BIG CREEK, UTAH 38C 172112 /0 '/STd/ _ I r & LIVESTOCK-FISHERY INTERACTION STUDIES BIG CREEK, UTAH Sf • US ?sn IW Progress Report 2 to the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah June 1980 to May 19S1 William S. Platts Rodger Loren Nelson USDA- Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, Idaho BLM Library Denver Federal Center Bldg. 50, OC-521 P.O. Box 25047 Denver, CO 80225 I ABSTRACT Big Creek exhibits the positive effects of restricting livestock impacts on riparian vegetation and streambanks. With the related ex¬ ceptions of excessive fine channel sediments, high channel substrate embeddedness, and correspondingly reduced fish populations, the riparian and fishery habitat within the ungrazed area is markedly superior to similar habitats in the grazed pasture. The negative features inside the ungrazed area are suspected to result from the improper functioning of instream habitat improvement structures which, while improving pool abundance and apparent quality, may have increased sediment deposition. Further trend analysis will help clarify these interacting forces. The present continuous grazing system on Big Creek will be changed in 1981 to a deferred system. The continuance of this study will allow a de¬ termination of the ability of this new system to protect and enhance the already impacted riparian-stream environments. 1 ? ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This progress report represents the study and integration of in¬ formative material from various sources. Except as otherwise noted, however, all specific data pertaining to the Randolph Planning Unit and the Big Creek Allotment prior to the initiation of this study was obtained from the Randolph Planning Unit Grazing Management Final En¬ vironmental Statement, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District, Salt Lake City, Utah; therefore, in order to keep unwieldy referencing to a minimum, this publication is only cited where abso¬ lutely necessary. Special appreciation is extended to Gerry Ferringer, State Fishery Biologist, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, help in coordinating this study; to Dave Bomholdt, Fisheries Biologist, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, for his efforts in providing technical informa¬ tion; to Dexter Pitman, Regional Fisheries Manager, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Northern Regional Office, Ogden, Utah, for his assistance in organizing the fish population analysis of Big Creek; to D. Cal McCluskey, Wildlife Biologist, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, for technical infor¬ mation and photographs of Big Creek; and to Dave Young, Fisheries Biologist, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Sevier River Resource Area, Richfield, Utah, for photographs illustrating field techniques. f PREFACE This is the second in a series of progress reports that present the results of The Big Creek, Utah, Livestock-Fishery Interaction Studies, and is intended to supplement Progress Report 1 (Platts, Nelson, and Martin, 1980). We have included sufficient information in this report for it to stand alone and to provide a comparison of results from 1979 and 1980; the reader may, however, wish to refer to Progress Report 1 for a more comprehensive presentation of the results obtained in 1979. iii CONTENTS Abstract . i Acknowledgements . ii Preface . iii Introduction . 1 Study Area Description . The Situation . 3 Grazing Patterns . 11 Methods . 14 General . 14 Geomorp’nic/ Aqua tic Analysis . 16 Riparian Habitat Analysis . 17 Streamside Herbage Analysis . 19 Hydraulic and Channel Geometry Analysis . 19 Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Analysis . 19 Fish Population Analysis . 19 Results . 21 Geomorphic /Aqua tic Analysis . 21 Riparian Habitat Analysis . 24 Streamside Herbage Analysis . 24 Hydraulic and Channel Geometry Analysis . 27 Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Analysis . 27 Fish Population Analysis . 31 Conclusions . 34 Publications Cited . 36 Selected References . 39 i v INTRODUCTION There are 1.9 billion acres of land in the 48 conterminous United States, of which some 1.2 billion (65 percent) are rangelands; as of 1970, 69 percent of this range was grazed by domestic livestock. In the western United States, most of these rangelands are public lands ad¬ ministered by federal agencies. In Utah, for example, 66 percent of the state is federally owned and of this, some 24 million acres (43 percent) are administered by the USDI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)— . Many streams of various sizes traverse this vast area, but despite their prevalence (Utah, for example, has some 2500 miles of stream on BLM land) they represent relatively little acreage. These streams, together with their adjacent riparian