ranging from 3.0 to 6.1 g/m2 for age 0 steelhead and 1.9
to 13.0 g/in2 for age 1+ steelhead.
Within the study streams, biomass ranged from .01 to 3.29 g/in2 for age 0 trout and .85 to 8.19 g/1n2 for ages I and II trout (Table 18).
Excessive seeding by steelhead and rainbow trout may have contributed to migration of age 0 trout in Caribou Cr. between the mark and recapture periods in 1980.
In streams excessively seeded by spamers, steelhead fry typically migrate out of the headwater streams into larger streams and rivers (Everest 1973); Erman and Leidy 1975).
Caribou Cr.
was one of the smaller streams studied (Table 1), yet the density of age
0 trout in Caribou Cr. was consistently higher than that of any other stream during 1978 to 1980, except Tinker Cr. in 1979 (Table ik3).
In overseeded streams, larger, earlier-emerging fry outcompete smaller, later-emerging fry for limited food and space (Edmundson, Everest and
Chapman 1968).
The larger fry probably force the smaller fry to relocate domstream.
Normally, summer low flows would tend to restrict migration in Caribou Cr., but the severe afternoon thundershowers that occurred during the summer of 1980 caused the discharge of Caribou Cr. to increase substantially, thus permitting downstream migration of age 0 trout.
Suspecting that migration had occurred, I used the removal method to calculate additional estimates of population size in Caribou Cr.
(As time permitted, I also used the removal method to estimate population

Table 18.
Number and biomass per square meter of age 0 and ages I and.
II trout.
78
Stream
Ragged Cr.
Long Cr.
Little Boulder Cr.
Caribou Cr.
Camp Cr.
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Little Butte Cr., w.f.
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Vincent Cr.1
Tinker Cr.
Lake Cr.
AU Streams, Mean2
Ragged Cr.
Long Cr.
Little Boulder Cr.
Caribou Cr.
Camp Cr.
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Little Butte Cr., w.f.
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Vincent Cr.1
Tinker Cr.
Lake Cr.
All Streams, Mean2
I'Iuinber per m2
1978 1979 1980
Bi..omass per
1978 1979 1980
1.0i4.
1,47
.00
.00
AgeO
.38
.66
.01
1.62
.00
.00
.63
.00
.04
.01
.28
.89
1.81
1.49
.00
1.82
.09
.10
1.95
.09
.43
.87
1.77
1.97
.00
.57
.78
.72
.02
.71
.04
.01
.38
1.00
.52
-
.00
.09
-
.65
.00
.32
.20
.00
.46
.72
.16
.00
.00
.00
2.48
5.45
-
2.89
.00
2.39
.00
-
.00
.00
-
.00
.00
1.02
.36
1.03
.44
.65
.32
Ages land.
II
.13
.44
.26
1.95
.27
.39
.09
.41
.95
.62
.83
.44
.23
.37
.30
2.82
5.01
2.03
7.50
3.95
4.19
1.55
5.22
5.46
2.34
8.19
2.47
4.13
4.59
.29
.07
.15
1.39
.74
.85
.06
.09
.15
.16
.16
.23
-
.46
.00
-
2.87
1.98
1.29
.85
.92
-
2.37
3.06
3.41
5.95
19.02
11.84
.51
.09
1.75
5.45
-
.00
.00
-
.00
.00
3.07
3.30
3.49
.21
.45
.29

79
Table 18.
(continued)
1978
Total Bioniass per in2
1979 1980 Stream
Ragged Cr.
Long Cr.
Little Boulder Cr.
Caribou Cr.
Camp Cr.
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Little Butte Cr., w.f.
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Vincent Cr.1
Tinker Cr.
Lake Cr.
All Streams, Mean2
3,148
6.63
14.82
3.32
7.143
1.39
1.61
-
-
-
14,10
2.03
7.50
14.20
5.79
3.12
.75
1.12
2.37
6.141
19.02
L,.Li.1
.00
3.77
2.58
8.19
2.75
14.85
14.61
1.56
1.57
3.22
3.141
114.32
5,14.5
.00
3.82
1.
2.
The table entries for Vincent Cr. are high because three o' the five sites on Vincent Cr. were dry at the time stream widths were ineasu.red..
Average values for all streams, excluding Vincent Cr. and Lake Cr.

size at other sites).
The removal method consistently provided lower estimates of population size and more narrow confidence intervals than did. the mark and recapture method (Table 9 and Table 10).
The removal method and the Petersen method differed in other respects.
The removal method was unable to provide estimates for those sites where the number of fish captured on a latter pass exceeded the number captured on a former pass.
When dealing with small populations, such as those encountered within these headwater streams, one is likely to capture more individuals in a latter pass than in a former pass.
The
Petersen estimate is not as dependent upon the number of fish captured, as long as a sufficient proportion of the marked sub-population is recaptured.
In this respect, the Petersen method is better suited to the sampling of small population.
Traditionally, researchers have continued to sample until less than
40 or 50% of the fish captured in a former pass are captured in a latter pass.
At least 2, and usually 3 to 5 passes are required before this criterion is satisfied.
Fish captured in the final passes may have been shocked repeatedly, and repeated shocking may contribute to undue stress or mortality.
Meanwhile, fish previously captured and placed in holding buckets are subjected to crowding, and in hot weather, to warming water and decreasing amounts of dissolved oxygen.
The Petersen method keeps fewer fish out of the stream for prolonged periods of time.
The advantage of the removal method is that it requires only one trip to the sampling area, thus conserving time and travel expenses.
The mark and recapture method requires two trips to the sampling area.
In addition, the removal method eliminates concern for immigration, emigration, birth and mortality between mark and recapture occasions.

A closed population is one of' the critical assumptions of the Petersen method.
In summary, the choice between the Petersen and removal methods depends upon a variety of factors, including population size and mobility, weather and budget.
The summer water temperatures maxima that I recorded seldom exceeded critical levels for trout.
The upper lethal limit for rainbow trout ranges from 23.9°C to 29.'4°C, depending primarily upon the oxygen content of the water and the temperatures to which the trout are accustomed
(Bowers, et al. 1979; McAfee 1966).
I recorded summer maxima of 23.8°C in 1979 and 20.0°C in 1978.
August and early September are usually the hottest months of the year, and then stream temperatures are most apt to rise to critical levels for trout.
During the summer of 1978, rainy and cool weather during late August and early September moderated temperature maxima.
In contrast, the summer of 1979 was hot and dry through the middle of
September.
I emphasize that because I recorded water temperatures only while working at a site, such temperatures may not reflect the actual summer maxima.
More reliable temperature records would have more narrowly defined the degree of association between temperature maxima and. trout population size.
The correlation analysis, PCA and multiple regression analysis revealed that age 0 and ages I and II trout were occupying different habitat within the same stream.
Age 0 trout were associated with slow, shallow water and aquatic vegetation.
Ages I and II trout were associated with deep water, areas of higher flow and deep, high quality pools.

