8807049

THE CONDITION AND TREND OF ASPEN ON BLM LANDS IN NORTH-CENTRAL NEVADA - - WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

YEAR THREE

Final

report

to

Elko Field Office Bureau of Land Management 3900 Idaho Street Elko, NV 89801

by

Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology Wildlife Management Services 480 East 125 North Providence, UT 84332 (435) 753-0715

May 2003

SD 397 . A7 K394 2003 c . 2

i%33

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under Contract Number FBP 020036 and I thank the agency for its support. BLM specialists Skip Ritter, District Forester, and Ken Wilkinson, Wildlife Biologist, were extremely helpful in selecting study sites and providing documents germane to this study. This report is part of a continuing 5 year aspen study (2000-2004) between the Battle Mountain and Elko BLM Districts funded through the 5900 Forest Health and Restoration Program. Joe Ratliff, Project Coordinator with the Battle Mountain Field Office, and Skip Ritter, Project Coordinator with the Elko Field Office, express their appreciation to Rick Tholen, 5900 Project Lead, for his valued support and assistance in making this project possible.

BLM Library Denver Federal Center Bldg. 50, OC-521 P.O. Box 25047 Denver, CO 80225

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

LIST OF TABLES il

LIST OF FIGURES iv

ABSTRACT vii

INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA 1

METHODS 7

RESULTS AND SITE ANALYSES 10

Stag Mountain 10

Tuscarora Mountains 69

Adobe Mountains 81

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 102

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS „ 108

LITERATURE CITED 114

APPENDIX A - - Project Maps APPENDIX B - - Project Data Sheets APPENDIX C - - Project Color Slides

ttl

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Aspen stand parameters on the Deeth Allotment, Connors Basin Field 12

2. Age and diameter of aspen on the Deeth Allotment, Connors Basin Field 15

3. Height of browsed and unbrowsed aspen suckers in recently burned aspen stands on

the Deeth and Stag Mountain Allotments 16

4. Understory species composition of aspen stands on the Deeth Allotment, Connors

Basin Field 17

5. Aspen stand parameters on the Deeth Allotment, Hanks Creek Basin Field 26

6. Age and diameter of aspen on the Deeth Allotment, Hanks Creek Basin Field 27

7. Understory species composition of aspen stands on the Deeth Allotment, Hanks Creek

Basin Field 28

8. Aspen stand parameters on the Stag Mountain Allotment, McIntyre Field 35

9. Age and diameter of aspen on the Stag Mountain Allotment, McIntyre Field 37

10. Understory species composition of aspen stands on the Stag Mountain Allotment,

McIntyre Field 38

11. Aspen stand parameters in the Tuscarora Mountains 70

12. Age and diameter of aspen in the Tuscarora Mountains 71

13. Understory species composition of aspen stands in the Tuscarora Mountains 72

14. Aspen stand parameters in the Adobe Mountains 82

15. Age and diameter of aspen in the Adobe Mountains 84

16. Understory species composition of aspen stands in the Adobe Mountains 85

w

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. General location of aspen study sites in north-central Nevada 6

2. Unburned aspen stand EK-214 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 20

3. Unbumed aspen stand EK-227 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 21

4. Burned aspen stand EK-232 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 22

5. Aspen stand EK-217 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 23

6. Aspen stand EK-228 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 24

7. Aspen stand EK-209 inside the East Hanks Creek Exclosure, Hanks Creek Basin

Field, Deeth Allotment 29

8. Aspen stand EK-21 1 inside the Antelope Basin Exclosure, Hanks Creek Basin Field,

Deeth Allotment 30

9. Aspen sucker inside the West Hanks Creek Exclosure, Hanks Creek Basin Field,

Deeth Allotment 31

10. Aspen stand EK-21 2 outside the Antelope Basin Exclosure, Hanks Creek Basin Field,

Deeth Allotment 32

11. Aspen stand EK-240, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment 40

12. Aspen stand EK-247, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment 41

13. Aspen stand EK-249, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment 42

14. Aspen stand EK-251 , McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment 43

15. Aspen stand EK-239 viewed northwest, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment 44

16. Aspen stand EK-239 viewed northeast, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment 45

17. Fenceline contrast, Cheveller Exclosure, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment.. ..47

18. Aspen stand EK-241 inside the Cheveller Exclosure, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain

Allotment 48

19. Browsed aspen sucker inside the Cheveller Exclosure 49

V

20. A recent beaver dam inside the Cheveller Exclosure 50

21. Aspen stand EK-242 inside the Cheveller Exclosure 51

22. Aspen stand EK-243 inside the Cheveller Exclosure 52

23. Recent beaver activity on an unnamed tributary to the South Fork of Hanks Creek,

Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 54

24. Old beaver activity on an unnamed tributary to the South Fork of Hanks Creek,

Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 55

25. Old beaver activity on Connors Creek, Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 56

26. Old beaver activity on upper Cottonwood Creek, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain

Allotment 57

27. Allotment boundary comparison 59

28. Aspen stand EK-234, Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 60

29. Aspen stand EK-233, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment 61

30. Aspen stand EK-234, Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment 62

31. Aspen along an unnamed tributary to Pole Creek, Indian Creek Field, Devils Gate

Allotment 64

32. Aspen along Pole Creek on the Pole Creek Allotment 66

33. Close up of a burned aspen stand along Pole Creek 67

34. An old beaver dam on Pole Creek, Pole Creek Allotment 68

35. A typical aspen stand along Nelson Creek 73

36. Typical aspen stands along Lewis Creek 74

37. Aspen in upper Toe Jam Creek 75

38. Close up of aspen in upper Toe Jam Creek 76

39. Aspen stand EK-253 in upper Toe Jam Creek 77

40. Aspen in upper Rock Creek 78

41 . Aspen in upper Big Cottonwood Canyon 79

VI

42. Close up of a heavily grazed aspen stand along upper Dry Creek in the Tuscarora

Mountains 80

43. Aspen stand EK-264 in the Adobe Mountains 87

44. Close up aspen stand EK-264 in the Adobe Mountains 88

45. Aspen stand EK-270 in the Adobe Mountains 89

46. Aspen stand EK-272 in the Adobe Mountains 90

47. A de facto exclosure in aspen stand EK-272 in the Adobe Mountains 91

48. Aspen inside Long Canyon Exclosure number one 92

49. Close up of aspen inside Long Canyon Exclosure number one 93

50. Aspen inside Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number two 94

51. Aspen inside Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number three 95

52. Typical riparian conditions in the Adobe Mountains 96

53. Fenceline contrast at Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number one 97

54. Ungrazed riparian area inside Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number one 98

55. Grazed riparian area below Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number one 99

56. Soil erosion in the Adobe Mountains 100

57. Close-up of sheet erosion in Long Canyon 101

VII

ABSTRACT

Aspen is of special concern in the West because the species does not commonly grow from seed due to its demanding seed-bed requirements. It is thought that environmental conditions have not been conducive to seedling growth and clonal establishment since shortly after the glaciers retreated 10,000 or more years ago. Hence, aspen clones found in north-central Nevada today have likely maintained their presence on those sites for thousands of years via vegetative regeneration; i.e. root sprouting. In addition, aspen communities support an array of other species and have the highest biodiversity of any upland forest type in the West. This is especially true in north-central Nevada where many aspen stands are associated with riparian habitats. Aspen, though, has been declining in Nevada and throughout the Intermountain West since shortly after European settlement. The reasons for this have been attributed to climatic change, fire suppression, normal plant succession, wild ungulate browsing, and/or grazing by domestic livestock.

To test these hypotheses and to determine the status of aspen on BLM administered lands in north-central Nevada, I measured 75 representative aspen stands on Stag Mountain and in the Tuscarora and Adobe Mountains. I also measured all aspen- containing exclosures in those areas. The exclosures were originally built to study the effect of livestock use, but because the general climate is the same inside and outside the fenced plots, the exclosures can also be used to evaluate the climatic change hypothesis. The same is true of de facto exclosures created by fallen aspen trees or other physical

barriers.

VIII

Many aspen stands in north-central Nevada have not produced new stems greater than 6 feet tall in nearly 100 years and many stands are in very poor condition. The status and trend of aspen communities in north-central Nevada, however, is not related to climatic variation, fire suppression, forest succession, or browsing by mule deer. Instead, the condition of individual aspen communities is related to past and present levels of livestock grazing. That is, aspen is declining throughout most of north-central Nevada due to repeated browsing of aspen suckers by cattle and/or domestic sheep - - repeated browsing eliminates sucker height growth, which prevents their maturation into aspen saplings and trees. Without stem replacement, aspen clones are consigned to extinction.

This cause and effect relationship is most clearly demonstrated inside and outside exclosures. In all cases where it was protected, aspen successfully regenerated without fire or other disturbance, while on adjacent, outside plots, aspen continued to decline. Aspen in north-central Nevada also experienced major regeneration events on allotments where livestock use was reduced. Fire can be used to stimulate aspen regeneration, but burned aspen stands must be rested for several years until the majority of new stems are beyond the reach of livestock. Beaver-felled aspen also need to be protected or repeated livestock use will eliminate those clones, as has already happened on some allotments.

Thus, to reverse the decline of aspen in north-central Nevada it will be necessary to more closely manage livestock. Depending on individual sites and the present condition of aspen, it may be necessary to fence some stands and/or restrict livestock to only early- season grazing. If aspen does not respond to those measures, it may be necessary to reduce AUM numbers on some allotments. It is also recommended that BLM establish

ix

permanent monitoring plots in representative aspen communities throughout the Elko District to evaluate management actions related to that species.

1

INTRODUCTION

Aspen (Populus tremuloides) is an excellent indicator of ecosystem health and ecological integrity in the western United States because the species does not commonly grow from seed due to its demanding seed-bed requirements (Perala 1990; West et al. 1994:10; White et al. 1998a, 1998b). In fact, there are no known instances of aspen clones having established from seed anywhere in the Intermountain West during the period of recorded history (Kay 1 993). It is thought that environmental conditions have not been conducive to seedling growth and clonal establishment since shortly after the glaciers retreated 10,000 or more years ago (McDonough 1979, 1985; Perala 1990; Jelinski and Cheliak 1992; Mitton and Grant 1 996). This means that aspen clones found in north-central Nevada today have likely maintained their presence on those sites for thousands of years via vegetative regeneration. Thus, aspen may be among the oldest living organisms on Earth and should be managed as old-growth, ancient forests, not a serai plant community (Grant 1993; Mitton and Grant 1996; Kay 1997a, 2001a).

Aspen seedlings are more common in the northern Canadian Rockies (Peterson and Peterson 1992, 1995) and there may be "windows of opportunity" that allow seedling establishment at infrequent, 200 to 400 year or longer, intervals (Jelinski and Cheliak 1992:728), but successful sexual reproduction of aspen is still exceedingly rare (Mitton and Grant 1996). Aspen invariably occur as clones in which all the individual trees (ramets) are genetically identical, having grown from a common root system by vegetative shoots. If aspen is lost, there are no known means of reestablishing those clones (Kay 1997a).

As a relatively short-lived tree (<150 years), long-lived aspen clones are often dependent on periodic disturbance such as fire to stimulate vegetative regeneration via root suckering, and to reduce conifer competition (Bartos and

2

Mueggler 1979, 1981; Bartos et al. 1991, 1994; Shepperd 1993; Shepperd and Smith 1993). In the absence of fire, many aspen clones in the Intermountain West may be replaced by more shade-tolerant species, although climax aspen is common (Mueggler 1988). Aspen, however, will bum only when it is leafless and when the understory plants are dry enough to carry a fire, conditions that occur only early in the spring before understory regrowth, and late in the autumn after leaf-fail and the understory plants have cured (Fechner and Barrows 1976, Brown and Simmerman 1986, DeByle et al. 1987). During both those periods, though, there are few lightning strikes and virtually no lightning-started fires in the West (Kay 1997a, 2000). This would suggest that in pre-Columbian times, native burning may have been more important than lightning-started fires in maintaining aspen and other plant communities (Kay 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 2000). In central Nevada, though, most aspen stands are relatively small and recent wildfires burning under extreme conditions have completely top-killed some clones; i.e., wind-driven wildfires are able to burn through drought-stricken aspen if the stands are not too large or if the clones are highly degraded.

In addition, aspen communities support an array of other species and have extremely high biological diversity (DeByle and Winokur 1985, Peterson and Peterson 1992, Stelfox 1995). In fact, aspen has the highest biodiversity of any upland forest type in the West (Finch and Ruggiero 1993). Bird communities, for instance, vary with the size, age, and location of aspen clones, as well as with grazing intensity and history (Young 1973, 1977; Baida 1975; Flack 1976, Page et al. 1978; Wnternitz 1980; Casey and Hein 1983; Oakleafet al. 1983; Taylor 1986; Putman et al. 1989; Daily et al. 1993; Ehrlich and Daily 1993; Johns 1993; Westworth and Telfer 1993; Stelfox 1995; Grant and Berkey 1999). So if aspen is lost, many birds and small mammals will decline; some precipitously (Ehrlich and Daily 1993). This is especially true on BLM lands in north-central Nevada where

many aspen communities are found in riparian settings (Schenbeck and Dahlem 1977, Kennedy et al. 2000, Kay 2001a).

3

Moreover, aspen provides highly palatable forage for elk (Cervus elaphus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionous). and livestock throughout the West (Wallmo and Regelin 1981, Nelson and Leege 1982, Endersby 1999). Aspen, however, is sensitive to repeated browsing and range-use levels. High-density elk populations commonly strip bark from mature aspen and severely browse aspen suckers that can prevent stand regeneration and which may eventually lead to the loss of aspen clones (Krebill 1972; Olmsted 1977, 1979, 1997; Weinstein 1979; Kay 1985, 1990, 2001b, 2001c; Shepperd and Fairweather 1994; Baker et al. 1997; White et al. 1998a, 1998b; Ripple and Larson 2000; White 2001). Large numbers of mule deer can also prevent aspen regeneration (Olmstead 1979, Kay and Bartos 2000), and if not properly managed, livestock can have similar negative impacts on aspen communities (Baker 1918, 1925; Sampson 1919; Coles 1965; Weatherill and Keith 1969; Kay 2001 a, 2002).

Recent evidence indicates that aspen has been declining throughout the Intermountain West since shortly after European settlement (Schier 1975; Schier and Campbell 1980; Kay 1997a, 1997b). Since 1962, the acreage of aspen dominated forests in Arizona and New Mexico has decreased by nearly 50% (U S. Forest Service 1993, Cartwright and Burns 1994, Johnson 1994). While in the northern Rockies, aspen has declined by up to 90% since the late 1800s (Kay 1990, 1997a, 1997c; Kay and Wagner 1994, 1996; Kayetal. 1999). On Idaho’s Targhee National Forest, inventory data show that 36% of the West Camas Creek drainage was dominated by aspen in 1914, but today, aspen occupies only 4% of the area - - figures that are confirmed by repeat-photographs (Kay 1997a, 1999). In Utah, aspen has also declined from its historical distribution (Bartos and Campbell 1998). On Utah’s Dixie National Forest, for instance, there were historically over

4

590,000 A. of aspen while today there are only approximately 200,000 A. Furthermore, many aspen stands contain old-age or single-age trees and have not successfully regenerated for 80 years or longer (Mueggler 1 989a, 1 989b). It has also been observed that aspen has failed to regenerate and is declining on BLM lands in central Nevada (Schenbeck and Dahlem 1977).

At least four hypotheses have been advanced to explain the decline of aspen throughout the Intermountain West (Kay and Bartos 2000, White et al.

2003). (1 ) Climatic change - - the climate was more favorable for aspen in the past and today’s drier climate precludes aspen regeneration (Despain et al. 1986, Romme et al. 1995, Baker et al. 1997). (2) Conifer invasion and fire suppression - - aspen is a serai species that will not successfully regenerate unless the overstory aspen and invading conifers are killed by fire (Houston 1973, 1982; Loope and Gruell 1973; Gruell and Loope 1974; Despain et al. 1986), and thus, modern fire suppression and forest succession have adversely effected aspen. (3) Livestock grazing is preventing the growth of aspen suckers into trees (Sampson 1919, Baker 1925). And (4) repeated browsing by mule deer and/or elk is preventing aspen sucker height growth and the successful regeneration of aspen stands (Coles 1965; Bartos and Mueggler 1979, 1981).

To test these hypotheses and to determine the status of aspen on BLM lands, I measured the condition and trend of aspen communities throughout north- central Nevada within the Elko District (Figure 1 ) - - similar to my work for the Battle Mountain and Elko Districts in 2000 and 2001 (Kay 2001a, 2002). As before, I also measured all aspen-containing exclosures within the study areas. These exclosures were originally built to study the effect of livestock use, but because the general climate is the same inside and outside the fenced plots, they can also be used to test the climatic change hypothesis (Laycock 1975). Stag Mountain and the Tuscarora and Adobe Mountains were selected for study by the Bureau of Land

5

Management because aspen stands in those areas are thought to be representative of conditions on the Elko District.

6

(arson

OWYHEE

TWIN

Jnckpot

El 5265/

Owyhee

HUMBOU>T 1 — I |

Merrill Min v

, aEI B78& p Jttrbic

^Mountain City KAf^OKAL / Copper Mtn \

V 27 *

[Charlaftli

f H V Shfhmil K) El 62? j

Pequop buineRtf F' 6067

Death

Spring -/j- Crook r

v^2i7f^’l.nmoille

Emigrant i Pats'

El 6H4

Wendover Air Force Auxiliary Field

'Carlin

El 4959

rJ35\a *»Ot ^ Ruby 7\ Mtn . 1 Scenic Areal ItATLA

\C0ShulV Peat i -F( 9610

South For* Indian Reaervatlon 7h

In

Rooms on Min ’A El 81 12

ip rue v Min : I W2&

Franklin

l.riK’’ <o

South Fork

Indian

Reaervatior

Pearl

Peak!

[Corfu*

Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Railroad Past El 5896

ShontytQwnfV 1 7

Duck

PALLS

Valley

Indian

Hal Pa a*

Gollahar Mm

El 6025

El B 1 53

i

Reservation 1225

z

While Roc A Min El 7604

Middlu Slack Min /

B.rti

nl (• Puttk

El 8W4

Whiti

(•Ho]

El 9288 '

Chine Mi El 8350

I

Delano Peak

El 7847

K.

Chicken Creek *\^ Summit Ei 6441

JacK Cfookl

(226

McCann Creek Min _ El 860.

O Qe.iAf Peak ?