zones, contribute significantly to the productivity of the range, especially in arid and semi-arid regions, and present unique problems in multiple use management. Unfortunately, this fact has only recently become widely appreciated and streams and riparian zones have frequently been ignored in rangeland planning and management in the past, largely due to their small relative size. The various classes of livestock utilize the range in different ways, necessitating different management practices to increase the compatibility of each class with riparian and aquatic habitat. Cattle, for example, will congregate on lesser slopes and bottomlands, while sheep, which are less dependent on water, usually favor steeper slopes and upland areas (Stoddart and Smith 1955) . Since sheep are also usually herded whereas cattle are not, management techniques to keep watersheds from being significantly altered differ between these two classes of livestock. The commonly used cattle management techniques are suspected to be less congenial than those used with sheep and are therefore the focus of this study. Since the riparian zone, which forms the interface between the aquatic and terrestrial range ecosystems, is disproportionately im¬ portant to both areas, effective management of the riparian zone is critical. Because of soil moisture, soil fertility, and related factors, the riparian ecosystem is more productive than the adjacent, drier upland range, and its vegetation is more palatable. Coupled with this are other riparian features, such as gentler terrain, increased ‘shade, and drinking water, which add to the attractiveness of the riparian zone to cattle and lead to preferential use. The riparian zone also provides critical fishery habitat components which are largely determined by streamside vegetation. Overhanging vegetation and undercut streambanks are an important source of pro¬ tective cover, food, and shade. Shading prevents water temperatures — ' ^Duff, D. 1980. Personal correspondence. Intermountain Regional Office, Ogden, Utah. USDA, Forest Service, * from rising or fluctuating drastically, which can lead to shifts in species composition from salmonids to more tolerant species of non-game fish (Platts 1980] . In addition, detritus .formed from terrestrial plants is a principal source of food for aquatic invertebrates and ultimately fish (Minshall 1967] . Streamside vegetation also serves as a barrier to terrestrial pollutants and controls water velocity and streambank erosion. Since these features are all susceptible to al¬ teration by grazing animals, the needs of the resident fishery and the stockman can conflict. Presently, there is an unfortunate dearth of factual information regarding the impacts of livestock grazing on riparian and aquatic ecosystems. As yet, only limited research has been directed toward lessening these impacts, though the constant increase in range use by cattle since the late 1800's has generally degraded rangelands and led to altered riparian habitats (Platts 1978) . The resulting controversy surrounding the use of public rangelands by livestock and its potential conflicts with fishery needs has led to the emergence of livestock management as a national environmental issue (Leopold 1975; Platts 1978) . Working in this- information vacuum, fisheries biologists have intuitively hypothesized that grazing of the riparian zone can signif¬ icantly alter a fishery. Such alteration is believed to occur through physical modification of key stream features. Such changes as channel broadening, decreases in depth and pool-riffle ratio, loss of vegetative and structural cover, accelerated bank erosion and sedimentation, increased water temperature, and related factors are expected to modify the character of the fishery. These changes, however, have yet to be sufficently evaluated and identified for routine inclusion in management strategies. Additional studies that will provide solutions to these potential problems must be conducted (Meehan and Platts 1978) . Against this background of limited information, it should come as no surprise that little help can be given the land manager in deter¬ mining alternate strategies in situations where livestock are known to be exerting undue stress on the fishery. Valid analytical techniques for assessing the magnitude of livestock impacts have yet to be fully developed. Without these tools, it is difficult to determine whether changes in grazing patterns are indicated and what strategies should be implemented. The Big Creek study is part of a comprehensive program to develop an array of field techniques coupled with computer analysis that will accurately identify the complex interactions that occur between dif¬ ferent grazing intensities and classes of livestock and fish. Field studies are currently being conducted on eleven sites in Idaho, two sites in Nevada, and two sites in Utah (Figure 1) . The Idaho studies monitor impacts to streams in moist, forested, high mountain meadows, while the Utah and Nevada studies monitor impacts to streams in the more arid sagebrush type meadows. These studies are structured to allow O f IDAHO BATHOLITH 1 Lower Stolle 2 Cougar Stolle 3 Guard Stolle 4 Upper Stolle 5 Johnson Creek 6 Elk Creek 7 Lower Bear Valley 8 Upper Bear Valley 9 Lower Frenchman Creek 10 Upper Frenchman Creek 11 Spring Creek HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN 12 Gance Creek 13 Tabor Creek BONNEVILLE BASIN 14 Big Creek 15 Otter Creek Figure 1. Distribution of livestock-fishery study areas. 