The association between age 0 trout and shallow water does not necessarily reflect a preference by the age 0 trout for shallow water, rather, the larger ages I and II trout probably competitively excluded the smaller age 0 trout from the deeper water and deep, high quality pools.
The age 0 trout were simply accepting whatever the ages I and. II trout would give them.
Butler anti Haw-t.horne (1968) documented competitive exclusion by larger trout, finding that larger (dominant) brook (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout aggresively prevented smaller (sub-dominant) trout from occupying choice feeding stations in Sagehen Cr. in California.
Saunders and Smith (1962) and others have discovered a similar partitioning of habitats between fingerlings and larger trout.
Saunders and Smith (1962) found age 0 trout mainly in riffles and larger trout in
"flat" areas with "hiding places" and in pools.
Gunderson (1968) discovered that the number and weight of smaller (5 to 10 cm) brown trout was greater in the wide, flat channel in the grazed section of a Montana stream, whereas the number and weight of brown trout 15 cm or longer was greater in the deeper main channel.
Everest and Chapman (1972) found that most age 0 steeThead. inhabited depths less than 15 cm and velocities less than .15 ra/sec, and that most age I steelhead. inhabited, depths between 60 and 75 cm and near-bottom velocities between .15 and .30
rn/sec in two small Idaho streams.
The relationship between increasing pool size, depth and quality and increasing numbers of ages I and II trout probably deviates from the linearity of models and Y2 and becomes curvilinear as increasing numbers of pools are added to the stream.
Newhouse (unpubi.) recognized

this curvilinear relationship and. would not assign a 5-point pool rating to a length of stream if the nuin'ber of class 1 pools exceeded 65 to 75% of the stream area.
If pools inundate that proportion of stream that would otherwise be maintained as riffles, then the most important production area for aquatic insects, a major constituent of the diet of trout, will have been lost (Pfeifer and McDiffet 1975, Kevern and Ball
1965, Reiser and Bjornn 1979).
The percentage of riparian zone covered with cattle hoof marks correlated positively with bank cutting, percentage of bottom si2t, depth and pool depth, and negatively with streamside cover.
Historically, cattle have altered stream channels by denuding the riparian vegetation and by breaking down the banks, which causes silt to enter the stream channel (Behnke 1978,1977; Chapman 1933; Crouch 1978; EPA 1977; Lusby
1970; Miller 1972; Platts 1978, 1975; Severson and Boldt 1978; Trout Unlimited, Inc. 1979; Winegar 1977, 1975).
The silt that washes into the stream fills interstices within the substrate, causing reduced wintering habitat for salnionids and. reduced production of aquatic insects (Corione and Kelley 1961; Hansen 1971; Karr and. Schiosser 1978; Ritchie 1972).
Over time, bank erosion and resultant siltation causes the stream channel -to widen and become more shallow (Bowers, et al. 1979; Gunderson
1968; Thomas, et al. 1979).
The positive correlation between cattle hoof marks and. increased depth is inconsistent with the stream channel becoming wider and. more shallow.
Gunderson (1968) also found that average pooi and "run" depth was greater in a grazed section of a Montana stream, although average riffle depth was greater in an ungrazed section.
Because the results of my study lead. to ambiguous results with respect to hoof marks, age 0

trout and. channel morphology, I suggest that hoof mark data collected in a single season may be an inadequate measure of cattle activity.
In addition, the watersheds along the Middle Fork and the John Day R. have been openly grazed for at least the past 100 years (Brogan 1977) so that no ungrazed watersheds currently exist to make possible a comparison between grazed and ungrazed watersheds.
Certainly, this inconsistency points strongly to the need for a more controlled study of the relationships between cattle grazing, stream morphology and trout populations within the study area.
1.
Recommendations
Because the sizes of the trout populations varied by as much as
119% from 1978 to 1980, I believe that 3 years of population data do not adequately describe the sizes of the trout populations within these streams.
I recommend that 6 to 9 years of baseline data be collected before the USFS implements the different grazing strategies.
2.
The objectives of the Validation Project as stated in "Supplement
Number 187 to Master Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and Oregon State University" are (1) to determine how implementation of different grazing strategies would alter the species composition and standing crop of the stream fishery, and (2) to determine how changes in water quality and flow rought by cattle grazing would affect the fish populations.
Achievement of the objectives may not be commensurate with the 10 years alloted. for the study (1976-1985).
Achievement of the objectives will be hindered by: (1) insufficient baseline data regarding the size and biomass of the trout populations, due to the marked varia-

bility in population size from year to year, and (2) the inadequate allocation of number of years for the fish populations to respond to the implementation of different grazing strategies.
1 reconunend. that another 3 to 6 years of baseline data be collected before the grazing strategies are implemented.
Afterward, allow at least 2 to 3 years for the fish populations to respond to the grazing strategies, and then collect follow-up data for 6 or 7 years.
The fish populations will require at least 2 to 3 years to respond to the environinental changes wrought by the grazing strategies.
For example, grass must seed in to stabilize broken banks, and spring freshets must flush exisiting silt from the stream channels.
The complex life cycles of anadromous salmonids prohibit rapid response to the insidious changes in habitat wrought by different grazing strategies.
3.
Increasing the number of deep, high quality pools should increase the carrying capacity of the streams with respect to ages I and II trout.
The addition of log sills could be used to create pool habitat (Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans 1980; ODFW 1979; Tarzwell 1936), but log sills provide only a temporary means of increasing the amount of pool habitat.
Unless the stream banks are stabilized, silt will continue to enter the channels, and over the years, this silt will gradually fill the pools created beneath the log sills.
Caribou Cr. was one of the smallest streams surveyed, yet it consistently produced higher numbers and densities of age 0 trout than any other stream.
Further research is needed to determine why Caribou Cr.
consistently produces such large numbers of trout fingerlings.