* -Ettafli w

g > §1

* Pilot Peak

1 ’ El 10715

1 1

:'/jfr Zone »

i LhovIHh

O ' (sue

C»

*

Afr Lawn Ei 9680 ,

-

'•f- C'tr .con'

Vaiiny

trr*

^ While He

x «o Past

Isilei

FV

£ Geld Acre

z* (sue •

60*

Mt lanaoo tl 9162

J4

Eiaphanl He no Ei 8405

Cone:

< /-

WT1 %.

Logos Stniiorr

Bntd Mm Ei 855 3

Goahi

Cki Peal

Figure 1 General location of aspen study sites in north-central Nevada 1 - - Stag Mountain; 2 - - Tuscarora Mountains; and 3 - - Adobe Mountains.

7

METHODS

Within each study area, representative aspen stands were selected for detailed measurement. At each aspen community that was sampled during this study, I first placed a 2x30 m (6.6x98 ft.) belt transect perpendicular to the slope in the stand's center. To facilitate data recording, I subdivided each 30 m transect into 3 m (9.8 ft.) segments and then recorded the number of live aspen stems by size classes within each 3 m segment. I used the following size classes: (1) stems less than 2 m (6.6 ft.) tall, (2) stems greater than 2 m tall but less than 5 cm (2 in.) diameter at breast height (DBH), (3) stems between 6 and 10 cm (2-4 in.) DBH, (4) stems between 1 1 and 20 cm (4-8 in.) DBH, and (5) stems greater than 21 cm (8 in.) DBH. Ages of aspen within each size class were determined by counting annual rings. I obtained the ages of large aspen with the aid of an increment borer while I cross-sectioned smaller stems, usually those less than 5 cm DBH. Larger trees were cored at breast height, while stems <5 cm in diameter were usually cut at ground level. Stems less than 2 m tall were not aged. The location of each measured aspen stand was plotted on 1 :24,000 USGS topographic maps. In addition, the locations of all aspen stands within each study area were also marked on topographic maps, as were all the routes driven or walked.

Wthin each stand, I also recorded the following information: (1) location - - section, township, and range; (2) elevation as determined from topographic maps; (3) Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid coordinates, again estimated from topographic maps; (4) aspect - north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, and northwest; (5) estimated slope in percent; (6) estimated stand size; (7) an estimate of the mean percent of each stem that had been damaged by ungulate bark stripping - - of the animals commonly found in Nevada, bark stripping is only done by elk, not deer or livestock (Krebill 1972); (8) if the stand had newly

8

regenerated stems greater than 2 m tall but less than 5 cm DBH, an estimate of the percent that showed evidence of ungulate highlining - - where the ungulates browse off all the lower branches as high as the animals can reach; (9) the percent of stems less than 2 m tall on each 2x30 m transect that exhibited ungulate browsing; (10) whether or not water was present in or near the stand; and (1 1 ) the number of cattle, domestic sheep, mule deer, and elk pellet groups on each 2x30 m belt transect. At recently burned stands, I also measured the height of 50 randomly chosen aspen suckers and recorded whether those stems had been browsed or not.

Furthermore, at each stand I recorded the number and species of conifers on the 2x30 m belt transect that was used to count aspen stems. Conifers were recorded by the same five size classes that were used for aspen. In addition, I estimated the total percent conifer canopy cover in each stand according to guidelines established by Mueggler (1988). Understory plant species composition was visually estimated in each sampled aspen stand following procedures developed by Mueggler (1988). Shrubs were identified to species, but the same could not be done with grasses or forbs because those plants had generally received such heavy utilization that they could not reliably be identified (Clary and Leininger 2000; Kay 2001a, 2002). Instead, percent canopy cover was estimated for all grass species and all forb species combined. The proportion of bare soil, rock, and litter, including downed aspen, was also recorded. All aspen selected for detailed study were photographed using 35 mm color slide film to document stand and understory conditions (Magill 1989; Hall 2002a, 2002b). Finally, at each aspen- containing exclosure, data were collected on inside, as well as on adjacent, comparable outside plots (Kay and Bartos 2000).

BLM provided information on the grazing history of each aspen study area. Unfortunately, the agency’s files are incomplete and seldom contain data on actual

9

livestock use. Instead, BLM generally has information on AUM (Animal Unit Month) allocations, as well as the number of AUMs each permittee paid to activate in any one year, called grazing bills. Grazing bills, however, may not reflect actual use as many ranches simply pay for all the AUMs they are allocated each year to maintain their grazing permits. At the end of each grazing season, ranchers are required to submit actual use reports, but those too are only estimates. Therefore, based on the information in BLM’s files, it is only possible to document general grazing trends on each allotment. BLM, for instance, does have records on legally mandated changes in AUM allocations. That is to say, have the ranchers’ basic AUM authorizations been increased or decreased? BLM also has data on any season-of-use changes that have been implemented by the agency. Again, however, actual use data are lacking because there simply are not enough agency personnel to field check each and every action of its grazing permittees.

10

RESULTS AND SITE ANALYSES

In all, 75 representative aspen stands were measured on Stag Mountain and in the Tuscarora and Adobe Mountains. The stands were numbered consecutively from EK-201 to EK-275 as they were measured in the field. Appendix A contains the 1:24,000 project maps, while copies of the original data sheets are located in Appendix B. Appendix C contains 1 ,056 - - 35 mm color slides of project aspen stands. No instances of ungulate bark stripping were recorded during this study, so those data were omitted from the summary tables for each study area. Conifers were absent from all aspen stands, so those data were also omitted from the tabular summaries, but may be found on the original data sheets (Appendix B).

Stag Mountain

The study area on Stag Mountain included four allotments - - Deeth, Stag Mountain, Devils Gate, and Pole Creek. The Deeth Allotment included Connors Basin Field and Hanks Creek Basin Field, while the Stag Mountain Allotment included McIntyre Field and the Cheveller Exclosure, per the allotment map provided by BLM. In all, 52 aspen stands were measured (EK- 201 to EK-252; see Appendix A) and those data are presented in Tables 1 to 10, as well as Appendix C (slides 1-601).

11

Deeth Allotment - Connors Basin Field

Most aspen in this pasture experienced a major regeneration event during the early 1980’s when the previous permittee went bankrupt and the range was destocked for at least four years (Tables 1 to 4; Figures 2 and 3). This is similar to what happen on Bates Mountain where aspen regenerated when that allotment was partially destocked due to permittee bankruptcy (Kay 2001a). Connors Basin Field, however, was swept by wildfire in 2001 and many aspen stands were burned. Consequently, this part of the Deeth Allotment was closed to cattle grazing in 2001, although some trespass use did occur. Regeneration of burned aspen stands ranged from 7,000 to nearly 60,000 stems per acre and averaged just over 30,000 (n=17) - - see Table 1 and Figures 4 to 6. Mean sucker height one year following fire ranged from 25 to 56 inches and averaged 39 inches (n=17) - - see Table 3. It is anticipated that this pasture will be rested until most of the new aspen suckers are beyond the reach of cattle. This likely will require two or three additional years of non-use.

Table 1. Aspen stand parameters on the Deeth Allotment, Connors Basin Field.

12

a>

.Q

E

3

"D

C

TO

w

to

t — CM

i

*

LU

un

r~~

CNI

i

*

LU

■M-	T-	z	UJ	LU Z	o	UJ	in	o
x —	X —	o	OO	o o		CO		Is-
CM ■ *		■M-	m	m m T— T— T~	CO CO		X o CM
LU				CO oo to in
				•M-
CO	CM	z	LU	UJ z	o	UJ	O	O
T —	x —	o	CO	o o	o	z	t —	m
CM i * UJ		-'fr	m	o m m o ■M" T- co oo co m	CO CD		in	S3 o Is-
				■M-
OO	CO	z	UJ	LU Z	o	UJ	o	o
o	X —	o	oo	o o	•M-		i —	o
CM i * UJ			m	in o m cm o CO OO	CO CO		i m	CO X o -M"

h-

O

(Nl

i

*

LU

(D

O

CM

i

*

LU

m

o

CM

i

*

LU

■M-

O

CM

i

*

LU

CO

o

CM

i

*

LU

CM

O

CM

LU

o

CM

I

*

LU

CM

O

■M"

CM

O

UJ	UJ Z	o	UJ	o	o
oo	o o	CO	z	-f	oo
m	o o o in	t"- co		in	X — X
	i* CM				o
	CO oo co m				O)
	-u-
LU	UJ Z	o	z	o	o
oo	o o	to		co	o
in	m in Is- co CO CO	r — co		o CM	S3 o
	CO OO				T—
	co in				T""

M Z LU

^ O M

-M- in

co z LU CM O 03 •M- in

in

Z LU o oo M- in

Z LU O oo tj- in

C XT o O) 0J

~ c Dl C i C 0) o CO

co h- a:

uj z

o o o o

1- CO CO CD

-<r r~. co in

■M-

UJ

o

■M-

Z

o

CO

CO OO

co r'- co m

M"

LU Z O o o o

CO Tf CM 03 CO |"-

<o m

LU Z O O

o o ■*- 00 CM 03 co r-~ to in

o

m

co

o

CM

oo

co

o

CM

o

CM

LU

z

LU

o

CO

LU

z

LU

o

CM

o

CO

X

o

m

o

m

X

o

co

o

X

o

I"-

o

-O'

T —

X

o

03

<

z

<

z

<

z

<

z

to m •o-

z

UJ

UJ Z

o

UJ

o

oo

O O

00

^ —

in

o in m <j>

N

CD

1

o

X

co o to oo co m

•O'

I-

D

c

o

*■£3

co

>

03

UJ

to

8.

(/)

<

&

o

(0

10

T3

03

N

"(/>

TO

C

CO

C/)

03 C

c —

03 -C 03 03 03 £

a:

(/>

S

O

-Q

£

03

O

3

CO

o o o o o

r*»

o

-M"

r^- o o o o

o o o

03

co

cm m in M- CO CM r — co o r- m

r-'-

CD

O O O

00

CD

03

CO

o o o o

o o o

I"- o o o o

CO

oo

co

CM

o o o

m

Is-

o

in

■'t

CM

00

o o o o

o o o

o o o o

o o o

in o o o o

CO

o o o

oo

CO

M-

o

■M-

o o o o

o o o

	z	UJ	UJ	o	o	UJ	m	o	<	o	03
	o	oo	o	o	M	z		CM	z		m
	Tj-	m	o	m	oo			X —			CM
			o	03	CO			X			m
			co	r-				o			CM
			co	m				oo
			to
	z	LU	UJ	Z	o	LU	o	o	<	o	03
X —	o	oo	o	o	o	z		o	z		03
	T}-	m	in	m	oo			in			CO
			M	co	CO			X			co
			CO	o				o			M-
			CO	oo				oo

o o o o

o o o

o o o o

o o o

CM

03

I''-’

CO

o o o o

o o o

03

l_

o

3-

V)

0)

■E

</3

c

03

■a . E c

® V

CO

X

CD

Q

,E I I T

-ggg

v .2 .2 d

°? OO CO CM Tf A

«

(/)

CL

3

5* s &

03 c 0)

= m r 03 o CO 0.

03

Q

o

z

o

z

(/>

03

>-

</>

03

>-

10

03

(O

03

>-

o

z

o

z

o

z

L

03

TO

£

Pellet groups per 2x30 m (6.6 x 98 ft.) belt transect. **Water in or near stand. NA=Not applicable.

13

2

LL

CA

CO

CQ

£

o

c

o

O

•4-^

c=

<D

E

o

cd

a>

Q

a)

.c

c

o

e

aj

a>

E

CO

t_

CO

CL

■a

c

TO

to

c

a)

CL

CA

<

a>

JO

CO

CD

-Q

E

3

■a

c

CO

CM

I

LU

CM

CO

CM

i

*

LU

CO

CM

i

LU

O

CO

CM

■

LU

CD

CM

i

LU

CO

CM

i

LU

I''-

CM

i

*

LU

h~- ^ — CM

i

*

LU

oo

z

LU

LU Z

o

LU

o

CM

OO

o o

o

z

CO

in

o o

O) CM

CD

CO

in

CO

LU

oo

to

CO

co z LU CO T- oo

Tfr LD

CO

Z LU O oo M" in

Z LU O oo M" m

cr

o

T>

a)

CO

T- CD

CO oo

co in

LU

o

CM

z

o

m

M"

O

in

o

r-'-

LU

CO oo

co in

z	LU	LU	Z	o
	OO	o	o
Tf	in	o	o	o>
		co		CO
		CM	M-
		CO	OO
		CD	in
			M-
z	LU	LU	z	o
	00	o	o
	m	o	o	o
		in	OO	1^-
		t —	•M-
		CO	oo
		CD	in

LU

o

CM

m

LU

m

LU Z o o o o t— r~- CM M" CO OO

cd in

M-

z

o

LU o o o

CM CO CO OO

cd m

LU o o o

CO CO OO

cd m

■M-

o

CM

o

OO

CD

O

OO

O

M-

oo

CD

LU

Z

LU

O

CM

O

m

o

CD

X

o

O

00

X

o

m

o

oo

x

o

M"

O

0O

X

o

m

o

CO

X

o

CM

O

CO

X

o

n~

o

oo

T —

X

o

<

Z

<

Z

<

z

o o o o o o

CD

OO o o o o

CD

h~

CO

o o o o o

o o o

o

z

o o o

o o

o o o o o

o o o

OO o o o o

CD

o

CO

T- o o o o

in

CM

o

CD T- CO O T-

co o oo o

CM CM CM CM

r- co

o o o

T-

Z

LU

z

o

LU

o

O

o

in

m

in

o

O

o

CM

o

00

O

o

z

CM

o

r--

co

o

CO

CM

in

o

M-

T“

co

o

T—

*

LU

CD

o

CO

CM

oo

X

o

CD

*"

CD

in

■M-

O

o

z

UJ

LU

z

o

LU

m

O

<

o

O

o

CM

▼“

o

oo

o

oo

z

o

z

CM

i

*

LU

in

o

oo

co

o

CO

oo

CD

3

o

m

CD

m

T“

■M-

CD

o

z

LU

in

o

LU

m

o

in

M"

oo

h-

O

o

t —

,T“

o

oo

CM

o

oo

CM

CD

O

o

CO

CM

m

oo

o

in

X

co

oo

CO

T —

v>

1 —

^ —

h-

o

CM

X—

X

CO

LU

CD

m

M'

oo

o

Z

LU

Z

o

UJ

o

CM

CD

o

oo

O

o

T—

o

oo

o

CD

z

CO

T“

r-

o

CD

CM

i

LU

in

o

oo

CO

in

n-

o

oo

r~-

1

o

2

o

CD

o

T—

CM

cd in

■O'

z

LU

UJ z

o

UJ

o

oo

O O

CO

M-

in

o o C"- co

CO

N

CD

in

co oo cd m

M-

o

r-

X

o

T- o o o o

CD

in

o o o

Q.		c:
E		o
CA (D			■5
1 c	2	CO >	(D Q_
O CCJ	h-	<D	(A
L— CC	D	UJ	<

CD

a.

o

(0

(A

"O

>s

CD

N

CA

T3

c

co

2 s-'

CD C c —

a>

CD CD CD 'E

QL

T3

CD

CA

$

o

L_

n

£

CD

o

3

co

CD

l_

o

_C0

CA

CD

X

CQ

a

~ .E x X

CA

c

CD

■a

E c

§ CO V

co

CM g g CQ

V

v .E d m-

CO CM

oo

Q

oo

A

*

CA

CL

3

o

CL CD CD

00(0

CL

cd a)

0) ZP = co

CD

a

CA

(D

>

CA

CD

CA

CD

CA

CD

>-

CA

CD

CA

CD

>-

0)

TO

Pellet groups per 2x30 m (6.6 x 98 ft.) belt transect. **Water in or near stand. NA=Not applicable.

Table 1. Aspen stand parameters on the Deeth Allotment, Connors Basin Field.

14

CD

-Q

E

TD

C

CD

CO

eg

i

*

LU

CM

z

UJ

LU Z

o

LU

o

00

in

o o o o CM t-

oo

h»

(O

CO

co r-» co oo m

o

co

x

o

oo o o o o

o

CO

o o o

(/>

CD

c -c:

O CD

~ c cn t) i C CD O TO

co i- a:

c

o

-4—*

CD

>

0)

LU

ts

|

c/1

<

>P

o'

CD

CL

O

CO

co

T3

>,

CD

N

V)

T3

C

CD

CO

VO

E 3

CD C

S 2 8*f

a:

-O

CD

C/>

S

O

e

CD

O

13

CO

CD

i—

o

CD

> — ■

C/1

0)

£

C/>

c

CD

T3

E

CD

CO

X

GO

Q

CM

V

d

CO CM

X X 00 CO Q Q

Tf oo

X

CO

oo

A

«

c/1

CL

3

O

CD d)

CL

CD i- 0) JC CD CD = ra r (D

aiOCOO

0.

L

a>

TO

£

Pellet groups per 2x30 m (6.6 x 98 ft.) belt transect. **Water in or near stand. NA=Not applicable.

15

Table 2. Age and diameter of aspen on the Deeth Allotment, Connors Basin Field. R=stem with heart rot that could not be aged. Burned=recently burned stand in which all the overstory trees were killed and thus no age data recorded.

Stand Number	Stem Diameter (inches)/Age (yrs)
EK-201	Burned
EK-202	Burned
EK-203	Burned
EK-204	Burned
EK-205	Burned
EK-205	Burned
EK-206	Burned
EK-207	Burned
EK-208	Burned
EK-213	Burned
EK-214	4/20, 4/18, 4/19, 5/16, 5/18, 5/18, 5/20, 22/R
EK-215	Burned
EK-216	Burned
EK-217	Burned
EK-218	3/21, 3/20, 3/20, 3/20, 8/70, 9/71, 11/76
EK-219	1/10, 2/16, 2/17, 2/18, 2/18, 2/18, 3/17, 3/18, 8/50
EK-220	No live stems in stand
EK-226	1/8, 1/10, 2/15, 3/19, 3/18, 3/18, 3/18, 4/20, 14/96, 14/95, 17/R
EK-227	2/10, 2/18, 3/18, 3/20, 4/19, 4/20, 4/20, 5/20, 12/110, 12/110,17/108, 18/110, 20/115
EK-228	Burned
EK-229	Burned
EK-230	No live stems in stand
EK-231	No live stems in stand
EK-232	Burned
EK-234	Burned
EK-236	Burned

Table 3. Height of browsed and unbrowsed aspen suckers in recently burned aspen stands on the Deeth and Stag Mountain Allotments.

All stands were burned in 2001 by the Stag Mountain fire. EK-201 to 236 Deeth Allotment. EK-233 and 235 Stag Mountain Allotment.