3 time-trend analysis of livestock impacts on streams and will help the land manager select grazing systems that are as compatible as possible with fishery needs. This progress report deals exclusively with the Big Creek, Utah study which has the following objectives: 1. Determine the rehabilitation potential of Big Creek based on past, present, and future use strategies. 2. Evaluate the improved management techniques proposed by the BLM. 3. Evaluate the continuous grazing system currently in use on the Big Creek Allotment. 4. Make recommendations regarding optimum grazing strategies relative to use of riparian forage. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION Randolph Planning Unit The Randolph Planning Unit comprises much of Rich County, the completely rural corner of extreme northeastern Utah adjacent to the Idaho and Wyoming borders (Figure 2) . This is the Bear River drainage basin, which is a tributary of the Bonneville Basin of Western Utah, part of the Great Basin of the Intermountain region of the western United States. Physiographically, this region is also part of Bailey's (1978) Wyoming Basin Province because of its separation from the Great Basin by the Wasatch Mountains. It is an area of variable relief, consisting primarily of gently rolling hills covered by vegetation typical of the northern desert shrub lands, but it also includes for¬ ested mountains, alkaline bottom lands and flood plains. The climatic regime is representative of such steppes, with cold winters and short hot summers. Precipitation averages from 10 to 14 inches, making the region semi-arid, and falls mainly in the winter and spring. Summer thunderstorms are generally violent with little rainwater absorbed into the ground water supply, so vegetation development is largely dependent on snow accumulation and subsequent gradual release of meltwater. Many plant species exist in the area, but because of local variations in relief, precipitation, temperature, historic use pattern, and edaphic conditions, the dominant plant association is the sagebrush-wheatgrass typical of this ecoregion. The planning unit itself comprises 569,102 acres, of which 170,583 acres are public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. It is divided into 19 grazing allotments, which are composed of a mix¬ ture of public, private and state lands. Typically, the fertile valleys are privately owned while the sagebrush uplands represent the public domain. 5 Since Rich County was settled in 1870, agriculture, especially cattle production, has been the chief industry. In semi-arid regions such as this, the best lands have typically been cultivated and thus removed from grazing, making the shrubby uplands extremely important to the livestock industry. Critical spring and fall range is generally deficient in the cultivated areas, but can be provided by the uplands (Stoddart and Smith 1955) . Since these less-arable uplands constitute the public lands of the Randolph Planning Unit, grazing of public lands is an important economic issue. Big Creek Allotment Big Creek is the third largest of the 19 grazing allotments in the Randolph Planning Unit, and is located immediately southeast of the city of Randolph (Figure 2). Its 33,255 acres include two perennial streams, Randolph Creek and Big Creek. The latter is currently being studied by the BLM to assess livestock impacts on riparian and aquatic habitat. Part of the allotment has been fenced to exclude cattle from 0.6 miles of stream, so that time trends in stream deterioriation or rehabili¬ tation can be monitored. This exclosure currently represents the only stream reach in the planning unit rated by the Bureau to be good fishery habitat (Figures 3 and 4) , and is populated by rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri) , yellowstone cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki bouvieri) , sculpin (Cottus sp.) and sucker (Catostomus sp) ; stocking by the Utah Divison of Wildlife Resources helps maintain game fish populations. THE SITUATION Range Habitat The land surrounding Big Creek is a semi-arid shrubsteppe. As is generally the case in