5.
I analyzed aquatic habitat data only in conjunction with trout population data.
The habitat data alone reveals much about differences among the streams.
The USFS might consider investigating how different grazing strategies affect aquatic habitat, exclusive of biological data.
6.
Trout subjected to electroshocking, netting, handling, weighing, measuring, fin-clipping and. scale removal are extremely stressed.
These fish immediately seek cover after being returned to the stream.
The effects of stress linger for several hours, however, and a portion of the stressed trout usually emigrate during the first cover of darkness (Fred
Everest, personal communication, USFS, Corvallis, OR).
Emigration of marked fish would cause an inflated mark-recapture estimate.
If widespread emigration occurred between the mark and recapture periods, then the sizes of populations at my study sites were overestimated.
I cannot judge whether or not such emigration occurred (except in Caribou Cr. during 1980).
Furthermore, if such emigration occurred,
I cannot judge whether it occurred at all sites or few sites.
To circuinvent the question of whether one is sampling a closed or open population,
Everest suggests using the 2-pass removal method (Zippin 1958) to sample fish populations in small streams.

LITERATURE CITED
Alderfer, R. B., and. R. R. Robinson.
1947.
Runoff from pastures in relation to grazing intensity and soil compaction.
J. Am. Soc. Agron.
39:948-958.
Bagenal, T. B., ed.
1978.
fresh Waters.
Methods for assessment of fish production in
Blackwell Scientific Publications, London.
365 pp.
Bailey, N. J. J.
1951.
from recapture data.
On estimating the size of mobile populations
Biometrika 38:293-306.
Behnke, F. J.
1977.
Livestock grazing impact on stream fisheries: problems and suggested solutions.
In Proceedings, symposium livestock-fisheries.
(Unpubi.).
Sparks, Nev.
1978.
Grazing and the riparian zone: impact on aquatic values.
sium.
In Lowland river and stream habitat in Colorado: a sympo-
W. D. Graul and S. J. Bissell (Tech. Coordinators).
Chap. Wildl. Soc. and. Cob. Audobon Council.
195 pp.
Binne, N. A.
1977.
streams.
Evaluation of habitat quality in Wyoming trout
In Symposium proceedings, Classification, inventory, and analysis of fish and wildlife habitats.
A. Marmeistein (Gen.
Chairman).
USD1 Fish and. Wildi. Ser.
FWS/OBS-78/76, Washington,
D. C.
Binns, N. A., and F. M. Eiserinan.
1979.
Quantification of fluvial trout habitat in Wyoming.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
108(3):215-228.
Bjorim, T. C.
1965.
Idaho Stream.
The production of juvenile steelhead trout in an
In Proceedings, L5th Annual Coaf. of Western Assoc.
of State Fish and Game Comm.
Boussu, N. F.
1954.
Relationship between trout populations and cover on a small stream.
J. Wildi. Manage.
18:229-239.
Bowers, W., B. Hosford, A. Oakley, and. C. Bond.
1979.
Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands the great basin of southeastern Oregon - native trout.
USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-84.
Pac.
Northwest For, and Range Ecp. Stn., Portland, OR.
16 pp.
Brogan, P. F.
1977.
East of the Cascades.
Binford. and. Nort, Portland.
304 pp.
Butler, R. L., and V. N. Hawthorne.
1968.
The reactions of dominant trout to changes in overhead cover.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
97:37-
41.

Chandler, R F., Jr.
1940.
The influence of grazing upon certain soil and limatic conditions in farm woodlands.
J. Amer. Soc. Agron.
32:216-230.
Chapman, D. G.
1951.
Some properties of the hypergeometric distribution with applications to zoological sample censuses.
Univ. Calif.
Publ. Stat.
iiji-i6o.
y Chapman, D. W.
1966.
Food and space as regulators of salmonid. populations in streams.
Am. Nat.
100:345-357.
Chapman, H. H.
1933.
sheds.
Influence of overgrazing on erosion and water-
Civil Engineering 3(2):74-78.
Compton, L. V.
1939.
Wildlife and the range.
Soil Conserv.
4(9):215-
217.
Cooper, J. L.
1977.
A technique for evaluating and predicting the impact of grazing on stream channels.
Draft Copy.
USDA For. Serv.
Idaho Panhandle Nat. For., P. 0. Box 310, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814.
25 pp.
Cord.one, A. J., and D. W. Kelley.
1961.
The influence of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams.
Calif. Fish and Game.
47:189-228.
Crouch, G. L.
1978.
Effects of protection from livestock grazing on a bottomland. wildlife habitat in northeastern Colorado.
In Lowland river and stream habitat in Colorado: a symposium.
W. D. Graul and
S. J. Bissell (Tech, Coordinators).
Cob. Chap. Wildi. Soc. and
Cob. Audobon Council.
195 pp.
Edmundson, E., F. H. Everest, and D. W. Chapman.
1968.
Permanence of station in juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout.
J. Fish.
Res. Bd. Can.
25:1453-1464.
Embody, G. C.
1934.
Relations of temperature to the incubation periods of four species of trout.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
64:281-291.
Environmental Protection Agency.
1977.
Impact of nearstream vegetation and stream morphology on water auality and stream biota.
EPA-600/
3-77-097.
Env. Res. Lab., Office of Res. and Dev., Athens, GA
30605.
84 pp.
Erman, D. C., and G. R. Leidy.
1975.
Domstream movement of rainbow trout in a tributary of Sagehen Creek, under permanent and intermittent flow.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
1O4(3):467-473.
Everest, F. H.
1978, Anadromous fish habitat and forest managementeconomic considerations.
In Proceedings of Western Assoc. of Fish and Wildl. Agencies and Western Div. Am. Fish. Soc.
Fifty-eighth
Ann. Conf.
USDA For. Ser.