16

■a

co

OO 05

c\i Tj-'

-o

<D

</)

£

O

CO

X

c

Tt oo cri co

o o

IT) CO

05

<u

I

3

X

c

COuScOCOa5CNCOcr)COCN't-;Ti;a)T-;CT>COCN4 T- •«- T- r- T- T- CM T- 1- T- T- CM T-

M; (O CO CO ^ ® S M; O N N S r; r; (J) s (DOTfdnifi^oiNTtiricDTf^cooco COM-OCOCOCIM-COCO^OmCMM-COinM-

ooooooooooooooooo

LocncncoLococncocncocococncocncncn

ooooooooooooooooo

o

a>

&

E

3

■a

c

TO

V)

T-CMOM-lOCOh-OOCOincONOOCDCMM-CD

OOOOOOOOt-t-1-t-CMCNICOCOCO

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

• i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t i

* :*: *: * * i sc:*:*:*:^:*:****:*:*: LUUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJliJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJ

co

CO

CM

I

*

LU

EK-235 100

17

m

CM

id

LU

m o CD

■<*

CM

i

LU

m

• in h- H

co

T

CM

i

id

LU

m m 1 in m 1 1 1 1

oo

o

CM

I

*

LU

in o 1 m 1 • 1 1 1

•M"

Q)

>

O

>«

CL

o

c

CO

O

■M

C

<0

0

1

Cl)

CL

TJ

C

CO

a>

n

E

3

-o

c

CO

t-~-

o

CM

id

LU

CD

O

CM

i

id

LU

in

o

CM

■

id

LU

•M"

O

CM

id

LU

m o ' 1 1—

co

■ i i ■

in o

-M-

in o m

m o m

■ i i i i

■ ■•it

■ ■■lit

co

o

CM

id

LU

in o ' 1 1 1 1 1 1

is-

CM

o

CM

£

LU

o o

CD

O

CM

i

LU

in o l— CD

«

w

QJ

O

CD

Cl

(0

a)

n

5

o

c

CO

Cfl

-Q

■Q

CO

c c

CD .Q a>

$ E °

- co •—

d a; n c a> cc a) tc co i- w a

<d <d a> o 2 > <n <

d. m c/> = i_ c. _ ;

r — 1 /1\ OJ -

i/T CL O L- 3 CD

<CDCd>ococQa

in m m 1 | —

CM

o o m m

CD i- T_

m m o 1 t— Tj- co

in in o t- co

in m in 1 1

T — T — CO

m m m

M"

m m m 1 H co

in o o 1 1—

v- CO

in m m 1 I—

M"

in o m

m

o

CM

i/>

CD

(/>

co

O

co

-Q

o

u_

o

co

® ai O

CO

DO

o

cd

willow (Salix spp.), currant (Ribes spp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnofolia). big sage (Artemisia tridentata), and silver sage (A. cana).

18

0

O

CO

0

c

'to

CO

m

£

o

c

o

O

0

E

o

<

0

O

0

■C

c

o

«/)

T3

C

0

to

c

0

CL

CO

co

CO

o

CL

E

(0

0

o

0

CL

to

£

o

£

0

T3

c

D

0

JQ

TO

	C\J
	CO
	CM

	in
	•4 —
	CO
	CM
	£
	in
	o
	CO
	CM
	X
	in
	CD
	CM
	CM
	*
	in
l—	oo
0	CM
>	CM
o O	i * in
>s
Q.
O
C CO O	r-- CM CM
c	X
0	in
p
0
a.	CO
•a	CM
c	CM
CO l_ 0	in
.Q
E
3 Z	o CM
■O	CM \|
c	*
CO	in
(0	CO
	T —
	CM
	*
	in
	00
	T —
	CM
	*
	in
	t'-
	T“
	CM
	*
	in
	CO
	T —
	CM
	X
	in
	CO
	0
	o
	8.
	(0

in o

■ i i i • ■ •

n

in

m • ■ 1 H-

■ i i i

in • ■ 1 1—

• i i ■

in o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

in

o

co

o

co

in

m o

■ i i ■ i i i

in in • 1

o ■■■■■> in tj-

i i m • i m m

o

in

r-

I— h- H h-

in o co

_ o

o co

jc

(O

2

-Q

£

jQ

TO

£

r>

■Sec ^

5 0 0 0 0 0 0.0)10 =

C (0 I- o 5 O 0

w < o a: > o c/)

I s

JC

to

I ^

C 0

_Q co

0 TO

CJ> io TO t- (O 0

O) ^

in w

in

■m-

o

in

m

co

in

r-

o

CO

o

CO

o

CO

o

CO

in

m m f-

m in |—

in

I- o h-

H o h-

in

H o (-

in

m

in

o

uo

<o

0

8

TO

o

CO

€

o

LL

O

CO

2 O

CD ^ o

m j a:

19

CD

O

03

CD

C

co

03

CD

co

■

o

c

c.

o

O

<D

E

o

<

CD

Q

CD

SZ

c

o

C/3

T3

C

03

00

C

(D

Q.

c/o

03

c O L— >

V)

o

Q.

E

o

C/3

CD

'o

CD

CL

CO

2r-

o

-1 — 4

CO

t_

CD

■a

c

D

o-

_ao

xo

03

CD

>

o

>4

Q.

o

c

03

O

c

CD

O

!_

CD

a.

T3

C

03

t_

(D

jQ

E

3

■a

c

TO

CO

CD

co

CM

LU

co

CM

LU

oo

ao

o

CD

CL

CO

if) o

CD

UO o

I"-

if)

in

m

in

m

in 1 (—

jC

cn

3

u_

DO

10

3

CO

-Q t C CD

X3 CD X3 CO

03 -Q CD 03

^ CD O) CO

C C $^ 0 03 1-

CD CD CD O 2

CL CD </>

cn cd

CD —

lO >— U > UJ

<oq;5uwcqw

CO

CD

co

CO

03

5

CO

xo

o

CO

£ a> ^

03

CD

o

LT

20

Figure 2. Unburned aspen stand EK-214 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. Most aspen stand in this pasture regenerated during the early 1980’s when this part of the allotment was destocked due to permittee bankruptcy. Note the 6 foot red and white survey pole for scale Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 147) by Charles E. Kay; August 29, 2002.

21

Figure 3. Unburned aspen stand EK-227 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. This is another example of the regeneration event that occurred in this pasture when the range was temporarily destocked during the 1980’s due to permittee bankruptcy. The large trees are 18-20 in. DBH and 110 years old (Table 2). Survey pole (6 ft.) for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 279) by Charles E. Kay; August 31 , 2002.

22

Figure 4. Burned aspen stand EK-232 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. Judging by the size of the dead aspen stems in the photograph, this aspen stand experienced a major regeneration event during the early 1980’s when the range was temporarily destocked. Then in 2001 , the stand was swept by the Stag Mountain wildfire and subsequently resrouted at 33,768 stems per acre (Table 1 ). Survey pole (6 ft.) for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 324) by Charles E. Kay; August 31, 2002.

23

Figure 5. Aspen stand EK-217 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. After this stand was swept by wildfire in 2001 , it resprouted at 59,161 stems per acre, the highest density recorded in this pasture (Table 1). Survey pole (6 ft.) for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 170) by Charles E. Kay; August 29, 2002.

24

Figure 6. Aspen stand EK-228 in the Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment.

This stand also burned during the 2001 fire event, but it resprouted at only 10,251 stems per acre (Table 1). Also note the extensive bare soil. Survey pole (6ft.) for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 286) by Charles E. Kay; August 31, 2002.

25

Deeth Allotment - Hanks Creek Basin Field

This pasture is at lower elevation than Connors Basin Field and contains only a handful of widely scattered aspen stands, three of which are protected by exclosures. The East and West Hanks Creek Exclosures were constructed in 1995, while the Antelope Basin Exclosure was built in 1997 (Appendix A). Plot EK-209 was established in the East Hanks Creek Exclosure, while transect EK- 210 was placed inside the West Hanks Creek Exclosure - - there are no unprotected aspen at either of these locations. Plot EK-21 1 was placed inside the Antelope Basin Exclosure, while transect EK-21 2 was placed in an adjacent stand grazed by cattle (Appendix A). This pasture was not rested in 2002, as it was not burned by the Stag Mountain Fire.

Aspen inside all three exclosures successfully regenerated after the areas were fenced (Tables 5 to 7; Figures 7 and 8). At the time they were sampled, however, mule deer had browsed 100% of the aspen suckers inside the West and East Hanks Creek Exclosures and 40% of the suckers inside the Antelope Basin Exclosure (Table 1; Figure 9). Aspen sapling density inside the Antelope Basin exclosure was six times that on the unprotected plot (Table 1; Figure 10). Grass and forb canopy cover were also greater inside the exclosure, while bare soil was more common on the unprotected plot (Table 7). Unlike aspen in Connors Basin Field, aspen stands in the Hanks Creek pasture did not experience a regeneration event during the early 1980’s (Tables 5 and 6).

26

0

-g

'«/>

c

CM 0 ^ 3 UJ j§

a) o

E x

3 d)

V)

o .E

(J 1/3

X ™

(D CD

-X CD CD Q_

2 o

O £ C/) 5 -X <

m <D

x£

S |

LU a —— CD 3 JC O

CD

CM

2 CM £ *

O)

o

CM

I

*

LU

T3

0

LL

LU

0 w =3

a o o X 0

c

1/3

_ CT3

•55 OQ 0

CD a.

^ o

0 0

O <

A 0 -X x: c *- ro 0 x -g

cfl

0 __

E - o ™ =■ * < LU

£ -g 0 c

CD CO

o

0

=J 5= A C o

° X

0

03 CD

E 2

CO O TO C/3

32 co

£ I

TO A C £ 0 < CL

A 0

<

4-1

m

0

-Q

CO

0

_Q

E

3

Z

■a

c

CO

W

CM

T —

CM

*

LU

CM

X.

LU

O

CM

i

*

LU

O)

o

CM

i

:*:

LU

03	Z	UJ	LU Z	o	£	o	o
CM	o	03	o o	CM	CM	m
	M'	m	o o	Is-	z		T—
			m m	CO			X
			CO CO				o
			co h- co m				I**-
			O'
03	z	LU	UJ z	o	<;	o	o
CM	O	03	o o	CM	CM	m
	M1	m	o o m r-- CO CO	Is- co	z	O	X o
			co r- co in				r-

03	z	LU	UJ z	o	LU	O	o
T“	o	03	o o	CM		CO	m
	M-	m	m o Is- CM c- co	m co		1 o	a o
			CO h-				o
			co m
			M"
o	z	UJ	UJ z	o	£	o	o
CM	o	03	o o	03	CM	in
	■M"	m	o m m co 00 00	•M- co	z	1 o T—	X o
			CO C— co in				-M-
			•m-

O

co r- o o r~~ co

CM

co

o o

o

■M-

O CO O O -M-

o co

CO CO T-

f'-

o o o

A

0

o tj- m o o i"~

O O CO CO

t— co co

o o o

o

CM 'O' O O r- 03 ■o -O’

cm m

r~-

co

O O T-

c

o

x:

in

c

$

0

C3>

c

2

•B

co

>

T5

0

CL

0

o

TO

P

<1)

<n

CO

h-

a

=>

LU

<

>p

o'

0

CL

O

C0

A

T3

>>

0

N

A

T3

C

TO

4-4

CO

i£

2^ 0 e

Sz

S*f

a.

■a

0

A

£

o

I—

n

2

0

-JC

o

3

(0

0

L_

o

CO

A

0

'55

c

0

T3

X
DO
o				«
d CM V	X CD a	X CD Q	X CD O	</> Q. 3 2
V	d	d	d	O) 03

® $ CO

* -r

CO CM

CO

A

03 X= 0 = TO x:

03 o co

CL

0

a

L

0

TO

£

27

Table 6. Age and diameter of aspen on the Deeth Allotment, Hanks Creek Basin Field. R=stem with heart rot that could not be aged.

Stand Number	Stem Diameter (inches)/Age (yrs)
EK-209	1/7, 1/7, 8/R, 9/72, 9/R
EK-210	20/122, 21/R, 21/125
EK-21 1	13/70, 18/R, 19/R
EK-212	13/75

‘Stem aged at ground level.

28

CD

O

(0

T3

0)

L_

c

<75

co

CD

2

O

CA

C

CO

X

*-T

C

<D

E

o

<d

CD

Q

<D

C

o

(A

■a

c

CO

Ta

c

CD

a.

(A

CO

o

c

o

'xt

<A

o

CL

o

(A

CD

O

CD

CL

(A

£

O

CD

T3

C

D

h-

jd

JQ

CO

CD

>

o

O

>.

CL

O

c

CO

O

c

CD

s

CD

CL

TD

C

CO

<D

X)

E

3

■a

c

TO

55

CM

*

LU

O

CM

i

*

LU

O

CM

LU

CD

O

CM

i

*

LU

«

<A

CD

8.

w

io m (— in

CM t-

o o

CM CM

m

m m |—

m o m (— h- t—

CM CM

o m m i—

CO t-

m

CM

in

co

o

co

m

<A

^ £

CD

<D XI £

,g> c

CD W

2

<A

E

XI

.■t:

X)

XI

CO

c

<z

CD

5

E

€

CD

1

CD

X O CD

o

XI

CA

E

X)

CD

O)

CO

” ? CD O > =

omoow

CD

CA

O

UL

£

8

E

CD

(/)

CA

a>

8

CO

l _

O

CA

■e

o

in • co

m o h-

m m i—

m m |—

o

CA

e ® o

CB C O

CD Zi CL

*

Bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana).

29

Figure 7. Aspen stand EK-209 inside the East Hanks Creek Exclosure, Hanks Creek Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. After this stand was fenced to exclude cattle, it successfully produced new stems greater than 6 feet tall. Aspen sapling density on this plot was 5,494 stems per acre (Table 5). Survey pole (6 ft.) for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 51 ) by Charles E. Kay; August 29, 2002.

30

Figure 8. Aspen stand EK-21 1 inside the Antelope Basin Exclosure, Hanks Creek Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. After this stand was fenced to exclude cattle, it successfully produced new stems greater than 6 feet tall. Sapling density, however, was only 603 stems per acre (Table 5). Survey pole (6 ft.) for scale Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 99) by Charles E Kay; August 29, 2002.

31

Figure 9. Aspen sucker inside the West Hanks Creek Exclosure, Hanks Creek Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. All aspen suckers inside this exclosure had been repeatedly browsed by mule deer, which limited height growth and sapling recruitment (Kay and Bartos 2000). Red and white survey pole in one foot increments for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 83) by Charles E. Kay; August 29, 2002.

32

Figure 10. Aspen stand EK-212 outside the Antelope Basin Exclosure, Hanks Creek Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. Unlike its fenced counterpart (Figure 8), this unprotected aspen stand has not been able to successfully produce new stems greater than 6 feet tall except where individual suckers have been protected from livestock by fallen trees or thick brush (Vera 2000:132-162; Kay 2001a, 2002; Ripple and Larsen 2001 ). Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 1 07) by Charles E. Kay; August 29, 2002.

33

Stag Mountain Allotment - - McIntyre Field

McIntyre pasture in the Stag Mountain Allotment is located to the west of Connors Basin Field on the Deeth Allotment. Thus, Stag Mountain and adjoining areas have essentially been divided into two allotments on which the general climate, soils, and such are similar, but with different grazing histories. While the Deeth Allotment is grazed by cattle, McIntyre Field has been grazed both by cattle and domestic sheep. In addition, the Stag Mountain Allotment was not destocked during the early 1980’s, as was Connors Basin Field. This difference in grazing history is reflected in the condition and trend of aspen on these adjacent pastures. While most aspen stands on the east side of Stag Mountain experienced a major regeneration event during the early 1980’s and are generally in good to excellent ecological condition, the same is not true of aspen immediately to the west on the adjoining allotment.

Instead, aspen in the McIntyre Field is generally in very poor ecological condition and few stands have successfully produced new stems greater than 6 feet tall except at the uppermost elevations far from water (Holecheck 1988, Kay 2001a, 2002; see Tables 8 to 10 and Figures 1 1 to 16). Many aspen stands in this pasture have been reduced to only a handful of live stems, while other clones have been completely eliminated. In addition, there was no regeneration event during the early 1980’s west of the divide as there was on the range immediately to the east. Moreover, the few aspen stands in McIntyre Field that have regenerated have done so only in the last few years when use by domestic

34

sheep has been curtailed. According to BLM, a change in herders occurred on the Stag Mountain allotment a few years back and the upper portions of this field have not been grazed by sheep since that time. Cattle use on McIntyre Field, which is under the control of a different permittee, has not changed at least not to any degree that has allowed aspen to recover.

Table 8. Aspen stand parameters on the Stag Mountain Allotment, McIntyre Field.

35

CD

.Q

E

3

Z

-a

c

TO

w

M-

CM

i

id

LU

O

-M-

CM

*

LU

CT)

CO

CM

i

id

LU

oo

CO

CM

id

UJ

CO Z	LU	LU	Z	o
	oo	o	o	CD
	m	o	o
		o	00	CD
		T —	CT)
		CO	OO
		CD	m

in

02 LU CM OO ID

o z LU

CM t- OO

cd "M- m

o Z LU

CO -r- 00 in

UJ

o

c

o

t3

CD

CO

V) (D

cm in

ct> e-

CM OO

cd in

UJ Z

O O

o o

CT> CT)

oo

CM OO

co in

Ul Z o o o o

1- CO oo m cm oo co in

■M-

O

co

CT)

CO

O

CO

Is-

O

CM

Is-

UJ

O

CM

m

UJ

o

CO

I

m

o

co

X

o

in

o

co

X

o

CO

o

CO

s

o

oo

o

X

o

Is-

<

z

co in

M-

T —	O) Z	Ul	Ul	z	o
CNJ	o	oo	o	o	CM
CM	■M-	m	o	o	CO
v			CM	CO	h-
LU			o CO	CM oo
			CO	m

C 0

o

3

o

co

<

Z

o>

c

ro

Cd

t—

D

c

o

CO

>

a>

UJ

CD

Q.