ecosystems controlled by abiotic factors, the plant and animal communities are dominated by a few very abundant species. In this instance, the rolling hills support an almost uniform growth of big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) , a plant of relatively little forage value for livestock. This vegetation type, of which 75% is this one species, accounts for 65% of the BLM land in the planning unit; surprisingly, despite this abundance big sagebrush may not even be the natural dominant in many cases. The second most abundant vegetation type in the planning unit as a whole is bunchgrass, represented chiefly by the exotic, palatable, crested wheatgrass (Agropgron cristatum) , which accounts for only 9.1% of the vegetation. Sagebrush, though undoubtedly an important component of the natural climax vegetation, may not naturally be the dominant it now is. Con¬ siderable evidence exists which points to grazing-induced vegetation shifts being the cause of its present dominance over much of the western range (Bailey 1978; Christensen and Johnson 1964; Christensen 1963; Stoddart and Smith 1955; USDA 1936). Christensen (1963), in fact, reporting on undisturbed stands of grasses dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropgxon spicatum) in central Utah, states that sagebrush is rarely dominant in areas protected from grazing. From such evidence, 6 Figure 3. Stream reach in the central portion of the existing livestock exclosure. Note the abundance of grass on the banks and dense brush beyond the fenceline. Figure '■* . Stream reach in the upper section of the exclosure. Note the overhanging grasses and the willow on the right bank. it seems likely that in northeastern Utah, which is subject to con¬ siderable influence from the Great Plains to the east, much of the land now dominated by sagebrush would be climax grassland in the absence of grazing. Normal plant succession progresses toward a climax type that is most stable relative to ambient conditions. Disruptive forces or long term changes in ambient conditions can modify this sequence, however, favoring another species composition. In the intermountain region, cattle may represent such a long term change in ambient conditions, selectively exerting grazing pressure on the bunchgrasses relative to the sagebrush. Coupled with a history of range overuse, a shift in species composition toward big sagebrush dominance is to be expected. Thus, the quality of the range deteriorates in response to grazing pressure, possibly maintaining big sagebrush as a grazing disclimax. In order to control this retrogressive succession, various manage¬ ment techniques are used. These include herbicide applications and burning to reduce brush cover, as well as various pasturing techniques to directly reduce grazing pressure at certain times. Riparian Habitat In the Randolph Planning Unit, riparian vegetation accounts for only 0.7% of the BLM land. Because of this, it is easily and often overlooked in range planning. This highly productive zone that sep¬ arates the aquatic ecosystem from the terrestrial range ecosystem is far more important than its low relative abundance would suggest. In fact, the Randolph Planning Unit Environmental Statement (USDI 1979) states that aquatic/riparian and fisheries habitat may be the most important habitat type in Rich County. It's importance comes from the fact that crucial resources for wildlife, livestock, water quality, and fish are provided by this zone. For livestock the riparian zone provides water, generally moister more palatable vegetation, gentle terrain, and shade. Since cattle may preferentially graze riparian vegetation, the riparian zone can be expected to be heavily used under any grazing system. If historical use patterns have led to general range deteri¬ oration, it is only reasonable to expect at least equal alteration of riparian habitat. Congregation of cattle along streambanks can modify the habitat through such direct physical action as reduction of stream- side vegetation and bank trampling. These, in turn, can lead to de¬ creases in overhanging cover, streambank stability, pool quality, pool- riffle ratio, and overall water quality. If shifts in riparian species composition parallel such shifts in upland range vegetation, selection for a grazing dis-climax in the riparian zone may also have occurred. This is important, because not all plants provide equal cover or bank stability . 