Everest, F. H., and. D. W. Chapman.
1972.
Habitat selection and. spatial interaction by juvenile chinook salmon and. steelhead trout in two
Idaho streams.
J. Fish. Res. Bd.. Can.
29(1):91-100.
Everhart, W. H., A. W. Eipper, and W. D. Youngs.
1975.
Principles of fishery science.
Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca.
288 pp.
Franklin, J. F., and. Dyrness, C. T.
1969.
Vegetation of Oregon and.
Washington.
USDA For. Ser, Res. Pap. PNW-80.
Pacific Northwest
For. and. Range Exp. Stn.
Portland, OR.
216 pp.
Government of Canada, Fisheries and. Oceans, Prov. of British Columbia,
Kerr, Wood., Leid.al Associates, Ltd., D. B. Lister and. Associates,
Ltd.
1980.
Stream enhancement guide.
Prov. of British Columbia,
Ministry of Environment, Fish and. Wild.l. Branch, 400, 1019 Wharf
St., Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 2Y9.
96 pp.
Graul, W. D., and S. J. Bissell (Tech. Coordinators).
1978.
Lowland.
river and stream habitat in Colorado: a symposium.
Cob. Chap.
Wildi. Soc. and Cob. Audobon Council.
195 pp.
Gunderson, D. H.
1968.
Floodplain use related to stream morphology and.
fish populations.
J. Wildl. Manage.
32(3):507-514.
Hansen, E. A.
1971.
Sediment in a Michigan trout stream, its source, movement and. some effects on fish habitat.
USDA For. Ser. Res.
Pap. NC-59.
North Central For. Exp. Stn.
Cadillac, Mich.
14 pp.
Hanson, D. L.
1977.
Habitat selection and spatial interaction in allopatric and sympatric populations of cutthroat and. steelhead trout.
Ph. D. Thesis.
Univ. Idaho, Moscow.
66 pp.
Herrington, R. B., and D. K. Dunham.
1967.
A technique for sampling general fish habitat characteristics of streams.
USDA For. Ser.
Res. Pap. INT-41.
Intermountain Fore and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden,
UT.
12 pp.
Highsmith, R. N., ad.
1973.
Atlas of the Pacific Northwest.
Oregon
St. Univ. Press.
Corvallis, OR 97331.
128 pp.
Hoar, W. D.
1976.
Smolt transformation: evolution, behaviour, and. physiology.
J. Fish. Res. Bd.. Can.
33:1234-1252.
Joint Task Force of the Western Regional Planning Committee.
1977.
Task force report, forest range, wildlife, and fisheries habitat development.
USDA WRPC-RPG-2.
27 pp.
Karr, J. H., and I. J. Schlosser.
1978.
Water resources and. the landwater interface.
Science 2O1(07/21):229-234.

Kevern, N. R.., and R. C. Ball.
1965.
Primary productivity and energy relationships in artificial streams.
Limnol. and Ocean.
10:74-87.
Lewis, S. L.
1969.
Physical factors influencing fish populations in pools of a trout stream.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
98(1):14-19.
Lorz, H. W.
1974.
schutes River.
Ecology and management of brown trout in Little De-
Fishery Res. Rep. No. 8.
vallis, OR 97330.
49 pp.
Oregon Wild.l. Comm., Cor-
Lusby, G. C.
1970.
Hydrologic and biotic effects of grazing v. nongrazing near Grand Junction, Colorado.
J. Range Manage.
23:256-
260.
McAffee, W. R.
1966.
Rainbow trout.
In A. Calhoun, ed.
ies management.
Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game.
Inland fisher-
546 pp.
McCrimraon, H., and W. Kwain.
1966.
Use of overhead cover by rainbow trout exposed to a series of light intensities.
J. Fish. Res, Bd.
Can.
23(7) :983-990.
Miller, J. N.
1972.
Dec. :107-111.
The nibbling away of the West.
Reader's Digest.
Mullen, I. D.
1978.
Geology of the Greenhorn Mountains, northeastern
Oregon.
N. S. Thesis.
Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.
65 pp.
Neter, J., and W. Wasserman.
1974.
Applied linear statistical models.
Richard D. Irwin, md., Homewood, IL 60430.
842 pp.
Newhouse, H. W.
(Unpubi. Rep.).
The Kootenai method for fish habitat suitability assessment.
Nez Perce Nat. For.,. 707 Maple St., Grangeyule, 83530.
7 pp.
Nie, N. H., C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. H.- Bent.
1975.
Statistical package for the social sciences.
McGraw-Hill
Book Co., San Francisco.
675 pp.
Osborn, C. E.
1968.
A population study of the rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in a central Oregon stream.
M. S. Thesis.
Oregon State
Univ., Corvallis.
65 pp.
Pfankuch, D. J.
1975.
evaluation.
Stream reach inventory and channel stability
USDA For. Ser. Northern Region, Missoula, MT.
26 pp.
Pfeifer, R. F., and. W. F. McDiffett.
1975.
Some factors affecting primary productivity of stream riffle communities.
Arch. Hydrobiol.
75(3) :306-317.
Pixnentel, R. A.
1979.
Morphometrics:The multivariate analysis of biological data.
Kendall/Hunt, Iowa.
276 pp.

91
Platte, W. S.
1975.
The effects of livestock grazing in high mountain meadows on aquatic environments, streamside environments, and fisheries.
Research project proposal.
Interniountain For, and. Range
Exp. Stn., Boise.
6 pp.
1978.
Livestock interactions with fish and. aquatic environments: problems in evaluation.
In Transactions of the 43rd
North Am. Wildl, and Natural Res. Conf.
Wildi. Manage. Inst.,
Washington, C. C.
20 pp.
Platts, W. S., and F. B. Partridge.
1978.
Rearing of chinook salmon in tributaries of the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho.
USDA For. Ser.
Res. Pap. INT-205.
Intermountain For, and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden,
UT 84401.
11 pp.
Reiser, D. W., and T. C. Bjornn.
1979.
Influence of forest and rangeland. management of anadroraous fish habitat in western North America.
Habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids.
USDA For. Ser. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-96.
Pacific Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,
Portland, OR.
54 pp.
Ricker, W. E.
1937.
The concept of confidence or fiducial limits applied to the Poisson frequency distribution.
J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
32:349-356.
-.
1958.
Handbook of computations for biological statistics of fish populations.
Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., No. 119.
300 pp.
Ritchie, J. C.
1972.
Sediment, fish, and fish habitat.
Water Cons.
27:124-125.
J. Soil and
Saunders, J. W., and M. W. Smith.
1962.
Physical alteration of stream habitat to improve trout production.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
91:
185-188.
Sartz, R. S., and D. N. Toistead.
1974.
Effect of grazing on runoff from two small watersheds in southwestern Wisconsin.
Water Resour.
Res.
10:354-356.
Seber, G. A. F.
1973.
parameters.
The estimation of animal abundance and related
Hafner Press, New York.
506 pp.
Severson, K.E., and C. B. Boldt.
1978.
Cattle, wildlife, and riparian habitats in the western Dakotas.
In Management and use of northern plains rangeland.
Reg. Rangeland Symp.
Bismark, N. Dakota,
Feb. 27-28.
(N. Dak. St. Univ., Dickinson).
142 pp.
Snedecor, G. W., and N. G. Cochran.
1967.
Statistical methods.
Iowa
St. Univ. Press, Ames.
593 pp.