</>

<

CD

CL

_o

CO

</)

T3

>*

CD

N

"c/>

■a

c

CO

(0

|£

CD C C — <D -C CJ) O) CD XZ

Od

CO

O

■a

CD

</)

$

2

jQ

£

CD

O

3

CO

CD r- CD N OO ■<t N CO CO CD

in oo "M" cm

CM

O O O h- 00 CO

00

CM

o o o o o

o o o

0)0 0

M- O O

o o o o

in

CO

Is-

CD

T- O O

in

CD

>-

cn

CD

>-

</)

(D

>-

e'-	o z	LU	UJ Z	o	LU	o	o	o	o	o
en	CO	oo	O O	o	z	-M"	in	Is-	-M-	in
CM ■ id	■M-	m	in in CO t- co m	■M- e-			S o			co co
LU			CM oo co m				CO
			•M-
m	r- z	Ul	LU z	o	Ul	O	o	<	O	e'-
co	CM P-	00	o o	oo	</d	t —	o	z	O	er)
CM	■ij-	m	o o	Is-		CO		T —	T —
id			O T~ CM Is-	co			X o			CO CM
LU			co oo				o
			co in
			-M-
CO	oo z	LU	UJ z	o	LU	in	o	<	O	CM
CO	CM	co	O O	o		oo	z	O	CM
CM	•s?	in	o in	CT)			X		t —	t—
1 id			CT) CM T- co	CO			o ■M-
LU			CO oo co in
			Tf
m	m- z	LU	Ul Z	O	CO	m	o	o	m	o
CM	o	oo	O O	O	T—	in	in	■M-	■M-
CM	■M"	m	m in	CT)			T —			co
id Ul			1- CO O CM CO oo	e^			X o o			T —
			co m				T —
			M-
M-	^ Z	UJ	Ul Z	o	LU	o	o	o	o	CT)
CM	o	oo	O O	CM	C/D	CM	m	o	CM	O
CM id Ul	•M-	in	o o 00 -M- O) CM CM OO	Is- Is-		2 o o			m 00
			co in				T~
			■M-
CO	M- Z	LU	LU z	o	UJ	O	o	<	O	CM
CM	O	oo	O O	■M-	C/D	CM	o	z	O	T—
CM i id Ul	"M"	in	m o o CM CO 00 co m	-M- Is-		y o oo			■M- CM


CM	O) Z	LU	UJ z	O		O	o	<	<	O
CM	o	00	O O	CM	c/d	CM	o	z	z
CM i id Ul	•O'	m	o in cm e- o o co oo	CM Is-	1 m	CO X o o

CO

■M"

M-

CO

■M-

CO

o o

o o o o

00 o o

in

CD

>

o o o o

Is- O O

CO

■M-

CO

-M-

CO

CM O O

o

Z

o o

o

CM

O O O Is-

co

o o o o o

o o

r- o o

0)0 0

o o o o o

O O

in

CD

>

m

CD

>-

CD

l—

o

CO ' — *

CO

CD

c n c CD

■a

X

00

O

X X OO CQ Q Q

E ^ a3 co v

(/)

CM

V

C M- oo

i i

CO CM Tt

X

CO

o

.E d

oo

A

«

in

Cl

3

O

O) OJ CL ■ . — 0)

(D t; CD CD = ra £ CD

CD o W Q CL

i.

CD

ts

£

Pellet groups per 2x30 m (6.6 x 98 ft.) belt transect. **Water in or near stand. NA=Not applicable.

Table 8. Aspen stand parameters on the Stag Mountain Allotment, McIntyre Field.

36

3

E

zj

z

T3

C

OB

V)

cm

m

CM

I

LU

in

CM

i

*

LU

O

in

CM

i

*

LU

CT>

M-

CM

id

LU

00

CM

i

*

LU

r--

■m-

CM

I

id

UJ

CD

ifr

CM

i

*

UJ

m

■m-

CM

I

id

UJ

M-

-M-

CM

i

id

UJ

CO

■M-

CM

i

*

LU

CM

•M-

CM

i

id

LU

05 z LU

LU Z

O

UJ

o

co 05 o o m

CM O O

CM ^ oo

O O

CM

z

CM

o

OO O CO

M- m

o o

O CM

CO

1

o

T—

3

r*»

CM oo CO

CO 1—

CM Z LU T- CO o- m

m

Z UJ

O CD Tt m

cm z LU

CD T- 00

•M- m

co

Z UJ T- oo ■O- m

Z UJ t- oo rt m

Z UJ T- oo M- m

c x:

O <A 05

■c i

<u o CO L—

cn

c

co

0^

o in co oo co m

UJ

o _ m in

r-'-

05

co

CM OO

co m

UJ Z o o o o

O) CO oo CM CM OO

co m

■M-

UJ

o

m

CM CO 05 CO CM 00

co m

LU

o

in

in co oo CO CM OO

co m

UJ

o

Z

o

00 05 OO CO CM OO

co in

LU Z o o o o

OO CM OO M- CM 00

co m

•M-

o

oo

CO

r-

o

■M"

co

I"-

o

■M"

r-'-

o

co

o

oo

CM

h-

o

CM

m

UJ

m

£

Z

UJ

w

LU

o

CO

I

m

o

CM

in

o

CM

I

m

o

co

o

CM

o

co

T—

X

o

00

o

m

T —

X

o

05

o

co

X

o

CM

o

s

o

CM

O

in

X

o

co

o

t'-

X

o

CM

o

o o o

I"-

oo

O CM oo 1- O CO O g CM CM

r-

co

r"- o o

O M-

co

CO o o

05

CO

■sf

o o o

r--

CD

m o o

co o o o r — Is- co

CM

o o o o o

oo o o

o o

<

z

05	Z	UJ	UJ z	o	UJ	o	o
CM		oo	o o	o		CM	o
		in	o o CM O	CO h-			§
			O CO				o

o

CM O o

M-

o o

r-

CO

o o

m o o o co h- o

CO CO

CM O O

CO oo co m

r, z

UJ

UJ z

o

LU

o

<

o

f—

o

O M-

CM T-

oo

o o

oo

z

T—

1^

z

o

T —

CO

Tt

m

o in

05

T —

CM

’I

CO 05

CO

X

CM

co

o

co oo

o>

co in

it

CO Z

UJ

UJ Z

o

z

o

<

o

o o

r* ^

00

O O

o

z

m

o o

CO

m

2

O oo

o

CO 00

oo

co m

M-

M; z

UJ

UJ Z

o

UJ

o

y-

05

oo

O Tt

CM 00

co

o o

CM

z

CM

in

■M-

r—

CO

co

CM

in

o o

05

1

Q

T—

CM

"M"

CM

T —

1- CO

o o

CO

X

o

CM

05 (O

CO

moo

o o o

in tj-

05

2

P

D

c

o

00

>

05

LU

ts

I

in

<

05

CL

O

(/)

in

05

^>;

05

N

(/)

TO

CZ

CO

1

W

CO

I

Cl)

c

O) O)

5 2

	e	O	X
	■O	CO	GQ
	05	in	Q
o^ TD <15 t —	O s JO 12 05 v-	05 E m c 05	c X "8	X 00 Q	X 00 Q	* m CL zb o
!E	"O . c «	v .E	d	d	05 gj

o

c/>

05 <D -S V (J )

4= O’ CO CM

0O

OO

A

CL

05 <- 05 05 £ co r 05 a> O C/5 O Ol

o

Z

in

05

>-

in

05

m

05

>-

m

05

>-

in

05

>-

o

Z

in

05

>-

in

05

CO

5

Pellet groups per 2x30 m (6.6 x 98 ft.) belt transect. **Water in or near stand. NA=Not applicable.

37

Table 9. Age and diameter of aspen on the Stag Mountain Allotment, McIntyre Field. R=stem with heart rot that could not be aged. Burned=recently burned stand in which all the overstory trees were killed and thus no age data collected.

Stand Number

Stem Diameter (inches)/Age (yrs)

EK-221

EK-222

EK-223

EK-224

EK-225

EK-233

EK-235

EK-237

EK-238

EK-239

EK-240

EK-241

EK-242

EK-243

EK-244

EK-245

EK-246

EK-247

EK-248

EK-249

EK-250

EK-251

EK-252

No live stems in stand

10/95, 11/R, 11/97, 12/100

1*/6, 1*/6, 1*/6, 2*/6, 2*/7, 11/R, 11/98, 12/R, 14/R

279, 279, 279, 279, 2710, 3*/11, 13/95, 14/98, 15/100. 16/R

Burned

1*/6, 1*/6, 1*/9, 2*/10, 2*/1 1 , 3/15, 3/15, 13/85, 13/87 19/75, 20/R 10/R, 11/R 15/R, 16/R, 17/R

1*/8, 1*/8, 3/17, 3/18, 4/23, 5/22, 6/26, 13/65, 21/88, 24/R, 26/R, 27/R

No live stems in stand

17/90, 10/92, 24/R

9/80, 10/80

No data collected - - see original data sheet No live stems in stand 16/87, 17/R

No data collected - - see original data sheet

176, 276, 276, 4/14, 5/14, 5/12, 14/R, 18/65, 19/77 No data collected - - see original data sheet

177, 179, 1710, 1710, 177, 1711, 2711, 9/76, 10/80, 11/80, 12/81, 18/102

•Stem aged at ground level.

38

CD

O

CD

T3

CD

U_

TO

>»

E

o

c

TO

E

_o

<

c

CD

3

O

O)

TO

GO

CD

c

o

CO

T5

3

TO

to

3

CD

CL

c/>

CD

3

o

L-*

‘c/>

O

CL

E

o

c/>

TO

O

TO

CL

CO

£

O

TO

"O

3

D

TO

JD

TO

h-

TO

>

O

>s

CL

O

3

TO

O -•— * 3 TO O

s

TO

CL

■o

3

TO

i—

TO

.Q

E

3

~a

3

TO

CO

o

M-

CM

i

*

ID

o>

CO

CM

t

5^

LU

CO

CM

i

*

LU

I-'-

co

CM

i

LU

m

CO

CM

I

LU

CO

CM

I

*

LU

in

CM

I

Q

LU

O’

CM

LU

CO

CM

i

*

LU

CM

*

LU

CM

i

*

LU

«

to

TO

&

CO

in o

CM

m o in

o

CM

in

in m

1- m

m

o

M-

O

■O’

m

o | — m m

o

CM

m m (—

m

in o co

m

co

m

m o

CM

o m

CM t-

o o

T- -M-

m

o

co

o

co

o

CM

m

o

co

m o (—

m o i—

m

m m h h

CM

in m I—

m

co

o

CM

m

in m

CM

o o t—

CM T-

o

CM

I- h-

to

E

_Q

TO

cn

CD

to

x:

to

E

n

n n

TO u

3 3

co

E

n

25

m JZ

to w

I E

s -e

TO

E TO TO -Q

U _ C_ m Ql -LJ _ \i>

3 .5* 3 <- to 3 £ •> O

cocooo<oc:oo>a:

to

CD

CO

TO

O

to

■e

o

8

£ * o

TO O

CO J CL

Rubber rabbitbmsh (Chrysothamnus nauseosus).

39

<D

O

ro

ii

I-

33

a>

u_

CD

'

>-

c

o

c

CD

E

o

<

c

to

c

to

o

0)

to

CO

CD

C

o co "O c ro -*— < CO

c

CD

CL

CO

ro

co

o

Q.

E

o

co

CD

o

CD

Q.

CO

£

0

to

1

0)

T3

C

3

0

ra

01

H-

CD

>

O

>.

a.

o

c

to

O

CD

0

1

CD

Q_

•a

c

03

i

CD

XI

E

rj

Z

T3

C

CD

CO

CM

io

CM

I

UJ

LO

CM

I

UJ

o

LO

CM

X.

LLi

03

M"

CM

I

UJ

oo

M-

CM

I

UJ

h-

M-

CM

I

UJ

CO

M-

CM

*

UJ

LO

M"

CM

i

*

UJ

M"

CM

I

*

UJ

00

M-

CM

I

UJ

CM

M-

CM

I

*

UJ

M-

CM

I

*

UJ

co

QJ

O

CD

a.

CO

LO

O LO

T- co

o o t— co

LO o

LO

LO LO 1

co

LO LO

T— ^

o o

T- O'

LO O 1

I- CO

o o

T- CO

O LO T- CM

LO

-C

co

ro

^xj

CD

CD -S co 5 ,S> i

CO

ro

XJ

n

ro

co

LO

1 LO (—

h- t—

CO

ro

XJ

m SZ

03 CO

^ ro

C C 53 ^

CD Q3 -9 m LJ

CD CL -9 -2 =

10 2 .t; ^

$

o

O

co

LO

CM

LO

CM

O

CO

O

CM

LO

LO LO | — CM CM

O LO (—

LO

LO LO LO

LO

O LO I—

LO

O LO h-

o

CO

o

LO

o

LO

o

CM

LO

LO O K

LO LO (— CM t-

LO O | —

I— o | —

CD I-

LO

1- l- co j .■e ^ l->

wmocxcDD^a:

CO

CD

co

CO

03

0

CO X3 1 —

O

LL

O

CO

£ © o

TO

00

o

o: :

40

Figure 11. Aspen Stand EK-240, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. Unlike aspen stands on the east side of Stag Mountain, which are generally in good to excellent ecological condition (Figures 2 and 3), aspen on this adjoining allotment is in very poor condition. Note the vehicle for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 447) by Charles E. Kay; September 1, 2002.

41

Figure 12. Aspen stand EK-247, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. No live stems were found and this aspen clone is now dead. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 525) by Charles E. Kay; September 2, 2002.

42

Figure 13. Aspen stand EK-249, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. Only the one aspen tree seen in the distance, and a few, repeatedly browsed aspen suckers, remain alive in this clone. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 542) by Charles E. Kay; September 2, 2002.

43

Figure 14. Aspen stand EK-251, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. Judging by downed trees, this aspen clone once covered nearly an acre but repeated livestock use has prevented recruitment, and the stand is now in danger of being lost. Note the vehicle for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 568) by Charles E. Kay; September 2, 2002.

44

Figure 15. Aspen stand EK-239 viewed northwest, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. Most of the area between the camera and the distant trees was once a fully stocked aspen stand, but repeated livestock use has killed-out most of the clone. Note the vehicle for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 41 8) by Charles E. Kay; September 1 , 2002.

45

Figure 16. Aspen stand EK-239 viewed northeast, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. While large areas of this aspen stand now lack live stems (Figure 15), aspen on the steeper, more distant slopes has regenerated in recent years, as domestic sheep use has declined on this joint-use allotment. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 41 1 ) by Charles E. Kay; September 1 , 2002.

46

Cheveller Exclosure - McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment

The Cheveller Exclosure was closed to livestock in 1 991 . Prior to that date, it was a fenced private pasture, but with completion of the Marys River land exchange on May 29, 1991, it became public (BLM). The Cheveller Exclosure (EK-241, 242, and 243) is built along an unnamed tributary to Stag Creek (Appendix A). This is an intermittent stream and where there is little or no water, aspen has successfully regenerated (Tables 8 to 10; Figures 17 and 18). Mule deer, however, have grazed many of the aspen suckers inside the exclosure (Figure 19) and likely reduced sapling recruitment (Kay and Bartos 2000). In addition, beaver (Castor canadensis) have damned several sections of the creek and cut the adjoining aspen (Figure 20). Where this occurred prior to the removal of livestock, however, long sections of streamside aspen were eliminated (Figures 21 and 22). Aspen, no doubt, regenerated after the mature trees were felled by beaver, but all the new suckers were repeatedly browsed by cattle until entire clones became extinct (Kay 2001a). Again this occurred only where there was sufficient water in the stream to support beaver. Where there was little or no water in the stream, beaver could not colonize those areas, and there, aspen survived and regenerated after livestock use was eliminated.

47

Figure 17. Fenceline contrast, Cheveller Exclosure, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. Cattle have been excluded from the area to the left of the fence since 1991 . Viewed east along the south boundary. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 491) by Charles E. Kay; September 1, 2002.

48

Figure 18. Aspen stand EK-241 inside the Cheveller Exclosure, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. Where the intermittent stream is dry, the mature aspen trees have not been cut by beaver and aspen has successfully produced new stems greater than 6 feet tall since livestock were excluded in 1991 . Note survey pole (6 ft.) for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 455) by Charles E. Kay; September 1 , 2002.

49

Figure 19. Browsed aspen sucker inside the Cheveller Exclosure. Many aspen suckers inside the exclosure have been repeatedly browsed by mule deer. This likely has limited sapling recruitment (Kay and Bartos 2000). Red and white survey pole in one foot increments for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 457) by Charles E. Kay; September 1, 2002.

50

Figure 20. A recent beaver dam inside the Cheveller Exclosure. Where permanent water is available, beaver have cut stream-side aspen inside the Cheveller Exclosure. Aspen has resprouted, but many of those suckers have been browsed by mule deer, threatening stand recruitment (Kay and Bartos 2000). Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 459) by Charles E. Kay; September 1 , 2002.

51

Figure 21. Aspen stand EK-242 inside the Cheveller Exclosure. All the area along the stream from the lower right of this photo up to the remaining trees was once a fully-stocked aspen stand. Beaver then colonized the area and cut the mature aspen for food and dam building materials. Aspen resprouted but livestock repeatedly browsed all the new suckers until aspen was eliminated (Kay 2001 a). This occurred prior to 1 991 , when livestock were excluded from this fenced area (see text). Where this intermittent stream is dry, beaver did not cut the mature trees and aspen survives - - photo upper left. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 475) by Charles E. Kay; September 1, 2002.

52

Figure 22. Aspen stand EK-243 inside the Cheveller Exclosure. The entire area along the stream in this photograph was once a fully-stocked aspen stand.

Beaver then colonized the area and cut all the mature trees. Aspen regenerated, but livestock repeatedly browsed all the new suckers until aspen was eliminated (Kay 2001a). This occurred prior to 1991 when livestock were excluded from this fenced area (see text). Most deforested areas along the stream in the Cheveller Exclosure were once fully-stocked aspen stands. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 485) by Charles E Kay; September 1, 2002.

53

Beaver

Similar to what was documented in the Cheveller Exclosure, beaver activity 30 to 40 years ago, or longer, appears to have contributed to the decline of several aspen stands on both the Deeth and Stag Mountain Allotments (Figures 23 to 26). Beaver often improve riparian conditions (Kay 1 994), but as the aspen trees were felled, livestock repeatedly browsed all the new suckers until entire clones, and the beaver themselves were eliminated (Kay 2001a).

54

Figure 23. Recent beaver activity on an unnamed tributary to the South Fork of Flanks Creek, Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. Beaver colonized this area during the early 1990’s and cut most of the aspen trees. The area was burned by the Stag Mountain fire in 2001 and then the dam failed. Shown is the old beaver dam, lodge, and food cache. Note the vehicle in the distance for scale (photo right). Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 128) by Charles E Kay- August 29, 2002.

