Habitat features and aquatic health : evaluating California’s stream bioassessment procedure in natural and artificial streams in a grazed eastern Sierra valley

WRC Papers

WRC Website

Policies

Search WRC

Submit a Paper

Notify me of new papers


• • • •

Habitat features and aquatic health : evaluating California’s stream bioassessment procedure in natural and artificial streams in a grazed eastern Sierra valley
Kenneth W. Tate, University of California, Davis
Linda K. Vance, University of California, University Extension
Charles Battaglia, University of California, Davis

Technical Completion Report (University of California Water Resources Center), Project Number W-925.

Download the Paper (152 K, PDF file) - September 1, 2001
Related Files:
Table 1 tate.doc (19 kB)
Table 1. CSBP habitat feature descriptions.
Table 2 tate.doc (33 kB)
Table 2. Macroinvertebrate metrics calculated for each collection site in 1999 and 2000.
Table 3 tate.doc (32 kB)
Table 3. Results of ANOVA examining effect of Stream (1 and 3), Year (1999 and 2000) and Stream by Year interactions on biological metrics calculated from macroinvertebrate data.
Table 4 tate.doc (61 kB)
Table 4. Pearson’s correlation coefficients for CSBP habitat quality by selected macroinvertebrate metrics.
Table 5 tate.doc (44 kB)
Table 5. Pearson’s correlation coefficients for measured habitat features by selected macroinvertebrate metrics.
Table 6 tate.doc (45 kB)
Table 6. Pearson’s correlation coefficients for CSBP habitat quality by measured habitat features.
figure 1 tate.jpg (79 kB)
Figure 1. Mean CSBP Habitat Quality Score (0-5 = poor, 6-10 = marginal, 11-15 = sub-optimal, 16-20 = optimal) for each Bridgeport Valley stream system included in study.
figure 2 tate.jpg (97 kB)
Figure 2. Macroinvertebrate community composition measured by selected biological metrics for each Bridgeport Valley stream system included in the study.
figure 3 tate.jpg (114 kB)
Figure 3. Macroinvertebrate taxa richness measured by selected biological metrics for each Brideport Valley stream system included in the study.
figure 4 tate.jpg (134 kB)
Figure 4. Mean CSBP Habitat Quality Score (0-5 = poor, 6-10 = marginal, 11-15 = sub-optimal, 16-20 = optimal) and number of EPT taxa for each Bridgeport Valley stream system included in the study.
figure 5 tate.jpg (80 kB)
Figure 5. Means biological metric values for Stream 1 in August 1999 and August 2000
figure 6 tate.jpg (80 kB)
Figure 6. Means biological metric values for Stream 3 in August 1999 and August 2000
figure 7 tate.jpg (58 kB)
Figure 7. %EPT taxa predicted by mean CSBP habitat quality score.
figure 8 tate.jpg (53 kB)
Figure 8. Number of total taxa predicted by mean CSBP habitat quality score.

Tell a colleague about it.

Printing Tips: Select 'print as image' in the Acrobat print dialog if you have trouble printing.

ABSTRACT:
The objectives of this project were to: 1) assess the biotic integrity of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in 7 stream systems subjected to grazing and irrigation within Bridgeport Valley using the California Stream Bioassessment Protocol (CSBP); 2) determine if yearly variation exists for standard macroinvertebrate metrics; and 3) identify correlations between CSBP visual habitat quality assessment, macroinvertebrate community, and habitat features. Thirty, 100 m study reaches were established across the 7 stream systems, representing the range of habitat type and quality found in Bridgeport Valley. In August 1999, macroinvertebrate collections, visual habitat quality assessments, and habitat feature measurements were conducted across 3 riffles within each of the 30 (n=90) study reaches according to the CSBP protocol. Macroinvertebrate collections were repeated during August of 2000 at 14 study reaches (n=42) to evaluate inter-annual variability in key CSBP macroinvertebrate metrics. Macroinvertebrate collections were sub-sampled, and all sub-sampled individuals were identified to family. Overall, biotic integrity of streams in Bridgeport Valley is relatively high (CSBP mean habitat quality assessments of “optimal” and “sub-optimal”; 69% EPT taxa), but CSBP habitat quality assessments indicate there is room for improvement across the Valley. Annual variation in macroinvertebrate community requires that comparisons across streams must occur within the same year, and that multiple years of data collection is justified. CSBP habitat quality visual assessment scores and habitat features were weakly correlated to aquatic macroinvertebrate community. While weak, these relationships did generally respond as expected from published work. We found the CSBP habitat quality assessment worksheet to be a valuable tool allowing trained individuals to identify relatively high and low habitat quality within managed systems. However, we must question the value of macroinvertebrate metrics as indicators of variable levels of grazing and irrigation impact on habitat quality typical of the eastern Sierra Nevada.

SUGGESTED CITATION:
Kenneth W. Tate, Linda K. Vance, and Charles Battaglia, "Habitat features and aquatic health : evaluating California’s stream bioassessment procedure in natural and artificial streams in a grazed eastern Sierra valley" (September 1, 2001). University of California Water Resources Center. Technical Completion Reports. Paper tate.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/wrc/tcr/tate

eScholarship is a service of the California Digital Library