92
Stewart, P. A.
1970.
Physical factors influencing trout density in a small stream.
Ph. D, Thesis.
Colorado St. Univ., Fort Collins.
78 pp.
Tarzwell, C. N.
1936.
Experimental evidence on the value of trout stream improvement in Michigan.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
66:177-
187.
Thomas, J. W., C. Maser, and J. E. Rodick.
1979.
Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands the great basin of southeastern Oregon - riparian zones.
USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-80.
Pacific
Northwest For, and. Range Exp. Stn., Portland, OR.
18 pp.
Trout Unlimited, Inc.
1979.
Proceedings of the forum - grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems.
0. B. Cope, ed.
Trout Unlimited, Inc.
94 pp.
Van Doren, C. A., W. L. Burlison, J. E. Gard, and R. F. Fuelleman.
1940.
Effect of soil treatment and grazing management on the productivity, erosion and runoff from pasture land.
J. Amer. Soc.
Agron.
32:877-887.
Winegar, H.
1975.
30(11) :6-7.
Camp Creek:rebirth of a section.
Oreg. Wildi.
1977.
Camp Creek channel fencing - plant, wildlife, soil, and water response.
Rangeman's Journal.
4(1):1O-12.
Zippin, C.
1958.
The removal method of population estimation.
J.
Wildi. Manage.
22:82-90.

APPENDICES

93
APPENDIX A
Locatior of the study sites.
Sites are oaered as proceeding doistrean and correspond with the map in Figure 1.
Sites were assigned names instead of numbers.
Ragged Creek
Annabelle
USFS 2
USFS 1
Cathie
Barbie
Long Creek
Ester
Diane
Francine
USFS 2
USFS 1
Little Boulder Creek
USFS 1
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Caribou Creek
Melody
Lisa
Karen
USFS 2
USFS 1
Camp Creek
Pain
Obadiah
Nancy
Queenie
Rachel
Little Butte Creek, 1.f.
Tracy
Sheila
USFS 2
USFS I
Little Butte Creek, r.f.
Veronica
Ursula
USFS 2
USFS 1
Vinegar Creek
Wanda
Xavier
Yolanda
ZoAnne
Andrew
Vincent Creek
Bartholomew
Chris
David
Elijah
Fred
Tinker Creek
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Kevin
Lake Creek
Larry
Micah
T1OS/R33E/Sec.
2
T1OS/R33E/Sec.
1
T1OS/R33E/Sec.
1
T1OS/R33E/Sec.
36
T1OS/R33E/Sec.
36
T11S/R31E/Sec.
T11S/R31E/Sec.
14
14
T11S/R31E/Sec.
14
T11S/R31E/Sec.
14
T11S/R31E/Sec.
14
T1OS/R34E/Sec.
35
T1OS/R34E/Sec.
35
T1OS/R34E/Sec.
35
T1OS/R34E/Sec.
35
T1OS/R34E/Sec.
33
T11S/R34E/Sec.
12
T11S/R34E/Sec.
12
T11S/R345/Sec.
12
T11S/R34E/Sec 12
T11S/R34E/Sec.
12
T11S/R32E/Sec.
33
T11S/R32E/Sec.
35
T11S/R325/Sec.
35
T11S/P.32E/Sec.
34
T11S/R32E/Sec.
34
T11S/R34E/Sec.
10
TIIS/R345/Sec.
10
TllS/R34E/Sec.
10
T11S/R34E/Sec.
10
T11S/R34E/Sec.
16
T11S/RS4E/Sec.
16
T11S/R34EJSec.
9
T11S/R34E/Sec.
9
T1OS/R3SE/Sec.
29
T1OS/R3SE/Sec.
29
TIIS/R3SE/Sec.
17
T11S/R3SE/Sec.
17
Tl1S/R33E/Sec 17
T1IS/R3SE/Sec.
18
Tl1S/P33E/Sec.
T11S/R3SE/Sec.
18
T11S/R3SE/Sec.
18
T11S/R3SE/Sec.
18
13
T12S/R32E/Sec.
S
T12S/R32E/Sec.
S
TI2S/R32E/Sec.
5
T12S/R32E/Sec.
S fl2S/R325/Sec.
5
T12S/R32E/Sec.
T1ZS/R32E/Sec.
6
6

APPENDIX B
Fork 1ength-frequency distributions for juvenile steelhead and rainbow trout captured from study streams during 1978-1980.
Arrows irdicate the approximate divisions between age classes 0, I, II, and. 111+.
9L.

95
Z".
10
:
20
7'
20
10
20
60
1
60 100 120
I
160 Length ra)
6o
30 100 r-i
I
120
1
60
Lrith L'.!fl)
130 jY
60 60
I
100
120
10
160

C'-.
10
60 nr
0 100 120
L0
160
6/9 -6' 03 rt.
r
140 enth (Clrn)
20
I
-.3
rU
L.
0 H fl
-4
3 tO
-4
60 30 n
100 nnn r r
120 140
Long Cr.
'/1 1-7/12
-.1.
:30
Ler'3
('art)

97
20 to
20
Z20 a
20
-a
20 tO
-44D
O $0 tOO 120 1
160
S/i09/12
Lanth (nun)
20 60 so too 120 tLO tóo Len
)
60 So too 120
:LO
160 Le (tm)

00
-
U
0 30 :00
1
1
/L6-9/u z
20
Caribou Cr.
Appendix B (continued)

Z0
10 -
20 40
60 80
.00
120 r
140 fl
.60
Lerh (1978)
201 to
20 10
80 200 120 240
7/3 -8/E
Lenth (mm)
20
10.
z
L
20 40
60 80 100
Camp Cr.
120
I
240
Appendix B (continued)
I
160 Ler.th ()

C'.-
3
3
3
20 40 60
'1
30 fl_rfl
100 120 140 160
-
Lerh ()
3'.
20
-J
3
3
20 40 6o 30
.cc
y
120
Y
60
Lerth ()
3
3
\ C.O
10
10
4030
100 120 40 :6o
Lh