55

Figure 24. Old beaver activity on an unnamed tributary to the South Fork of Hanks Creek, Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. At some point in the past, beaver colonized this area and cut the aspen in the lower portion of this photograph. Livestock then repeatedly browsed all the new aspen suckers until the clone was eliminated. This did not happen to aspen on the more distant hillsides, where clones experienced a major regeneration event during the early 1980’s when this pasture was temporarily destocked due to permittee bankruptcy. Shown in aspen stand EK-220. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 191) by Charles E. Kay; August 30, 2002.

56

Figure 25. Old beaver activity on Connors Creek, Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. At some point in the past, beaver colonized this area and cut the aspen along this portion of Connors Creek. Livestock then repeatedly browsed all the new aspen suckers until large areas of aspen were eliminated. This did not happen to the aspen on the more distant hillsides, where those clones experienced a major regeneration event during the early 1980’s when this pasture was temporarily destocked due to permittee bankruptcy. The area was subsequently burned by the Stag Mountain fire in 2001 . Note the old beaver dam - - photo lower left - - and the vehicle for scale (photo right edge). The entire area between the vehicle and the old beaver dam was once a fully stocked aspen stand. Shown is aspen stand EK-231 . Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 31 3) by Charles E. Kay; August 31 , 2002.

57

Figure 26. Old beaver activity on upper Cottonwood Creek, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. Most of the area in this photograph was once a fully stocked aspen stand until the site was colonized by beaver at some point in the past.

After beaver felled the mature trees, livestock repeatedly browsed all the new aspen suckers until the entire clone was eliminated. The beaver dam was at the far end of what is now a meadow. Shown is aspen stand EK-222. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 234) by Charles E. Kay; August 30, 2002.

58

Allotment Comparison

To reiterate, aspen in Connors Basin Field of the Deeth Allotment regenerated during the early 1980’s when that pasture was temporarily destocked due to permittee bankruptcy, while the range immediately to the west, McIntyre Field on the Stag Mountain Allotment, was never destocked, and those aspen have generally not regenerated and are in poor ecological condition - - Connors Basin Field is grazed only by cattle, while Stag Mountain Allotment is grazed by both cattle and domestic sheep. These differences can be seen at the allotment boundary (Figures 27 to 30). Aspen stand EK-234 is south of the allotment fence in Connors Basin Field, while EK-233 is north of the allotment fence in McIntyre Field. EK-234 experienced a major regeneration event during the 1980’s, while EK-233 did not. Both stands were burned in 2001 by the Stag Mountain fire. Connors Basin Field was rested in 2002 but not the adjacent pasture; i.e. , stand EK-234 was not legally grazed by livestock in 2002, while EK- 233 was grazed by cattle. Stand EK-233 had a sucker density of 1 1 ,122 stems per acre, while across the fence, EK-234 produced 49,900 suckers per acre (Figures 29 and 30). Where grazed (EK-233), the mean aspen sucker height was only 5.4 inches, while in the adjacent ungrazed stand (EK-234), aspen suckers were significantly taller; mean = 50.9 inches (Student’s t test, t = 4.64, p< .001 ). Unless burned aspen stands are protected from grazing for a number of years, livestock use can endanger clonal survival.

59

Figure 27. Allotment boundary comparison. Stag Mountain Allotment is to the left of the fence, while the Deeth Allotment is on the right. Aspen stand EK-234 (photo right) experienced a major regeneration event during the early 1980’s when the Connors Basin pasture was temporarily destocked. McIntyre pasture (photo left) was never destocked and EK-233 did not regenerate during the early 1980’s. The entire area was burned by the Stag Mountain fire in 2001 . Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 338) by Charles E. Kay; August 31 , 2002.

60

Figure 28. Aspen stand EK-234, Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. This is a close up of the aspen stand seen in Figure 27. EK-234 experienced a major regeneration event during the early 1980’s when this pasture was temporarily destocked due to permittee bankruptcy. The site was then swept by wildfire in

2001 . The black objects near the bottom of the aspen stand are trespass cattle. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 339) by Charles E. Kay; August 31 ,

2002.

61

Figure 29. Aspen stand EK-233, McIntyre Field, Stag Mountain Allotment. This is a close up of the aspen stand seen in Figure 27. Unlike its neighbor on the adjacent allotment (EK-234), EK-233 did not regenerate during the 1980’s. After this stand was swept by wildfire in 2001 , it was legally grazed by cattle in 2002. When measured, sucker density was 1 1 , 1 22 stems per acre with a mean height of 5.4 inches. Shown is the belt transect’s centerline (yellow tape). Survey pole (6 ft.) for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 346) by Charles E.

Kay; August 31, 2002.

62

Figure 30. Aspen stand EK-234, Connors Basin Field, Deeth Allotment. This is a close up of the aspen stand seen in Figures 27 and 28. When measured, aspen sucker density was 49,900 stems per acre with a mean height of 50.9 inches - - compare this with Figure 29. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 354) by Charles E. Kay; August 31 , 2002.

63

Pole Creek Tributary - Indian Creek Field, Devils Gate Allotment

Aspen along this tributary of Pole Creek (Section 1, township 39N, Range 58E) was visually evaluated, but no stands were measured (Appendix A). The Isolation fire burned this area in 2001 and cattle were present when the site was visited. Most aspen stands in this area appear to have been on a downward trend prior to the 2001 fire, and post-fire sprouting appears limited (Figure 31 ). This suggests that additional protection is warranted.

64

Figure 31 . Aspen along an unnamed tributary to Pole Creek, Indian Creek Field, Devils Gate Allotment. Aspen in this area appears to have been on a downward trend prior to the 2001 Isolation fire, and post-burn aspen suckering has been limited. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 581 ) by Charles E. Kay; September 3, 2002.

65

Pole Creek Allotment

Aspen along Pole Creek (Section 12, Township 39N, Range 58E) was visually evaluated, but no stands were measured (Appendix A). Most of these aspen stands appear to have experienced a major regeneration event about 20 years prior to being burned by the 2001 Isolation fire (Figures 32 to 34). This area was not grazed by livestock in 2002 and most stand have produced an abundance of new suckers. Additional years of non-use will be required, however, if an adequate crop of aspen saplings is to mature.

66

Figure 32. Aspen along Pole Creek on the Pole Creek Allotment. This area was burned by the Isolation fire in 2001 . Judging by the size of the fire-killed trees, most aspen stands experienced a major regeneration event approximately 20 years prior to being burned. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 587) by Charles E. Kay; September 3, 2002.

67

Figure 33. Close up of a burned aspen stand along Pole Creek. This area was burned by the Isolation fire in 2001 and most aspen stands resprouted at various stem densities. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 590) by Charles E.

Kay; September 3, 2002.

68

Figure 34. An old beaver dam on Pole Creek, Pole Creek Allotment. Judging by old stumps and other evidence, much of the area along the stream in this photograph was once a fully stocked aspen stand. At some point in the past, however, the site was colonized by beaver, who felled the mature aspen for food and dam building materials. The cut aspen likely resprouted, but the new suckers were then repeatedly browsed by livestock, until large portions of the stand were eliminated. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 592) by Charles E. Kay; September 3, 2002.

69

Tuscarora Mountains

I was directed by BLM to only measure aspen stands found on federal lands in the Tuscarora Mountains, which included primarily the Spanish Ranch and Squaw Valley Allotments. This limited the number of aspen stands that I was able to sample because most aspen in the Tuscarora Mountains occurs on private property. I did, however, visually evaluate aspen throughout the range. This included Nelson Creek, Berry Creek, Lewis Creek, Toe Jam Creek, Rock Creek, upper McCann Creek, upper Big Cottonwood Canyon, Dry Creek, and upper Red Cow Creek (Appendix A). Aspen stands were measured on upper Red Cow Creek, upper Dry Creek, upper McCann Creek, and upper Toe Jam Creek - - EK-253 to EK-262 (Appendix A; Appendix B; Appendix C - - slides 602 to 881).

Most aspen stands within the study area (see Appendix A) have regenerated over the last 20 years and generally are in good ecological condition, except around springs or other areas where cattle concentrate (Tables 11 to 13; Figures 35 to 42). According to BLM records, these allotments were partially destocked during the 1980’s when the Ellison Ranch cattle herd was under brucellosis quarantine (Ken Wilkinson, personal communication, 2003). Little mule deer sign was observed in this mountain range, but some elk sign was seen in upper Toe Jam and Rock Creeks. According to BLM, a small elk herd is found in that area. This is the only mountain range visited in the three years of this study in which elk sign was observed (Kay 2001a, 2002).

Table 11. Aspen stand parameters in the Tuscarora Mountains.

70

a>

E

3

TD

C

CO

•¥-»

W

co

cm

■

*

UJ

CO

CM

i

*

LU

O

CD

CM

i

*

LU

05

in

CM

I

*

UJ

00

m

CM

I

*

UJ

h-

m

CM

I

X.

UJ

CO

m

CM

■

*

UJ

m

CM

■

X.

UJ

M-

m

CM

■

*

UJ

CO

m

CM

I

*

UJ

o z UJ CM o O Tt- m

o Z UJ CM o O tj- m

o Z UJ CM o O M- m

CM

CO

Z UJ

o a>

M- M-

Z UJ

O 05

Tf M-

^ z

UJ

O CT>

m

CM

Z UJ o o tj- m

Z UJ o o •M- m

Z UJ o o tt m

z uj

o o m

o

TS

<o

w

UJ

o

m

CO 00

"X ^

m r^.

m m

UJ Z o o o m co o m in r~- m m

M"

UJ z o o m m h~ r- 'Cf

in t'- m m

■'t

UJ z o o o m i- co o CM m co m m

M"

UJ o o

CO oo CO

o

M- OO

m m

UJ Z o o o o

CO T- Is- CO M- CO

m m

M"

Ul Z o o o o

05 CO CO o m oo m m m-

Ul Z o o o m

CD CO

co m m r~- m m

o

m

ul o o 00 m m r»- m m

M-

Ul z

gg

CO CM

m m m t'- m m

O

CM

CO

O

o

r^-

o

CM

r'-

co

o

CM

I''-

O

CO

O

OO

O

0O

O)

h-



Q.			c
!c			o
</)	05		3
1	CD c:	5	CO >
o	co	H	05
h-	IX	D	UJ

Ul

CO

UJ

Ul

CO

■G

&

V)

<

m

CO

m

CM

m

o

M-

o

CM

m

CM

m

&

o

CO

o

$

o

r-

o

x

o

05

O

o

s

o

CM

o

CO

%

o

0

1

CO

CM 00 T- S if

Tf CO if CO CO

s ® m t-

o o o

oo -o- m CO O CO 05 00 CO

M"

CO

o o o

00	05	CM	o m
C'-	^ —	O	co
CM	00	•sf	CO
CM	CO

o o o

o

CO

o

CM

in m t- o M-

o t— r — co

o o OO t-

T- CO

g- N 'f O N O CO CO CO OO S T-

CM O O

o o o

o	z	m	o	o	O	o	cm in	m	T—	CM O O
o		eg	CM	CM	CO		•*- o	co	o
m			^ —			CO	M- O	co	CM
			X			T—	CM 1-

o

co

s

o

miMC'-M-T— O 00 O CO o O O "M- T- CM T— (O T-

o o o

O	Ul		o	o	o	eg	m o oo
CM	(0	T“	05				OO M CO
OO		^ —				CO CO CM
f'-			X			T—	CO T-

o o o

o

y

o

m

m o i — t— o O)

CM M- -M- T- co

(O h- CM CO if 1- CM CM

CM O O

1/5

T3

^>5

<15

N

</)

■a

C

CO

"♦-*

C/)

I e

05 C

St

O) CJ) 05 'sz

a:

§

TO,

to

05

it;

</>

c

05

•o

E

05

■*—»

CO

X

CD

a

E x x

CM 00 CD

V ° Q

v .E .E

C V oo

• I

CO CM M-

CD

00

A

8.

3

°* * £■ ^ o C 05 0) — CO JC 05

05 o w Q

CL

o

z

o	5		o	o	o	CO	00	CM O 00	05 O O	o
co	CO	CO	o	o	h-	M-	O CO		z
o	Z	5	T—	T —	^ —	eg	05	'if CM
r-	1	1	X				CM
	§	o	o 05

10

05

>-

«0

05

>-

1/5

05

>-

05

CD

£

Pellet groups per 2x30 m (6.6 x 98 ft.) belt transect. **Water in or near stand. NA=Not applicable.

71

Table 12. Age and diameter of aspen in the Tuscarora Mountains. R=stem with heart rot

that could not be aged. Stems less than 3 inches were cut and aged at ground level

Stand Number

Stem Diameter (inches)/Age (yrs)

EK-253

1/9. 2/10. 2/12. 2/12. 2/14. 2/20, 3/20. 3/21. 3/19. 3/20, 3/21, 4/22, 4/20, 4/21, 5/24, 14/76, 15/75, 16/80

EK-254

EK-255

EK-256

EK-257

EK-258

EK-259

EK-260

EK-261

EK-262

1/8, 3/9, 2/10, 2/10, 2/12, 3/19, 3/18, 3/20,4/21, 4/24, 8/75, 9/77, 11/78

1/12, 2/12, 2/14, 3/14, 3/19, 4/20, 5/21, 8/R, 8/68, 8/70

1/9, 2/12, 2/14, 4/19, 5/21, 5/20, 6/23, 8/45, 9/49

1/8, 2/8, 2/10, 2/11, 2/12, 2/12, 3/13, 5/15, 14/105, 23/107, 24/R

1/8, 1/8, 2/10, 2/4, 2/12, 3/12, 3/11, 4/18, 14/108, 15/107

1/8, 2/9, 2/10, 2/12, 3/12, 3/12, 3/13, 4/14, 12/85, 13/84

1/6, 1/9, 1/8, 2/10, 2/12, 2/13, 2/15, 3/14, 3/14, 3/14, 3/14, 8/83, 9/85

1/6, 1/10, 3/14, 3/14, 3/14, 8/84, 9/85

1/8, 1/8, 2/10, 2/12, 3/14, 3/14, 3/14, 3/13, 4/14, 5/19, 10/62, 10/65, 11/68

72

CD

O

(0

</>

c

CO

tz

3

o

co

o

L—

CO

o

CO

3

0>

-C

V)

T3

C

CO

CD

CL

10

CD

c

q

CO

o

Q.

E

co

CD

o

CD

CL

co

o

2

CD

TJ

C

U

CO

0)

-Q

CO

	CM
	CO
	CM
	*
	LU

	CO
	CM

	LU
	O
	CO
	CM
	£
	LU
<_	CD
a>	CO
>	CM
o O	* LU

a.
o
c CO O	00 CO CM
c	1 *
ID	LU
O

ID
D.	h-
T3	lO
C.	CM
CO	1 *
ID	LU
Xl
E
3 Z	CD co
■o	CM \|
c
CO	LU
CO	CO
	co
	CM
	*
	LU
	•M-
	CO
	CM
	*
	LU
	CO
	CO
	CM
	*
	UJ
	v>
	CD
	O
	8.
	CO

o

■o-

O Lf) I— CO

o in

CO

CO • CO

CO CO I—

CO

O

CM

CO co

■ CO

CO CO CM

CO CO ' CO CO co |—|—

CO

CO co 1— t- CO

O O I—

CO CO

CO

O O co

CO T-

O CO CO T-

o

CM

CO

O O

o o i—

co o i—

co

CO

o I-

o

CM

o

CO

o

CO

o

CO

co O (—

o o

CM i-

w

E

xi

t XI ID CO

</>

E

XI

ID _ o> O t_

CQ q) <J)

r u ID W JC -S

t — co on

O .S’ SZ 3

rnnoc:

CD ^

XI C £ ro o

C 3 5 CO O S

*

o

ID

XJ

ID

O

>

ID

to

co

ID

8

CO

l_

CD

tn

■e

o

8

£ £ o

CU 33 O

od Lj a:

73

Figure 35. A typical aspen stand along Nelson Creek. Most aspen in this and other drainages in the Tuscarora Mountains successfully regenerated over the last 20 years, when cattle management was voluntarily changed, but not before. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 628) by Charles E. Kay; September 13, 2002.

74

Figure 36. Typical aspen stands along Lewis Creek. Most aspen in this and other drainages in the Tuscarora Mountains successfully regenerated over the last 20 years, when cattle management was voluntarily changed, but not before. Viewed Southeast. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 649) by Charles E. Kay; September 13, 2002.

75

Figure 37. Aspen in upper Toe Jam Creek on a mixture of public and private lands. Most aspen in this and other drainages in the Tuscarora Mountains successfully regenerated over the last 20 years, where cattle management was voluntarily changed, but not before. Viewed north-northeast. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No 670) by Charles E. Kay; September 13, 2002.

76

Figure 38. Close up of aspen in upper Toe Jam Creek. Note the abundance of aspen saplings. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 694) by Charles E. Kay; September 13, 2002.

77

Figure 39. Aspen stand EK-253 in upper Toe Jam Creek. Aspen saplings in this stand had a density of over 5,500 stems per acre and most were between 10 and 20 years of age (Tables 1 1 and 12). The larger trees were 80 years old. Red and white survey pole (6 ft.) for scale. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No 724) by Charles E. Kay; September 14, 2002.

78

ills

Figure 40. Aspen in upper Rock Creek on a mixture of public and private lands. Most aspen in this and other drainages in the Tuscarora Mountains successfully regenerated over the last 20 years, when cattle management was voluntarily changed, but not before. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 747) by Charles E. Kay; September 14, 2002.

Figure 41. Aspen in upper Big Cottonwood Canyon. Most aspen in this and other drainages in the Tuscarora Mountains successfully regenerated over the last 20 years, when cattle management was voluntarily changed, but not before. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 780) by Charles E. Kay; September 14, 2002.

80

Figure 42. Close up of a heavily grazed aspen stand along upper Dry Creek in the Tuscarora Mountains. Where cattle concentrate, however, aspen stands have not successfully regenerated. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 819) by Charles E. Kay; September 15, 2002.

81

Adobe Mountains

I was directed by BLM to only measure aspen stands found on public lands in the Adobe Mountains. I did, however, visually evaluate aspen and range conditions throughout the northern Adobes (Appendix A; Appendix C - - slides 882 to 1 ,056; EK-263 to EK-275). Most aspen stands in the Adobe Mountains have not regenerated in nearly 100 years and are in very poor ecological condition (Tables 14 to 16; Figures 43 to 47). Where aspen has been protected inside exclosures, however, it has regenerated without fire or other disturbance and is in much better ecological condition (Tables 14 to 16; Figures 49 to 51). Inside exclosures, measured aspen stands (n=3) had a mean understory canopy cover of 60% grasses and forbs, with only 2% bare soil (Table 16). While grazed aspen stands (n=10) had a mean understory composition of 34% bare soil and only 20% grasses and forbs (Table 16; Figure 48). Riparian areas were also in exceedingly poor condition (Beever and Brussard 2000) throughout this mountain range (Figures 52 to 55) and active soil erosion was widespread (Figures 56 and 57). Sheet erosion was especially common in Long Canyon and Coal Mine Basin. Most of the Adobe Mountains are in a joint-use allotment grazed by both domestic sheep and cattle.