20
10
60 80 r-i pri
100 120
10
160
7/29-3/25
Leih (ma)
20 i
10
20 60
30 100 120
10
160
?/127/29
Leflth (am)
,.1
20
IC
20 0 60 30 200 1CC
L0
160
7/2-7/26
Lergth (am)

102
:4
0
20
.1
J
80 tOO i0 nn
140
160 V
200
£.nth (mm)
0'
0
=
I
20 fl-i
60
1 n
80 100
Vinegar Cr.
120
Appendix B (continued)
140 160
Lert
(mm)

20
1) z
10
20 40 60 80
LnJI
100 120 140 y
8/1-8/8
Lertt ()
103
20 to
20 0 öQ 0 100 120
Vincent Cr.
Append.ix B (continu.)
Lnth (ms)

104
30
:: 20
10
20
60 lao 120 1 160 Lengti (1am) tç
Hi
20 -0 60
-
o ico izo
Tinker Cr.
AppeMix B (coiitinued)
160 (nt)

105
Appendix C
Table of mark-recapture data used to estimate population sizes from
1978 to 1980.
Ninety-five percent confidence limits are enclosed within parentheses.

-
N1
Stream/Site
Ragged Cr.
Annahelle
NFSU
NFSI.
CatIkie
Oarbie
Average
1.01kg Ci'.
Pster
Iliane
Fi'ancinc
NFSU
NFSL,
Average
Little Houlder Cr.
NFSLI
Gwen
Heather
Janet
Iris
Average
0
4
42
82
153
70
57
43
180
20
10
62
Caribou Cr.
tleIody
Karen
NPSII
IWSL.
Average
16
46
57
37
55
42
Lamp Cr.
0l,adjak
Pam
Nancy
Qucenic
Ilacliel
Average
28
3
36
45
74
38
59
62
96
78
74
74
(13 68)
(1 7)
(20 73)
(21
(37
110)
165'
(25
138)
(12 43)
(81 451)
(15 80)
(4
-
17)
(1
---
- 6)
(17 105)
(49-
146)
(53 270)
(8 36)
(26 89)
(39 87)
(24 60)
(34 92)
(31 120)
(38
-
107)
(54 193)
(35 193)
(43
N
21
1
34
40
70
33
0
1
15
47
132
49
16
46
56
36
47
40
57
48
78
58
48
58
51
23
168
8
7
51
6
20
12
7
2
9
0
3
27
35
21
22
0
0
1
1
8
2
2
13
18
20
26
16
N1,2
5
4
4
7
2
2
12
36 ii
1
0
12
3
22
7
3
23
32
26
24
33
8
3(1
28
27
33
N1
9
2
12
12
19
Appendix C
1978
Li
14
3
17
17
21
4
2
6
4
S
0
6
13
31
25
17
12
40
12
5
4
16
32
21
25
22
28
31
15
42
2
10
18
16
15
3
0
4
2
1
0
1
3
13
1
%
8
14
8
4
21
1.00
1.00
.98
.97
.85
.95
.00
.33
.36
.57
.86
.69
.90
.53
.93
.67
.41
.85
.97
.78
.81
.74
.4
.78
.75
.20
.94
.89
.94
.89
.00
.67
.64
.43
.14
.31
.10
.47
.07
.22
.35
.15
.03
.22
.19
.26
.36
.22
.00
.00
.02
.03
.15
.05
Age1,
2
.25
.80
.06
.11
.06
.11
Capture
Date
8/8
8/8
8/8
8/5
8/5
8/11
8/9
8/11
7/26
7/28
8/10
8/10
8/10
9/6
9/6
8/16
8/16
8/26
8/16
8/16
8/31
8/31
8/29
8/31
8/31
Recapture
Date
8/24
8/19
8/19
8/19
8/19
8/23
8/23
8/23
8/9
8/9
8/24
8/24
8/24
9/12
9/12
8/24
8/24
9/11
8126
8/26
9/5
9/5
9/5
9/6
9/6

Stream/Site
Little Butte Cr.
Tracy
Sheila
NISU
HFSI.
Average
T
Lf.
1
2
4
1
2
Little Butte Cr., r.f.
Veronica 3
Ursula
NESII
NFSI.
4
36
Average
14
(
(0
-
4)
2)
4)
(
(I
(J
(13
(2
- 7)
- 4)
90)
11
0
0
0
0
0 o
32
11
0
0
11
3
0
3
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
Appendix C (continued)
1978
R
1'2 I
A go
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2
2
9
1
3
1
11 tO
2
0
2
0
.00
.00
.89
1.00
.79
A ge1.2
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.11
.00
.21
Capture
Date
8/17
8/17
7/29
7/29
8/17
8/17
7/29
7/29
Recapture
Date
8/25
8/25
8/17
8/17
8/25
8/25
8/17
8/17
I-..
0

Stream/ScNT
Cr., i
Tracy
SheIla
0
5
NFSLI
NFSI.
Average
3
0
2
(
(I
-
8)
3
-_
Cr.,
Veronica
Ursula
21
0
NFSU
33
1WSL
Average
75
32 r.f.
(6 - 38)
(12 58)
(25 134)
Vinegar Cr.
(upper)
Wanda
Zavier
Average
17
8
14
Vinegar Cr.
Yolanda
ZoAnne
Andrcw
Average
(lower)
52
91
70
71
(
37)
(12 58)
(3!
-
102) 18
(41
- 243) 42
(3S 118) 35
32
14
.0
26
72
28
0
0
0
Vincent Cr.
Bartholomew 0
CIrjs
(1 flavid 125
fred
17
0
Average 28
Tinker
Cr.
Gary hebrew isaiah
John kevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry llieah
Average
64
54
43
49
72
57
0
1)
0
___
(91
(10
_--
176)
31)
(19 114) 61
(33 101) 50
(24
-
118) 4
(42 137) 48
(44
-
123) 72
55
---
---
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
3
- - -
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0
2
0
3
17
8
14
7
3
4
7
0
Appendix a (continued)
1979 McR
Recapture
::ii
-
37)
(12
-
58)
(6
-
34)
(1'
-
43)
(19 68)
49 (IS 39)
(Ia
35) 35 (19 70)
39
---
---
---
---
---
0
0
125
17
0
28
-
176)
(tO 31)
Hf
C1
1
0
8
2
3 ft
1
0
1
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.00
.50
.25
.00
.33
.00
.50
.75
.00
.67
7/12
7/12
7/10
7/10
7/23
7/23
7/23
7/23 u1
7/12 7125
[3
13
T
0 12
-
.69
.31
4
14
0
1
-
-
-
-
.00
.80
.00
.20
7/12
7/12
7/25
7/25 (jj
-
.96
.04
7/12 7/25
.87
.13
0
0
6
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
(1
0
5
5
7
0
0
9
15
1
0
0
18
7
14
0
0
0
0
0
65
16
0
0
0
(18 lii))
3
(30 90) 4
(23
1
II
10 I 2 ill)
1
(0 1)
16 17 S 1
(28 90)
(
(0
4) 26
24
24
23
12
11
2
I
(44
-
123)
---
---
0
2
0
0
0
---
---
)
28
0
0
37
(I
0
14
0
0
0
0
(1
12
9
18
13
24
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
72
13
0
1)
0
9
1
9
6
5
37
12
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
.95
.92
.98
.98
1.00
.97
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.35
.46
.45
.00
.00
.00
.01)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.65
.54
.55
.00
.00
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
.05
.08
.02
.02
.00
.03
.00
.00
.00
8/3
8/3
8/3
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/1
8/13
8/1.3
8/13
8/13
8/13
8/10
8/10
8/9
8/9
8/9
8/9
8/9
8/8
8/8
8/16
8/16
8/16
8/16
8/16
---
---

.1 a net
1 r .1 a
Average
Caribou Cr.
Melody an
Ka
NFSLI
NFSI.
Average
Camp Cr.
Obad lab
I>am
Nancy
Queeni e flachel
Average
Stream/Site
Ragged Cr.
Annabelle
NPSLI
NFSL
Cathie
Average 14 long Cr.
Cater
Diane
Crancine
NFSLI
NPSI.
Average
Little 8oulder Cr.
NIS 0
Gwen heather
18
18
12
51
40
50
13
33
23
8
7
18
(11
(2
(4
(6
'.'.
55)
14)
- 17)
- 34)
-
.--,,
(3- 13)
(24
(21
117)
- 182)
(27 150)
(6 - 25)
---
(5 - 32)
(5 32)
N
0
0
0
1)
0
0
0
0
0
1)
0
0
0
0
0
---
---
---
---
"-
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
23
8
7
18
12
14
N1,2
Appendix C (continued)
1979
(Ii 55)
(2
(4
14)
- 17)
(6 - 34)
-
L-.
")
Mo
0
0
0
(1
0
Co
0
0
2
1
0
Ru
0
0
0
0
0
H12 C1,2 R1,
12
3
5
6
3
8
4
4
5
4
4
1
1
1
3
Age
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Age1,2
).0O
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Capture
Date
7/18
7/18
7/IS
7/Is
7/18
Recapture
Date
7/25
7/25
7/25
7/26
7/26
12
51
40
50
13
33
(3
(24
13)
117)
(21 182)
(27 - ISO)
(6 - 25)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
19
20
13
9
2
15
17
22
8
8
4
6
0
5
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7/27
7/27
7/27
7/20
7/20
8/2
8/2
8/2
8/2
8/2
0
18
18
(5
(5
---
32)
32)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'r
K.1.
0
5
5
(1
6
6
0
1
1
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
1.00
7/9
7/9
7/9
7/20
7/20
67
41
36
(28
(17
154)
98)
7
I
2
---
---
60
40
34
46
51
53
77
(21 106)
(22 - 125)
(29 s
109)
176)
(42 128)
44
37
16
57
4U
8
17
16
18
13
14
(2 - 15)
(9 - 38)
(9 - 33)
(9
(7
49)
29)
0
3
2
3
4
7
---
---
---
---
2
14
37
20
Z(J
(I
(3
(0
(0
---
4)
12)
3)
2)
8
13
9
15
11
11
(2 15)
(6
(5
28)
20)
(6 - 38)
(5 25)
0
2
3
1
1
1
1
0
1
3 1
0
0
0
0
4
8
8
10
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
10
7
5
7
-
-
.10
.06
-
.7!
.73
.29
.74
.71
.67
1
6
6
3
5
.00
.24
.44
.17
.15
.21
.90
.94
1.00
.76
.56
.83
.85
.79
.29
.27
.71
.26
.29
.33
7/9
7/9
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/5
7/S
7/30
7/30
7/30
7/30
7/30
.7/23
7123
7/20
7/20
7/19
7/19
7/19
8/2
8/2
8/2
8/8
8/8
I-
0

heat her
Janet
Iris
Average
Carihon Cr.
Ie I ody lisa
Karen
N PSI I
NFSL
Ave rage
Camf Cr.
Ohad iah
Nancy
Queen IC
Rachel
Average
Stream/site
Ragged Cr.
Annabe 11 e
NFSIJ
11151.
Cathie
Ilarbie
Average
Long Cr.
1st cc
I) i an c
Franc inc
111511
NFSL
Average
Little Roulder Cr.
NISU
1980
31 (14
-
79)
29 (13 - 83)
22
10
9
20
(11
(5
(4
55)
-27)
- 23)
4
2
18
(I
(1
(7
4 (1
50 (11
16
- 10)
- 5)
- 40)
- 10)
50)
1
0
0
0
0
0
15
16
18
5
7
12
(6 38)
(6
(8
40)
45)
(2 -9)
(2 17)
---
---
---
---
---
13
36
25
16
0
8 (3
(6
(I?
(14
---
21)
35)
90)
55)
0
(1
5
6
II
4
---
---
(1 -
8)
(2 1)
(4 26)
16
13
4
5
2
8
(3 16)
(3 18)
(1 -
7)
(2 13)
(0 3)
5
6
10
2
5
11
7
8
4
3
3
2
4
1
2
H1,2
4
5
2
4
1
4
2
17
4
50
15
(1 10)
5) (1 -
(7
40)
(1 -
(11
10)
- 50)
0
0
0
0
(1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
10
4
2
7
8
30
14
12
0
8 (3
(3
(12
(6
---
21)
- 20)
- 75)
- 36)
0
0
3
3
6
0
3
6
2
2
0
0
1
1
3
0
12
8
5
4
72 (47
.2
(57
121)
168)
81 (47 184)
69 (42
-
126)
56 (36 - 104)
74
69 (44 -
115)
85 (49 161)
63 (32 135)
66 (39 118)
46
66
(28 84)
3
7
18
3
10
8
(1
(3
(5
(0
(3
5)
18)
- 33)
2)
18)
28
30
17
29
20
41
29
24
28
29
16
10
6
12
12
22
5
26
11
11
15
(10
(2
(II
(6
(5
53) iS)
44)
25)
28)
8
3
6
0
0
3
(4
(1
(3
---
8)
8)
5)
14
2
20
Ii
It
12
(5
(I
(4
(6
(S
31)
4)
18)
25)
- 28)
2
2
1
0
0
2
4
3
I
2
0
2
0
0
0
7
2
6
8
9
2
3
6
2
4
6
1
2
9
4
5
0
4
2
6
0
4
7
9
8
2
2
8
2
4
3
4
3
4
2
% i
R12 Age0 Age1
2
0
1
1
3
1
.48
.55
.82
.50
.78
.63
.52
.45
.18
.50
.22
.37
Capture Recapture
Date
_jt
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/30
6/30
7/2
6/26
/26
2
2
3
2
0
.00
.00
.06
.00
.00
.01
1.00
1.00
.94
1.00
1.00
.99
7/12
7/12
7/11
7/11
7/Il
7/12
7/12
7/12
7/12
7/12
0
2
3
3
4
.00
.00
.38
.17
.44
.25
.00
1.00
.62
.83
.56
.75
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/8
7/8
7/8
7/8
7/8
I
0
1
1
2
.i6
.92
.76
.96
.82
.88
.04
.08
.24
.04
.18
.11
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/8
7/8
7/8
7/8
7/8
3
1
0
6
3
.36
.60
.23
.00
.00
.24
.64
.40
.77
1.00
1.00
.76
7/In
7/10
7/10
7/10
7/10
7/11
7/Il
7/14
7/11
7/11
0