Table 14. Aspen stand parameters in the Adobe Mountains.

82

a>

-Q

E

■a

c

ro

W

e--

CM

■

*

LU

CO

e-

CM

i

*

UJ

CM

e~

CM

I

UJ

r-

CM

I

UJ

o

C'-

CM

I

*

UJ

05

CO

CM

I

*

UJ

oo

CO

CM

i

*

UJ

in Z UJ cm r^. 10 co m

o z UJ

« N CO CO m

Z UJ r-~ m co m

co

Z UJ e- CO co m

c -c

v> a>

I c

u/ O TO

who:

o

TS

a)

uj z

O O

m o co m- r-~ co

o M-

co m

M"

UJ z

O O m in

e--

o

cn

m

M-

co in

M’

UJ Z O O

o o

CO CO C" CM

o in co in •o-

UJ Z o o o o CO r- 00 CO

o m co m m-

o

m

co

o

m

co

o

in

05

co

o

m

o

e^

UJ

(/)

UJ

CO

t- m

i— m

co m

•M-

2

E

D

c

o

‘•H

CD

>

a>

UJ

ts

&

</>

<

m

CM

o

co

UJ “

o

co

i

o

CM

O

in

■

in

CM

	z	UJ	UJ	Z	o	z	o
T —	00	CO	o	o	o		CO
	CO	in	o	o	o>		o
			co	o	CD		CM
			o	o
			T —	CO
			CO	m
				M"
oo	z	UJ	UJ	z	O		O
CM	oo	co	o	o	in		CO
	CO	m	o	o	co	(/)
			CM	CM	co
			T—	CO
			T —	in
			CO	m
				M"
CO	z	UJ	UJ	Z	o	UJ	O
CO	00	co	o	o	00		v
	CO	in	m	o	co		m
			co	CO	CO

0)

CL

o

CO

o

X

o

co

3

o

I"-

o

co

§

o

05

O

CM

X

o

CM

O

X

o

e'-

en

co

x

o

CO

X

o

CM

o o o o o

o o o

e'-		z	UJ	UJ Z	o	UJ	o	o
en	CO	oo	CO	o o	o	T —	05
CM		co	m	m o	CM		1	X
1 * UJ			e- cm CM M-	CO		in	m T —
			t- m co in

				M-
co		Z	UJ	UJ Z	o	£	o	o
CO	v-	oo	co	o o	m	e-	CO
CM 1 UJ		co	in	o o cm la- in 05 t— m	co co	z	• o co	X o CO
				co m
				o-
m		Z	UJ	UJ z	o	£	o	o
CD	T —	oo	co	o o	o	CD	05
CM 1 * UJ		co	m	o o cm m m 05 t- m co m	CO CO	z	C5 M-	X o e-
				■m-
•M-	CO	Z	UJ	UJ Z	o	<:	O	o
eo	T—	oo	co	o o	o		05
CM 1 UJ		co	m	o 00 m 05 CO <35 ■t- m co m	CO CO		1 O CM	X o CO
				-<*
CO	CM	Z	UJ	UJ Z	o	£	O	o
CD		00	co	o o	m	CM	CO
CM		cO	m	o o	•*—	z	1 m	X
1 * UJ			<35 e— CO o 5T- CO	to	1 z	o CM

10

T3

>\

a>

N

'&)

■a

tz

CD

CO

o

oo

o

CM

O

CM

O

|£ 2 3

05 C C =

O) 05

I 2

o

CO

o

<

z

T3

a>

o

i_

JO

£

05

u

3

CO

05COCOCMN OO CO O O CO it in co m-

co o o o e'- er) co

CM

moo

05 O O

CO

r-

CM

o o o o

o o

cm o o o h- e» co

o

co e- o o in m- e- *- m t-

O 05 OO O M-

00 O CD CO

CO OO CM T-

m oo rt o r^

O CO CO CO O O r-

00 CM M- r- CM 05 M- CM T-

o o o o o

CO o o

e- o o

o o o

o o

co m o

o o o o o

t- e~- e~- o o

M- OO CO

m o e-

T— Tf

OO N O

05 00 O t- CM

o o o

05

L

o

^D

C/5

05

•e

t t ) c

05

TO

E

05

w

X

CO

a

c CM

V

d m-

CO CM

X X DO CD

a

x

ao

Q

= •— c

oo

A

«

V)

Cl

3

O

® ® 8- ^ (D JS 05 05 = <D r a) (I) O (0 Q CL

t/5

05

>

t/5

05

>

05

>-

CO

05

>-

to

05

>

to

05

>-

to

05

>-

to

05

>-

to

05

>-

to

05

>-

L

05

CD

$

Pellet groups per 2x30 m (6.6 x 98 ft.) belt transect. **Water in or near stand. NA=Not applicable.

Table 14. Aspen stand parameters in the Adobe Mountains.

83

a>

n

E

3

Z

■a

cz

CD

CO

00 Z UJ

UJ z

o

UJ

o

r-

T~ h- CO

O O

CO

cn

CO

CM

i

*

LU

CO co

o o

CO CO OO o o m CO CO M'

o>

CO

co

CO

X

o

OO

o

CT> I"- r- CO

oo

co

o o -m- co

cm o o

in

TD

>;

0)

c

o

CD

c	sz		o			'</>	(D
o to	in cd 1 C	2	V* CD >	T3 CD o	CD CL	"O C	C CD O)
CD	o TO	t	CD	(/)	O	CO 1	CD
CO	i- a:	3	UJ	<	CO	CO	o:

TO

<D

c

T3

CD

</)

£

O

-Q

£

a>

o

3

CO

cd

l

o

■2-

cn

a)

X

00

O

•3 = I X x

‘ «ss|

c/>

c

cd

■o

_ c v-

£ CD « ,

V CO CM

E .E d

M- OO

CO

oo

A

*

co

CL

3

i?® §•*.

ID C (D ® — CD j: CD CD o CO O CL

CD

cu

Pellet groups per 2x30 m (6.6 x 98 ft.) belt transect. "Water in or near stand. NA=Not applicable.

84

Table 15. Age and diameter of aspen in the Adobe Mountains. R=stem with heart rot

that could not be aged. Stems less than 3 inches were cut and aged at ground level

Stand Number

Stem Diameter (infchesJ/Age (yfs)

EK-263

EK-264

EK-265

EK-266

EK-267

EK-268

EK-269

EK-270

EK-271

EK-272

EK-273

EK-274

EK-275

2/10, 2/10, 2/10, 3/10, 3/10, 3/11, 14/R

No live stems in stand

No data collected - - see original data sheet

18/109, 20/R - - see original data sheet

15/R

22/100, 23/R, 24/R, 24/103

17/100

16/97, 17/R

1/8, 2/10, 2/11,2/12, 6/32, 7/30, 15/98, 17/R No live stems in stand - - see original data sheet 1/8, 2/10, 2/10, 2/10, 2/12, 15/R, 16/95, 17/102

85

to

o

TO

tn

3

■to

3

o

TO

13

O

•a

<

a)

e/>

T3

3

TO

tn

3

CD

CL

tn

TO

3

o

L— <

'tn

o

CL

E

o

tn

TO

O

TO

CL

tn

£

0

1

TO

■a

3

CD

T“*

TO

13

TO

>

O

>*

CL

O

3

TO

O -*— < 3 TO O

s

TO

Q-

■a

3

TO

L.

TO

13

E

3

TO 3 TO ■*— *

cd

CM

f'-

CM

i

iC

Ui

CM

*

LJJ

O

C-~

CM

I

*

LU

a>

to

CM

i

*

111

00

CD

CM

X.

LU

r--

CD

CM

I

LU

CO

CD

CM

I

LU

CO

CD

CM

I

*

LU

O

CD

CM

i

LU

CO

CD

CM

*

LU

tn

TO

o

TO

CL

CD

O 1 CO I— CM

O h- • H

o

CM

ID

O I— I— ID I— O ■ 1 1

CO T—

O I— ID m ID • I—

in

o

CM

CO

o in 1 o 1 ■ ' 1 m

ID ID ' O 1 I— * ID O

CD ID | — O | — I — | — T— CO

o l— I— o I— 1 ' ' •

O' T-

CD 1 ID i ' i ■ i ■ CM

O

CO

co

CO

o

CM

O

CM

O ID ID O

O CO ID ID

O CD I— O

ID CO (— CM

■ Cl <

l-oh

CO

CD

t- H

i i i i i

O

CO

o

O H H co

o

•o

§ H l_

ID O CM

-3 tn

E

-C -3

S s

E 13

13 TO

TO c_

S’! TO

« e s

.21 3 3

cq o a:

-3

tn

&& C JO TO TO Jr TO .3 13 TO t- o TO -P C TO O 5 TO > O <U O C_ 3 i- J3 TO

CD O O CD

O TO = tn 5 o

«> a :

tn

TO

tn

CD

O

	o
tn -e	tn E	L- TO	J«C O
o	CO	a	o
u_	CQ	_i	UL

86

0)

o

CO

C/5

c

CO ■* — 1 c 3

o

CD

-Q

O

T3

<

CD

c/>

T3

c

CO

t?

c

CD

Cl

C/5

CO

c O V- < *</5 O CL

E

8

C/5

CD

O

CD

CL

CO

O

CD T 3 C

3

CO

0)

-O

CO

CD

>

o

O

>*

Q.

O

c

CO

O

c

CD

2

CD

CL

■a

c

CO

CD

.Q

E

3

z

•D

C

TO

w

in

CM

*

uu

It

CM

*

UJ

CO

l''-

CM

I

UJ

co

CD

O

8.

w

o

CO

o n in

• m in

m

o m m

CM

m

m i— • m 1 m 'mm

o

CM

m

o m

CM

o m

CM

in in h

sz

co

E

-Q

CO

E

n

cd — m E CD

,2> 3 3

m o a:

CO

. I ?£■

co a> a)

~ (0 JC o ® *- O 0) ■Q c <u o | a) ^ >

o CD ° c_

C I- J= CD

WOOW

O CD

— co

■> °

$ DC

co

CD

g

co

L_

O

co

€

o

u_

8

2 ® o CO ts o CO CL

87

Figure 43. Aspen stand EK-264 in the Adobe Mountains. The area around this spring in Long Canyon was once a fully-stocked aspen stand. Repeated use by domestic sheep and cattle, however, has now eliminated this aspen clone (Table 14). Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 91 1 ) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

88

Figure 44. Close up aspen stand EK-264 in the Adobe Mountains. Repeated use by domestic sheep and cattle has eliminated this aspen clone (Table 16). Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 902) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

89

Figure 45. Aspen stand EK-270 in the Adobe Mountains. This and other stands in the Adobe Mountains are in very poor ecological condition and have not regenerated in more than 100 years due to repeated browsing by livestock. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 989) by Charles E. Kay; September 19,

2002.

90

Figure 46. Aspen stand EK-272 in the Adobe Mountains. This and other stands in the Adobe Mountains are in very poor ecological condition and have not regenerated in nearly 100 years due to repeated browsing by livestock. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 1019) by Charles E. Kay; September 19 2002.

91

Figure 47. A de facto exclosure in aspen stand EK-272 in the Adobe Mountains. Except where physically protected by downed trees (Kay 2001a, 2002; Ripple and Larsen 2001) or tall, unpalatable shrubs (Vera 2000:132-162), aspen in this stand has not been able to produce new stems greater than 6 feet in height because all the suckers have been repeatedly browsed. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 1021) by Charles E. Kay; September 19, 2002.

92

Figure 48. Aspen inside Long Canyon Exclosure number one. Viewed northeast to aspen inside Long Canyon Exclosure number one, which was constructed in 1 986 - - note the fenceline contrast nearest the camera. In the Adobe Mountains, grazed aspen stands had a mean understory composition of 34% bare soil and only 20% grasses and forbs, while exclosure - protected aspen stands had an average understory species composition of 60% grasses and forbs, with only 2% bare soil (Table 16). Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 888) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

93

Figure 49. Close up of aspen inside Long Canyon Exclosure number one.

Aspen (EK-263) inside this and all other Adobe Mountain exclosures successfully regenerated without fire or other disturbance once livestock were excluded. The saplings in this photograph have had their lower branches grazed-off by livestock some time after they regenerated, as cattle have breached this exclosure in years past. This exclosure was built in 1986. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No 887) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

94

Figure 50. Aspen inside Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number two. Aspen inside this and all other Adobe Mountain exclosures successfully regenerated without fire or other disturbance once livestock were excluded This exclosure was constructed in 1985. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 957) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

95

Figure 51. Aspen inside Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number three. Aspen (EK-268) inside this and all other Adobe Mountain exclosures successfully regenerated once livestock were excluded. This exlosure was built in 1985.

Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 968) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

96

Figure 52. Typical riparian conditions in the Adobe Mountains. Most riparian areas in the Adobe Mountains are in very poor ecological condition (Borman et al 1999, Beever and Brussard 2000, Clary and Leininger 2000). Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 980) by Charles E. Kay; September 19, 2002.

97

Figure 53. Fenceline contrast at Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number one. Viewed south along the eastern edge of Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number one. Note the contrasting condition of the riparian area. Livestock are excluded from the area to the right of the fence. This exlosure was built in 1 986. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 948) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

98

Figure 54. Ungrazed riparian area inside Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number one. Compare this with Figure 55. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 950) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

99

Figure 55. Grazed riparian area below Coal Mine Canyon Exclosure number one. Compare this with Figure 54. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 949) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

100

Figure 56. Soil erosion in the Adobe Mountains. Note the extensive hillside erosion above Wildcat Spring. Sheet erosion is common in Long Canyon and Coal Mine Basin. Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 882) by Charles E. Kay; September 18, 2002.

101

Figure 57. Close-up of sheet erosion in Long Canyon. Hillside erosion is common in Long Canyon and Coal Mine Basin. This is an indication of poor range conditions (Borman et al. 1999, Beever and Brussard 2000, Clary and Leininger 2000). Print from color slide (Appendix C - - No. 937) by Charles E Kay; September 18, 2002.

102

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Many aspen stands in north-central Nevada are in poor condition and have not successfully regenerated in nearly 100 years. During the present study, limited elk sign was observed only in the Tuscarora Mountains, so elk have generally not contributed to the decline of aspen on BLM lands in north-central Nevada. In other areas of the West, however, elk have had and are having serious, negative effects on aspen communities (Kay 1985, 1997a, 1997c,

2001b, 2001c; White et al. 1998a, 1998b, 2003; Ripple and Larsen 2000; White 2001). If elk colonize additional areas in north-central Nevada or are transplanted onto BLM lands, it is highly likely that those animals would have a negative impact on aspen (Wall et al. 2001 :697). In Nevada’s Jarbridge Mountains, for instance, Beck and Peek (2001 ) reported that summer elk use was concentrated in aspen.

Forest succession is also not a problem in the aspen stands that were studied, as conifers had not invaded any of the communities that were measured. Aside from Pinyon (Pinus spp.). and Juniper (Juniperus spp.), conifers are generally absent from the mountain ranges that were visited in north-central Nevada. There is also no evidence that normal plant succession favors sagebrush over aspen, as claimed by some (Schenbeck and Dahlem 1977). Where it has been protected from grazing, aspen in central Nevada has not succeeded to sagebrush, but instead has maintained its position in the vegetation association (Kay 2001a, 2002). Other exclosure studies have found

103

that protected aspen stands have actually expanded and killed-out sagebrush (Kay 1990, 2001a, 2001b; Kay and Bartos 2000). Thus, there are no data to support the contention that the decline of aspen in north-central Nevada is due to normal successional processes.

Exclosure studies also suggest that climate has had little impact on aspen in central Nevada (Kay and Bartos 2000; Kay 2001a, 2002). In fact, data from across the West has failed to demonstrate a relationship between climatic variation and a corresponding decline in aspen (DeByle and Winokur 1985;

Baker et al. 1997; Kay 1997a, 2001a, 2001b; White et al. 1998a, 1998b, 2003; Kay and Bartos 2000; Ripple and Larsen 2000; White 2001).

It is also commonly assumed that aspen has declined due to fire suppression by federal and state land management agencies (Houston 1973, 1982; Despain et al. 1986; Romme et al. 1995; Wall etal. 2001). While fire usually has a positive effect on aspen by eliminating invading conifers and stimulating sucker production, the condition and trend of aspen communities in north-central Nevada are not, in general, related to an absence of fire. If only burned aspen stands were capable of producing new stems greater than 6 ft tall, then aspen inside fenced plots or aspen protected by fallen trees, should not be able to successfully regenerate. In all cases where aspen was protected from ungulate herbivory in Nevada, however, it has successfully regenerated without fire or other disturbance (Kay 2001a, 2002), and the same is true throughout the West (White et al. 1998b, Kay and Bartos 2000, Kay 2001b, White 2001). Thus, while fire can benefit the species, aspen has not declined solely due to fire

104

suppression. This leaves ungulate herbivory as the main reason aspen has declined in central Nevada, and across the West (Kay 1997a, Kay and Bartos 2000, Ripple and Larsen 2000, White 2001).

Data from exclosures on Stag Mountain and in the Adobe Range, as well as other areas (Kay 2001a, 2002), indicate that ungulate herbivory has had a major influence on aspen stem dynamics and understory species composition in north-central Nevada. Most herbivory was attributable to domestic livestock, not wildlife. Of the 1 ,309 pellet groups previously recorded on aspen belt transects in north-central Nevada, 710 (54.2%) were from cattle, 596 (45.5%) from domestic sheep, and 3 (0.2%) from mule deer (Kay 2001a, 2002). While in the present study, of the 325 pellet groups recorded on aspen plots, 234 (72.0%) were from cattle, 90 (27.7%) from domestic sheep, and 1 (0.3%) from mule deer. Similarly, aspen regenerated throughout central Nevada wherever it was protected by the interlocking branches of fallen trees (Ripple and Larsen 2001), by steep cut banks, or dense brush (Vera 2000:132-162; Kay 2001a, 2002). Aspen also regenerated on central Nevada ranges where livestock use was reduced (Kay 2001a, 2002), such as Connors Basin Field on Stag Mountain.