Appendix C (continued)
1980 tream/!
N.
U0
Little Butte Cr., 1.f.
Tracy
SheIla
NFSIJ
NESI.
Averaec
12
16
25
13
13
(5
27)
(9 - 35)
(13 - 54)
(7 27)
8
10
16
12
9
(2 - 14)
(5 - 22)
(6 - 34)
(6 26)
Little Boulder Cr, r.f.
Veronica
Ursula
HFSIJ
MI:SI.
Average
31
20
11
15
19
(14 - 88)
(9 - 45)
(5
(7
26)
- 35)
Vinegar Cr. (upper)
Wanda
Xavier
Average
3
25
14
(1
(10
3)
49)
Vinegar Cr. (lower)
Yolanda
ZoAnne
Andrew
Average
Vincent Cr.
Bartholomew
Chris
David
(iIijah
Fred
Average
Tinker Cr.
Gary
Hebrew
Isaiah
John
Xevin
Average
Lake Cr.
Larry
Iticak
Average
24
0
23
16
54
7
74
28 (16 - 28)
8
3
I
(2 -
(1
IS)
- 8)
(0 1)
8
10
(3 - 20)
0
0
0
(7 - 44)
---
(9 - 57)
(17 - 95)
(5 - 15)
30
6
(10 - 52)
(4
- U)
73 (50
187
130) 22 (11 49)
(68 - 442) 174 (56 - 313)
47 (36 100) 38 (10 - 38)
---
54
0
0
0
27 (11
20 (9
(1 4
8
68)
45)
10)
(3 19)
15
0
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
---
(2
-
10)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
N1,2
3
15
9
4
0
7
7
4
28
8
3
1
8
10
4
6
9
3
4
24
0
23
16
0
C)
0
(1 4)
(2 11)
(3 20)
(0 - 1)
3
7
II
12
(1
---
4)
(2 7)
(2 - 17)
12
9
3
6
8
12
3
4
(1
(3
3)
15)
(7
---
44)
(9 57)
(2
(1
(0
(3
(6 - 28)
15)
8)
1)
20)
---
---
110 c0
0
1)
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
24
1
51
13
9
20
(5 24)
(0 1)
(29 95)
(4 - 23)
(3 23)
11
2
9
20
6
13
16
5
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
8
4
9
0
0
0
111,2
3
5
2
3
0
0
1
6
6
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
S
0
0
6
0
7
3
5
(3
0
2
0
3
4
4
4
2
1
6
2
4
6
1
4
1
32
5
7
1,2
7
2
12
5
0
18
4
3
0
2
0
0
1
2
2
0
6
3
4
0
3
1
0
1
4
11,2
Ag
1
0
0
1
.67
.63
.64
.92
.71
0
0
0
2
.87
1.00
.36
.53
.69
0
0
.00
.41)
.20
1.00
.60
.80
0
0
11
1
2
.56
.86
.30
.93
.81
.69
%
Age1,2
Capture Recapture l)ate Date
.13
.00
.64
.47
.31
.33
.37
.36
.08
.29
1
0
3
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
.00
1.00
1.00
0
1
2
0
2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
0
(3
.00
.00
.01)
.44
.14
.70
.07
.19
.31
.00
.00
.00
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/3
7/9
7/9
7/9
7/9
7/9
7/9
7/3
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/26
6/26
6/25
6/25
7/4
7/4
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/4
7/4
7/4
7/4
7/4
7/10
7/10
7/10
7/10
7/10
---

Appendix D.
Regression equation characteristics for the logarithm of weight regressed on the logarithm of length.
Stream
Sample
Size
Y-
Intercept Slope R
2
Sample
Size
Y-
Intercept Slope B
2
Ragged Cr.
Long Cr.
Little Boulder Cr.
Caribou Cr.
Camp Cr.
Little Butte Cr., e.f.
Little Butte Cr., w.f,
Vinegar Cr.
Vincent Cr.
Tinker Cr.
229
9
37
123
132
125
173
-12.5765
-11.7535
-11.4252
-11.8553
-11.8097
-12.7203
-12.2310
3.2684
3.0830
2,9916
3.0822
3.0692
3.2650
3.1723
.97
.96
.97
.95
.97
.99
.98
61
14
47
115
117
53
119
80
168
182
-11.5353
-11.0296
-11.8736
-13.4702
-11.5131
-11.9128
-13.6143
-10.9568
-11.1769
-11.3707
3.0327
.97
2.9274
99
3.1276
.99
3.4652
96
3.0335
.98
3.1284
.98
3.5300
.95
2.9089
.99
2.9295
.95
3.0111
.94
l')