The fact that aspen stands on steep slopes far from water are generally in better condition than stands on more gentle slopes near water, is also related to livestock grazing patterns (Kay 2001a, 2002). According to other studies (Holechek 1988:11-12), slopes of 11-30% reduce cattle grazing by 30%, while slopes of 31-60% receive 60% less use by cattle than areas with 0-10% slope.

On sites with slopes over 60%, cattle use is essentially zero. Similarly, areas 1-2

105

miles from water receive 50% less use by cattle than sites closer to water, while areas more than two miles from water are seldom used by cattle (Holechek 1988:11-12).

I have now personally measured or otherwise evaluated nearly 60 aspen exclosures in the western U.S. and Canada (Kay 1990, 2001a, 2001b, 2002; Kay et al. 1999; Kay and Bartos 2000), and in all cases where aspen has been protected, it successfully regenerated and formed multi-aged stands without fire or other disturbance. The single, stem-aged stands found in central Nevada and throughout the West are not a biological attribute of aspen, but a result of excessive ungulate herbivory. In other areas I have worked, the problem has been too many elk (Kay 1997a, 1997c, 2001b, 2001c; White et al. 1998b) or too many mule deer (Kay and Bartos 2000). In central Nevada, however, domestic livestock are the predominate ungulate herbivore.

Recently, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and other agencies, have transplanted beaver to restore damaged riparian areas (Munther 1982, 1983; Smith 1980, 1983a, 1983b; Kay 1994; McKinstry and Anderson 1997; Albert and Trimble 2000; Lukas 2000; McKinstry et al. 2001).

The Forest Service, for instance, has used beaver to improve wetlands in Montana and Oregon, while BLM established beaver-transplant demonstration projects on degraded streams in southwest Wyoming (Johnson 1984, Bergstrom 1985). Moreover, other researchers have demonstrated that beaver is a “keystone species” that completely alters the hydrology, energy flow, and nutrient cycling of aquatic systems (Naiman and Melillo 1984; Parker et al. 1985; Naiman

106

et al. 1986, 1988; Platts and Onishuk 1988; Johnston and Naiman 1987, 1990; Smith et al. 1991; Pollock et al. 1995; McCall et al. 1996). Beaver dams impound water and trap sediments that raise the water table, increase the wetted perimeter, and allow the extension of riparian communities into former upland sites (Smith 1980, Apple 1983). In addition, beaver dams regulate stream flow by storing water, reducing peak or flood flow, and augmenting low flows during summer (Smith 1983b). During dry periods, 30 to 60 percent of the water in a stream system can be held in beaver ponds (Smith 1983a). By trapping silt over thousands of years, beaver dams created many of the West’s fertile valleys (Ives 1942). Munther (1982, 1983) reported that a typical creek without beaver furnishes only about two to four acres of riparian habitat per stream mile in the northern Rockies; but with beaver activity, that area can be expanded to twenty- four acres per mile.

Beaver need tall willows or aspen as food and dam-building materials. Aspen and willows cut by beaver normally resprout (Kindschy 1985, 1980) and in turn provide additional beaver food. Once the mature aspen trees or tall willows are cut, however, the new suckers are entirely within reach of browsing animals (Kay 1994). By preventing aspen and willows from growing into sizeable plants, ungulate herbivory can eliminate beaver foods and eventually the beaver themselves.

Flook (1964) and Nietvelt (2001) reported that high elk numbers negatively affected beaver through interspecific competition for willows and aspen in Canada’s Banff and Jasper National Parks. In Yellowstone National Park,

107

beaver are now ecologically extinct over large areas because the combined action of beaver and excessive elk herbivory has eliminated aspen and willows (Kay 1990, 1994, 1997d, 1997e; Chadde and Kay 1991; Kay and Walker 1997). Bergerud and Manuel (1968), as well as Collins (1976) noted that high moose (AJces alces) densities had a similar negative effect on beaver in Newfoundland and in Wyoming’s Jackson Hole. While others have reported that heavy grazing by domestic livestock reduced woody vegetation, which, in turn, negatively impacted beaver populations and riparian systems. (Platts et al. 1983; Smith and Flake 1983; Dieter 1987; Dieter and McCabe 1989a, 1989b). This is what has happened on the Elko District (Kay 2002). Aspen + beaver + repeated livestock use eliminated both aspen and beaver, which subsequently caused streams to downcut and erode. So, while beaver generally have a positive effect on riparian communities, beaver plus excessive herbivory have the opposite result.

Similarly, fire can also have a negative effect on aspen. That is to say, burned aspen communities will not successfully regenerate if ungulate herbivory is excessive (Bartos and Mueggler 1981; White et al 1998b, 2003; Kay 2001c). Cattle grazing on Stag Mountain (Table 3) clearly has had a negative impact on aspen sucker height growth after fire, and if allowed to continue, may eventually eliminate those stands. This is why aspen stands must be rested for several years following fire. If the underlying problem is ungulate herbivory, beaver will not improve riparian conditions, and fire will not successfully regenerate aspen. Burning highly degraded aspen stands should not be attempted until ungulate herbivory problems are solved.

108

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

To reverse the decline of aspen on BLM administered lands in north- central Nevada it will be necessary to more closely manage livestock.

Depending on site-specific conditions, it may be necessary to fence some aspen stands, if those clones are to survive. In other areas, season-of-use changes may be sufficient to restore aspen (Kay 2001a). Year-long or season-long grazing is particularly detrimental to aspen, while early-season or dormant- season use may allow aspen to successfully regenerate. That is to say, the timing of grazing can be more important than the intensity (Borman et al. 1999).

As many aspen stands in north-central Nevada are located in riparian settings, it may also be necessary to fence those areas to exclude livestock and to pipe water to sites some distance from aspen - - of all the springs, seeps, and other water sources observed in north-central Nevada, few were developed and most were heavily grazed by livestock (Clary and Leininger 2000; Kay 2001a, 2002). AUM reductions may also be necessary on some allotments. In evaluating which measures to implement on what stands, distance to or from water, and the degree of slope are the two most important risk factors (Holechek 1988). Aspen near water is at greater risk than more distant stands and aspen on gentle topography is more at risk than stands on steep slopes - - all other factors being equal - - except on domestic sheep allotments, where upper- elevation aspen stands near bedding areas may also be at risk (Kay 2002).

Since there is relatively little aspen on BLM lands in north-central Nevada and

109

because there are no known, practical ways of reestablishing aspen (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002:92), the demise of even a single aspen clone should not be an option, especially since so much has been lost already, at least in some areas.

It is also strongly recommended that BLM establish permanent vegetation sampling plots in aspen communities throughout north-central Nevada to evaluate any management actions the agency might take. One of the most cost effective ways would be to establish a series of permanent photopoints (Magill 1989; Hart and Laycock 1996; Hall 2002a, 2002b). As there are so few long- term, aspen-containing exclosures on BLM lands in the Elko District, all existing aspen exclosures should be retained, and new ones constructed as needed.

Just because aspen inside an exclosure has regenerated that does not mean the exclosure should automatically be removed, since the fenced area is still an important range reference area (Laycock 1975).

If fire is used to restore aspen communities, it may be necessary to rest those areas for 1 to 2 years prior to treatment to allow fine fuels to accumulate (Brown and Simmerman 1986). Pure aspen stands are very difficult to burn and will usually burn only early in the spring prior to leaf-out or late in the fall after leaf-drop (Brown and Simmerman 1 986). If aspen is burned or felled by beaver, it will also be necessary to rest those areas for a minimum of 3 to 5 years to allow the new suckers to grow beyond the reach of grazing animals; i.e. 6 to 8 feet tall. In some cases, this could be accomplished with temporary electric fencing. Whatever is done, however, BLM needs to be more vigilant in its monitoring. All

110

fenced areas and exclosures should be checked at least yearly to insure that management goals are being met. BLM may also wish to reconsider its policy of putting gates in some exclosures to prevent those areas from being used as holding pastures. Alternatively, BLM could decide to lock all the gates on its exclosures and provide keys to the grazing permittees so that any cattle, which inadvertently enter the exclosures, could quickly be removed. Grazing permits should specifically state that exclosures are not to be grazed by livestock.

If beaver colonize any new areas, those stream reaches will need to be fenced or aspen will likely be eliminated, as it has in the past, by repeated livestock browsing. Unlike fire, which kills all the mature trees in a single event, and thereby stimulates large-scale suckering events, beaver cut mature aspen over a period of years. Thus, aspen suckering and aspen sucker densities are less, and aspen can more easily be eliminated by repeated livestock use.

Stag Mountain

Deeth Allotment - Connors Basin Field

To maintain the pre-fire abundance and distribution of aspen in this pasture, it is my recommendation that the entire area be rested until the majority of new aspen stems in all stands are well beyond the reach of cattle. This likely will require 2 to 3 years additional rest.

Ill

Deeth Allotment - Hanks Creek Basin Field

Maintain the existing exclosures; West Hanks Creek, East Hanks Creek, Antelope Basin; and monitor to insure that cattle are, in fact, excluded. Other aspen stands in this pasture may also need to be fenced, especially those where livestock tend to concentrate. That is to say, all stands without aspen saplings will likely need to be fenced if those clones are to survive.

Stag Mountain Allotment - McIntyre Field

Aspen in this pasture is in very poor ecological condition and season of use changes or AUM reductions will likely be necessary if aspen is to survive. If this is not done, than many aspen stands will need to be fenced or they will be eliminated. The voluntary reduction of domestic sheep use that has occurred in this pasture over the last few years appears to have helped some aspen stands and should be made permanent.

Cheveller Exclosure

Maintain the existing exclosure and monitor to insure that cattle are in fact, excluded. BLM may also wish to experiment in re-establishing aspen along sections of the stream where aspen was eliminated by the combined action of

112

beaver and livestock prior to livestock exclusion.

Pole Creek and Pole Creek Tributary

To maintain the pre-fire abundance and distribution of aspen in these pastures, it is my recommendation that the entire area be rested until the majority of new aspen stems in all stands is well beyond the reach of cattle. This may require 2 to 3 years additional rest.

Tuscarora Mountains

Aspen in the Tuscarora Mountains is generally in good ecological condition. A few stands, however, receive heavy livestock use and those areas will have to be fenced if those clones are to survive. The growing elk population in this mountain range should be closely monitored and herd objectives set that will not adversely impact aspen.

Adobe Mountains

Aspen in the Adobe Mountains is in very poor ecological condition and many clones will be lost if the situation is not corrected in the near future. Riparian areas also appear to be in exceedingly poor condition and active soil erosion is widespread. In all my years afield, I have not seen such extensive sheet erosion, except in textbooks or national parks (Kay 1997e). Thus, this entire allotment may

113

have to be closed for several years if the range is to recover, but I will leave that decision to BLM riparian and soil experts, who I recommend conduct an emergency analysis of the entire area, especially Long Canyon and Coal Mine Basin. In addition, all existing exclosures should be maintained and monitored to insure that livestock are, in fact, excluded. If the allotment is not closed or if AUM numbers are not seriously reduced, most aspen stands will need to be fenced if they are to survive.

114

LITERATURE CITED

Albert, S., and T. Trimble. 2000. Beavers are partners in riparian restoration on the Zuni Indian Reservation. Ecological Restoration 18:87-92.

Apple, L.L. 1983. The use of beavers in riparian/aquatic habitat restoration in a cold desert gully-cut stream system: A case history. Proceedings of the American Fisheries Society 18:29-35.

Baker, F.S. 1918. Aspen reproduction in relation to management. Journal of Forestry 16:389-398.

Baker, F.S. 1925. Aspen in the central Rocky Mountain region. U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 1291. 47 pp.

Baker, W.L., J. A. Monroe, and A.E. Hessl. 1997. The effects of elk on aspen in the winter range in Rocky Mountain National Park. Ecography 20:155- 165

Baida, R.P. 1975. Vegetation structure and breeding bird diversity. Pages 59- 80 in Smith, D.R., ed. Symposium on management of forest and range habitats for nongame birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report WO-1 .

Bartos, D.L., and R.B. Campbell, Jr. 1998. Decline of quaking aspen in the interior west - - examples from Utah. Rangelands 20:17-24.

Bartos, D.L., and W.F. Mueggler. 1979. Influence of fire on vegetation

production in the aspen ecosystem in western Wyoming. Pages 75-78 in Boyce, M S. and L.D. Hayden-Wing, eds. North American elk: Ecology,

115

behavior and management. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 294 PP-

Bartos, D.L., and W.F. Mueggler. 1981. Early succession in aspen communities following fires in western Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 34:315-318.

Bartos, D.L., J.K. Brown, and G.D. Booth. 1994. Twelve years biomass response in aspen communities following fire. Journal of Range Management 47:79-83.

Bartos, D.L., W.F. Mueggler, and R.B. Campbell Jr. 1991. Regeneration of aspen by suckering on burned sites in western Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper INT-448. 10 pp.

Beck, J.L., and J.M. Peek. 2001. Jarbridge cooperative elk herd carrying

capacity study - - 1999 annual report: Preliminary estimates of 1999 elk summer range carrying capacity. Idaho Bureau of Land Management Technical Bulletin No. 01-3. 32 pp.

Beever, E.A., and P.F. Brussard. 2000. Examining ecological consequences of feral horse grazing using exclosures. Western North American Naturalist 60:236-254.

Bergerud, A.T., and F. Manuel. 1968. Moose damage to balsam fir-white birch forests in central Newfoundland. Journal of Wildlife Management 32:729- 746.

Bergstrom, D. 1985. Beavers: Biologists “rediscover” a natural resource. Forestry Research West (Oct.): 1-5.

116

Borman, M.M., C.R. Massingill, and E.W. Elmore. 1999. Riparian area responses to changes in management. Rangelands 21 :3 -7.

Brown, J.K., and D.G. Simmerman. 1986. Appraisal of fuels and flammability in western aspen: A prescribed fire guide. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-205. 48 pp.

Cartwright, C.W., Jr., and D.P. Burns. 1994. Sustaining our aspen heritage into the twenty-first century. U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 6 pp.

Casey, D., and D. Hein. 1983. Effects of heavy browsing on a bird community in deciduous forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:829-836.

Chadde, S.W., and C.E. Kay. 1991. Tall willow communities on Yellowstone's northern range: A test of the "natural regulation" paradigm. Pages 231- 264 in Keiter, R.R., and M.S. Boyce, eds. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining American's wilderness heritage. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 428 pp.

Clary, W.P., and W.C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble height as a tool for

management of riparian areas. Journal of Range Management 53:562- 573.

Coles, F.H. 1965. The effects of big game and cattle grazing on aspen

regeneration. M S. Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 72 pp.

Collins, T.C. 1976. Population characteristics and habitat relationships of

beaver, Castor canadensis, in northwest Wyoming. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 192 pp.

117

Daily, G.C., P.R. Ehrlich, and N.M. Haddad. 1993. Double keystone bird in a keystone species complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 90:592-594.

DeByle, N.V., C.D. Bevins, and W.C. Fisher. 1987. Wildfire occurrence in aspen in the interior western United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 2:73-76.

DeByle, N.V., and R.P. Winokur, eds. 1985. Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United States. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-1 19. 283 pp.

Despain, D., D. Houston, M. Meagher, and P. Schullery. 1986. Wildlife in transition: Man and nature on Yellowstone's northern range. Roberts Rinehart, Boulder, CO. 142 pp.

Dieter, C.D. 1987. Habitat use by beaver along the Big Sioux River. M.S. Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. 60 pp.

Dieter, C.D., and T.R. McCabe. 1989a. Factors influencing beaver lodge-site selection on a prairie river. American Midland Naturalist 122:408-411.

Dieter, D.D., and T.R. McCabe. 1989b. Habitat use by beaver along the Big

Sioux River in eastern South Dakota. Pages 135-140 in Gresswell, R.E., B.A. Barton, and J.L. Kershner, eds. Practical approaches to riparian management: An educational workshop. Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office BLM-MT-PT-89-0001-4351. 193 pp.

Ehrlich, P.R., and G.C. Daily. 1993. Birding for fun: Sapsuckers, swallows, aspen, and rot. American Birds 47(1): 18-20.

118

Endersby, H. 1999. The aspen-mule deer link. Mule Deer 4(2): 16-1 9.

Fechner, G.H., and J.S. Barrows. 1976. Aspen stands as wildfire fuelbreaks. Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin 4:1-26. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Finch, D M., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1993. Wildlife habitats and biological diversity in the Rocky Mountains and northern Great Plains. Natural Areas Journal 13:191-203.

Flack, J.A.D. 1976. Bird populations of aspen forests in western North America. Ornithological Monograph No. 19. 97 pp.

Flook, D.R. 1964. Range relationships of some ungulates native to Banff and Jasper National Parks, Alberta. Pages 119-128 in D.J. Crisp, ed. Grazing in terrestrial and marine environments. Blackwell Press, Oxford, UK. 429 PP-

Grant, M C. 1993. The trembling giant. Discover 14(1 0):82-89.

Grant, T.A., and G.B. Berkey. 1999. Forest area and avian diversity in

fragmented aspen woodland of North Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:904-914.

Gruell, G.E., and L.L. Loope. 1974. Relationships among aspen, fire and ungulate browsing in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 33 pp.

Hall, F.C. 2002a. Photo point monitoring handbook: Part A - - Field procedures. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-526. 48 pp.

119

Hall, F.C. 2002b. Photo point monitoring handbook: Part B - - Concepts and analysis. U S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-526.

86 pp.

Hart, R.H., and W.A. Laycock. 1996. Repeat photography on range and forest lands in the western United States. Journal of Range Management 49:60- 67.

Holechek, J.L. 1988. An approach for setting the stock rate. Rangelands 10: ID- 14.

Houston, D.B. 1973. Wild fires in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 54:1111-1117.

Houston, D.B. 1982. The northern Yellowstone elk: Ecology and management.

MacMillan Publishers, New York, NY. 474 pp.

Ives, R.L. 1942. The beaver-meadow complex. Journal of Geomorphology 5:191-203.

Jelinski, D.E., and W.M. Cheliak. 1992. Genetic diversity and spatial subdivision of Populus tremuloides (Salicaceae) in a heterogenous landscape. American Journal of Botany 79:728-736.

Johns, B.W. 1993. The influence of grove size on bird species richness in aspen parklands. Wilson Bulletin 105:256-264.

Johnson, M. A. 1994. Changes in southwestern forests: Stewardship implications. Journal of Forestry 92(12):16-19.

Johnson, P. 1984. The dam builder is at it again! National Wildlife (June-July):

9-15.

120

Johnston, C.A., and R.J. Naiman. 1987. Boundary dynamics at the aquatic- terrestrial interface: The influence of beaver and geomorphology. Landscape Ecology 1:47-57.

Johnston, C.A., and R.J. Naiman. 1990. The use of a geographic information system to analyze long-term landscape alteration by beaver. Landscape Ecology 4:5-19.

Kay, C.E. 1985. Aspen reproduction in the Yellowstone Park-Jackson Hole area and its relationship to the natural regulation of ungulates. Pages 131-160 in Workman, G.W., ed. Western elk management: A symposium. Utah State University, Logan, UT. 213 pp.

Kay, C.E. 1990. Yellowstone's northern elk herd: A critical evaluation of the "natural regulation" paradigm. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UT. 490 pp.

Kay, C.E. 1993. Aspen seedlings in recently burned areas in Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. Northwest Science 67:94-104.

Kay, C.E. 1994. The impact of native ungulates and beaver on riparian communities in the Intermountain West. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 1 :23-44.

Kay, C.E. 1997a. Is aspen doomed? Journal of Forestry 95(5):4-11.

Kay, C.E. 1997b. Aspen: A new perspective - - implications for park

management and ecological integrity. Pages 265-273 in Harmon, D., ed. Marking protection work: Proceedings of the 9th conference on research

121

and resource management in parks and on public lands. The George Wright Society, Hancock, Ml. 493 pp.

Kay, C.E. 1997c. The condition and trend of aspen, Populus tremuloides. in Kootenay and Yoho National Parks: Implications for ecological integrity. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:607-616.

Kay, C.E. 1997d. Viewpoint: Ungulate herbivory, willows, and political ecology in Yellowstone. Journal of Range Management 50:139-145.

Kay, C.E. 1997e. Yellowstone: Ecological malpractice - - photo excerpts from a forthcoming book. PERC Reports 15(2):1-40.

Kay, C.E. 1999. Repeat photography and long-term vegetational change on the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station and other rangelands in the Centennial Mountains. Final report to U.S. Sheep Experiment Station, Dubois, ID.

300 pp.

Kay, C.E. 2000. Native burning in western North America: Implications for

hardwood management. Pages 19-27 in Yaussy, D.A., ed. Proceedings: Workshop on fire, people, and the central hardwood landscape. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report NE-274. 129 pp.

Kay, C.E. 2001a. The condition and trend of aspen communities on BLM administered lands in central Nevada - - Final report to BLM Battle Mountain Field Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada, 89820.

1 55 pp + Appendices.

Kay, C.E. 2001b. Long-term aspen exclosures in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Pages 225-240 in Shepperd, W.D., D. Binkley, D.L. Bartos, T.J. Stohlgren,

122

and L.G. Eskew, eds. Sustaining aspen in western landscapes. U.S. Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18. 460 pp.

Kay, C.E. 2001c. Evaluation of burned aspen communities in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Pages 215-223 in Shepperd, W.D., D. Binkley, D.L. Bartos,

T.J. Stohlgren, and L.G. Eskew, eds. Sustaining aspen in western landscapes. U.S. Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18. 460 pp.

Kay, C.E. 2002. The condition and trend of aspen communities on BLM

administered lands in the north-central Nevada - - with recommendations for management. Final report to BLM Elko Field Office, 3900 East Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada, 89801. 193 pp. + Appendices.

Kay, C.E., C.A. White, I.R. Pengelly, and B. Patton. 1999. Long-term ecosystem states and processes in Banff National Park and the central Canadian Rockies. Parks Canada Occasional Paper No. 9, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Kay, C.E., and D.L. Bartos. 2000. Ungulate herbivory on Utah aspen:

Assessment of long-term exclosures. Journal of Range Management 53:145-153.

Kay, C.E., and F.H. Wagner. 1994. Historic condition of woody vegetation on Yellowstone's northern range: A critical test of the "natural regulation" paradigm. Pages 151-169 in Despain, D.G., ed. Plants and their environments' - - Proceeding of the first biennial scientific conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. U.S. National Park Service, Denver, CO. Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR-93/XX. 347 pp.

123

Kay, C.E., and F.H. Wagner. 1996. The response of shrub-aspen to Yellowstone's 1988 wildfires: Implications for "natural regulation" management. Pages 107-1 1 1 in Greenlee, J.M., ed. Ecological implications of fire in Greater Yellowstone: Proceedings of the second biennial conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, WA. 235 pp.

Kay, C.E., and J.W. Walker. 1997. A comparison of sheep and wildlife grazed willow communities in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Sheep and Goat Research Journal 13:6-14.

Kennedy, T.B., A.M. Merenlender, and G.L. Vinyard. 2000. A comparison of riparian condition and aquatic invertebrate community indices in central Nevada. Western North American Naturalist 60:255-272.

Kindschy, R.R. 1985. Response of red willow to beaver use in southeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:26-28.

Kindschy, R.R. 1989. Regrowth of willow following simulated beaver cutting. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:290-294.

Krebill, R.G. 1972. Mortality of aspen on the Gros Ventre elk winter range. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper INT-129. 16 pp.

Laycock, W.A. 1975. Rangeland reference areas. Society for Range management, Range Science Series No. 3. 34 pp.

Loope, L.L., and G.E. Gruell. 1973. The ecological role of fire in the Jackson Hole area, northwestern Wyoming. Quaternary Research 3:425-443.

Lukas, D. 2000. Movers of the Earth. Audubon 102(2):29-33.

124

Magill, A.W. 1989. Monitoring environmental change with color slides. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-117. 55 pp.

McCall, T.C., T.P. Hodgman, D.R. Diefenbach, and R.B. Owen, Jr., 1996.

Beaver populations and their relation to wetland habitat and breeding waterfowl in Maine. Wetlands 16:163-172.

McDonough, W.T. 1979. Quaking aspen seed germination and early seedling growth. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper INT-234. 13 pp.

McDonough, W.T. 1985. Sexual reproduction, seeds and seedlings. Pages 25- 28 in N.V. DeByle, and R.P. Winokur, eds. Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United States. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119. 283 pp.

McKinstry, M.C., P. Caffrey, and S.H. Anderson. 2001. The importance of beaver to wetland habitats and waterfowl in Wyoming. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 37: 1 571 -1 577.

McKinstry, M.C., and S.H. Anderson. 1997. Use of Beaver to improve riparian areas in Wyoming. Pages 128-134 in Goertler, C., C. Rumsey, T. Bray, and D. Boysen, eds. Wyoming water 1997: Applied research for management of Wyoming’s water resources. Wyoming Water Research Center, Laramie, WY.

Mitton, J.B. and M.C. Grant. 1996. Genetic variation and the natural history of quaking aspen. Bioscience 46:25-31.

Mueggler, W.F. 1988. Aspen community types of the Intermountain region.

U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-250. 135 pp.

125

Mueggler, W.F. 1989a. Age distribution and reproduction of Intermountain aspen stands. Western Journal of applied Forestry 4:41-45.

Mueggler, W.F. 1989b. Status of aspen woodlands in the West. Pages 32-37 in Pendleton, B.G., ed. Western raptor management symposium and workshop. National Wildlife Federation Scientific and Technical Series No. 12. Washington, D.C.

Munther, G.L. 1982. Beaver management in grazed riparian ecosystems.

Pages 234-241 in Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID.

Munther, G.L. 1983. Integration of beaver into forest management. Paper presented at Colorado-Wyoming Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Laramie, WY. 8 pp.

Naiman, R.J., and J.M. Melillo. 1984. Nitrogen budget of a subarctic stream altered by beaver (Castor canadensis). Oecologia 62: 1 50-1 55.

Naiman, R.J., J.M. Melillo, and J.E. Hobbie. 1986. Ecosystem alteration of

boreal forest streams by beaver (Castor canadensis). Ecology 67:1254- 1269.

Naiman, R.J., C.A. Johnston, and J.C. Kelley. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by beaver. Bioscience 38:753-762.

Nelson, J.R., and T.A. Leege. 1982. Nutritional requirements and food habits. Pages 323-367 in Thomas, J.S., and D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North

126

America: Ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 698 pp.

Nietvelt, C.G. 2001. Herbivorv interactions between beaver (Castor Canadensis) and elk (Cervus elaphus) on willow (Salix spp.) in Banff National Park, Alberta. M.S. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 117 pp.

Oakleaf, R.F., C. Masser, and T. Nappe. 1983. Livestock and nongame wildlife. Pages 95-102 in Menke, J.W., ed. Proceedings of the workshop on livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. University of California Special Publications 3301. 173 pp.

Olmsted, C.E. 1977. The effect of large herbivores on aspen in Rocky Mountain National Park. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 136 pp.

Olmsted, C.E. 1 979. The ecology of aspen with reference to utilization by large herbivores in Rocky Mountain National Park. Pages 89-97 in Boyce, M.S., and L.D. Hayden-Wing, eds. North American elk: Ecology, behavior, and management. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 294 pp.

Olmsted, C.E. 1997. Twenty years of change in Rocky Mountain National Park winter range aspen. Technical Report. Environmental Studies Program, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO. 41 pp.

Page, J.L., N. Dodd, T O. Osborne, and J.A. Carson. 1978. The influence of livestock grazing on non-game wildlife. California-Nevada Wildlife

1978:159-173.

127

Parker, M., F.J. Wood, Jr., B.H. Smith, and R.G. Elder. 1985. Erosional

downcutting in lower order ecosystems: Have historical changes been caused by removal of beaver? Pages 35-38 in Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre, eds. Riparian ecosystems and their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120.

Perala, D.A. 1990. Quaking aspen. Pages 555-569 in Burns, R.M., and B.H. Honkala, eds. Silvics of north America. Volume 2. hardwoods. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 654.

Peterson, E.B., and N.M. Peterson. 1992. Ecology, management and use of aspen and balsam poplar in the prairie provinces, Canada. Forestry Canada Northern Forest Center Special Report 1. 252 pp.

Peterson, E.B., and N.M. Peterson. 1995. Aspen managers’ handbook for British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Canadian Forest Service. FRDA Report 230. 1 10 pp.

Platts, W.S., and M. Onishuk. 1988. “Good” beavers, “bad” beavers. Idaho Wildlife 41 (2):23-27.

Platts, W.S., R.L. Nelson, 0. Casey, and V. Crispin. 1983. Riparian-stream

habitat conditions on Tabor Creek, Nevada, under grazed and ungrazed conditions. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 63:162- 174.

Pollock, M.M., R.J. Naiman, H E. Erickson, C.A. Johnston, J. Pastor, and G. Pinay. 1995. Beaver as engineers: Influences on biotic and abiotic

128

characteristics of drainage basins. Pages 117-126 in Jones, C.G., and J.H. Lawton, eds. Linking species and ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, new York, NY. 387 pp.

Putman, R.J., P.J. Edwards, J.C.E. Mann, R.C. How, and S.D. Hill. 1989.

Vegetational and faunal changes in an area of heavily grazed woodland following relief of grazing. Biological Conservation 47:13-32.

Ripple, W.J., and E.J. Larson. 2000. Historic aspen recruitment, elk, and wolves in northern Yellowstone National Park, USA. Biological Conservation: In press.

Ripple, W.J., and E.J. Larsen. 2001. The role of postfire coarse woody debris in aspen regeneration. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16:61-64. Romme, W.H., M.G. Turner, L.L. Wallace, and J.S. Walker. 1995. Aspen, elk, and fire in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 76:2097-2106. Sampson, A.W. 1919. Effect of grazing upon aspen reproduction. U.S.

Department of Agriculture Bulletin No. 741. 29 pp.

Schenbeck, G.L., and E.A. Dahlem. 1977. Proposed management of aspen habitat in northern Nevada. California-Nevada Wildlife 1977:68-74.

Schier, G.A. 1975. Deterioration of aspen clones in the middle Rocky Mountains. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper INT-170. 14 pp.

Schier, G.A., and R.B. Campbell. 1980. Variation among healthy and

deteriorating aspen clones. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper INT-264.

12 pp.

129

Shepperd, W.D. 1993. Initial growth, development, and clonal dynamics of regenerated aspen in the Rocky Mountains. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper RM-312.

Shepperd W.D., and F.W. Smith. 1993. The role of near-surface lateral roots in the life cycle of aspen in the central Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 61:157-170.

Shepperd, W.D., and M.A. Battaglia. 2002. Ecology, silviculture, and

management of Black Hills ponderosa pine. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-97. 112 pp.

Shepperd, W.D., and M.L. Fairweather. 1994. Impact of large ungulates in restoration of aspen communities in a southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystem. Pages 344-347 in Covington, W.S., and L.F. DeBano, eds. Sustainable ecological systems: Implementing an ecological approach to land management. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM- 247. 363 pp.

Smith, B.H. 1980. Not all beaver are bad; or, an ecosystem approach to stream habitat management, with possible software applications. Pages 32-36 in Proceedings of the 15th annual meeting of the Colorado-Wyoming Chapter of the American Fisheries Society.

Smith, B.H. 1983a. Riparian willow management: Its problems and potentials, within the scope of multiple use on public lands. Pages 15-20 in Proceedings of the Ninth Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop, Lander, Wyoming.

130

Smith, B.H. 1983b. Restoration of riparian habitats within the BLM-Rock Springs District. Paper presented at Wildlife Habitat Rehabilitation and Reclamation Symposium. January 10-1 1. Salt Lake City, UT. 8 pp.

Smith, M.E., C.T. Driscoll, B.J. Wyskowski, C.M. Brooks, and C.C. Cosentini.

1991 . Modification of stream ecosystem structure and function by beaver (Castor canadensis) in the Adirondack Mountains, New York. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:55-61.

Smith, R.L., and L.D. Flake. 1983. The effects of grazing on forest regeneration along a prairie river. Prairie Naturalist 15:41-44.

Stelfox, J.B., ed. 1995. Relationship between stand age, stand structure, and biodiversity in aspen mixedwood forests in Alberta. Jointly published by Alberta Environmental Centre, Vegreville, AB and Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, AB. 308 pp.

Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine birds nesting in riparian habitat. Journal of Range Management 39:254-258.

U.S. Forest Service. 1993. Changing conditions in southwestern forests and

implications on land stewardship. U.S. Forest Service, Southwest Region.

8 pp.

Vera, F.W.M. 2000. Grazing history and forest ecology. CABI Publishing, New York, NY. 506 pp.

Wall, T.G., R.F. Miller, and T.J. Svejcar, 2001. Juniper encroachment into aspen in the northwest Great Basin. Journal of Range Management 54:691-698.

131

Wallmo, O.C., and W.L. Regelin. 1981. Rocky mountain and intermountain habitats. Part 1. Food habits and nutrition. Pages 387-38 in Wallmo, O.C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. 605 pp.

Weatherill, R.G., and L.B. Keith. 1969. The effect of livestock grazing on an

aspen forest community. Alberta Department of Lands and Forests, Fish and Wildlife Division Technical Bulletin No. 1. 31 pp.

Weinstein, J. 1979. The condition and trend of aspen along Pacific Creek in Grand Teton National Park. Pages 78-82 in Boyce, M.S., and L.D. Hayden-wing, eds. North American elk: Ecology, behavior and management. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 294 pp.

West, N.E., K. McDaniel, E.L. Smith, P.T. Tueller, and S. Leonard. 1994.

Monitoring and interpreting ecological integrity on arid and semi-arid lands of the western United States. New Mexico Range Improvement Task Force, Las Cruces, NM. Report 37. 15 pp.

Westworth, D.A., and E.S. Telfer. 1993. Summer and winter bird populations associated with five age-classes of aspen forest in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23:1830-1836.

White, C.A. 2001. Aspen, elk, and fire in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 192 pp.

White, C.A., C.E. Kay, and M.C. Feller. 1998a. Aspen forest communities: A key indicator of ecological integrity in the Rocky Mountains. Pages 506-517 in Munro, N.W.P., and J.H.M. Wilison, eds. Linking protected areas with

132

working landscapes conserving biodiversity. Science and Management of Protected Areas Association. Wolfville, NS.

White, C.A., C.E. Olmsted, and C.E. Kay. 1998b. Aspen, elk, and fire in the

Rocky Mountain national parks of North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:449-462.

White, C.A., M.C. Feller, and S. Bayley. 2003. Predation risk and the functional response of elk-aspen herbivory. Forest Ecology and Management (in press).

Winternitz, B.L. 1980. Birds in aspen. Pages 247-257 in Degraff, R.M., ed.

Workshop proceedings on management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-86.

Young, J.L. 1973. Breeding bird populations and habitat utilization in aspen stands of upper Logan Canyon. M.S. Thesis, Utah State University,

Logan, UT. 38 pp.

Young, J.L. 1977. Density and diversity responses of summer bird populations to the structure of aspen and spruce-fir communities on the Wasatch Plateau, Utah. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UT. 79

pp.

APPENDIX A

Project Maps

by

Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Management Services 480 East 125 North Providence, Utah 84332 (435) 753-0715

December 2002

APPENDIX A - - PROJECT MAPS

The 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps for this project are grouped by drainage or mountain range. On each map the vehicle access routes are marked in purple^H , while the routes accessed on foot are marked in red The approximate location of each measured aspen stand is marked with an EK-number in black, while the general location of other aspen stands is also marked in black, usually with the letter A.

Area	1:24.000 maps
Stag Mountain	Hanks Creek, NE Hanks Creek, SW Hot Springs Creek Stag Mountain
Tuscarora Mountains	Big Cottonwood Canyon Mount Blitzen Red Cow Creek Toe Jam Mountain
Adobe Mountains	Coal Mine Basin Coal Mine Canyon, SE Dinner Station The Buttes The Narrows

APPENDIX B

Project Data Sheets

by

Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Management Services 480 East 125 North Providence, Utah 84332 (435) 753-0715

December 2002

APPENDIX B - - PROJECT DATA SHEETS

This appendix contains photocopies of the original data sheets for each aspen stand measured during this project - - see text for details.

Area	Aspen Stands
Stag Mountain	EK-201 to EK-252
Tuscarora Mountains	EK-253 to EK-261
Adobe Mountains	EK-262 to EK-275

APPENDIX C

Project Color Slides

by

Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Management Services 480 East 125 North Providence, Utah 84332 (435) 753-0715

December 2002

APPENDIX C - - PROJECT COLOR SLIDES

This appendix contains 1056 - - 35 mm color slides of aspen stands in north- central Nevada. Each slide is individually labeled with the date, mountain range, and drainage, as well as consecutively numbered in black ink. Stand numbers have also been identified on each slide, where appropriate. The slides are presented in consecutive order in archival quality plastic pages that each hold 20 slides. The slide pages are also consecutively numbered; n=53. The red and white survey pole seen in many slides is 6 feet tall in one foot segments.