8 Management Considerations The preceeding discussion brings up the question of management. There are basically five systems of livestock management used to control the distribution of livestock over the range. These systems are con¬ tinuous or seasonal grazing, rotation grazing, deferred grazing, de¬ ferred rotation grazing, and rest-rotation grazing (Meehan and Platts 1978). These commonly used systems are designed to increase range plant vigor, and thus help rangelands recover from historical abuse. Their effectiveness in promoting recovery of riparian vegetation, however, needs clarification. Continuous grazing is common in the Randolph Planning Unit, and consists of stocking an allotment in the spring and removing the animals in the fall. It is almost a no-management system, except that timing of stocking and removal can be manipulated so as to avoid critical develop¬ mental stages of the forage plants. Nevertheless, it is an unsuccessful system, as noted by Hormay (1970) who states that under continuous grazing at any stocking level, the more palatable and accessible plants will be killed or eliminated. Another popular grazing system is rest-rotation grazing, which sub¬ divides an allotment into pastures which are then systematically grazed and rested. If correctly applied, this system can help restore the vigor of range plants, with the amount of rest required being determined by characteristics of the forage plants involved (Hormay 1970) . Whether this system can benefit riparian vegetation, however, is still open to question and there are, in fact, indications that it cannot help the re¬ covery of abused riparian habitat. Meehan and Platts (1978) suggest that this system may be harmful to riparian ecosystems because of in¬ creased potential fop .livestock movement and use of the riparian zone. A study by Starostka— on Seven-Mile Creek, Utah, suggests that not only may riparian habitats not be improved under a rest-rotation system, but increased production of riparian vegetation following a year of rest may increase the attractiveness of this zone to cattle. This could ac¬ celerate modification of the riparian zone since structural damage does not recover as rapidly as vegetation (Figure 5), nor do all plant species recover at the same rate. In an on-going BLM study. Duff (1977, 1978) found that woody vegetation along Big Creek recovered more slowly than grasses, and that only 6 weeks of grazing were required to return the riparian habitat within the Big Creek exclosure, which had been rested for four years, to pre-rest conditions. The three other systems either defer grazing for parts of the season or are combinations of seasonal deferment and resting; none have clearly been shown to be effective in helping riparian vegetation re¬ cover though some may be more successful than others. Only one system 2/ —Starostka, V. J. (n.d.) Some effects of rest-rotation grazing on the aquatic habitat of Seven-Mile Creek. Report on file USDA, Forest Service, Richfield, Utah. 9 Figure 5. Stream reach in the lower por exclosure. This area experie trespass use in 1979. Note t as well as the grasses inters shrubs . t i on of the need some he bank sloughing parsed among the clearly stands out as being useful in riparian recovery: complete rest. This can be accomplished by fencing, as the BLM intends to do on some stream reaches in the Randolph Planning Unit, and though it cannot be the final solution it must be a consideration if high quality riparian habitat is to be conserved. The answer to this vexing problem should become clearer as this study progresses, since it will monitor three grazing systems: non-grazing in the exclosure, the continuous system that has been historically used, and the deferred-rotation system to be implemented by the BLM to improve range conditions. The deferred- rotation system will allow some rest during the grazing season for each of the three pastures which make up the Big Creek allotment. GRAZING PATTERNS History Since settlement of Rich County in 1870, livestock production has remained the number one industry. This has primarily been represented by various sizes of cow-calf ranching operations, ranging from small operations averaging 65 head to large operations averaging 536 head. Because the allotments are used for spring to early winter grazing, the rancher must have sufficient winter forage for his cattle. For this reason, base property is used to determine the grazing preference which for the Big Creek Allotment is potentially 4045 AUM's (not including suspended non-use) . The present grazing preference of 6742 AUM's is the result of a 40% reduction in use over the three years 1961 through 1963. Subsequent to this reduction, readjudication sub-divided the Randolph Grazing Unit into the Big Creek and New Canyon Allotments. Of the 6742 AUM's poten¬ tially allocated for the Big Creek Allotment, 2697 were put into sus¬ pended non-use, leaving 4045 AUM's in active status. As can be seen from Table 1, however, the tendency has been for authorized use to be a lesser amount. The historic management system for the Big Creek Allotment, and presumably the older Randolph Grazing Unit, has been an allotment-wide continuous system. This system normally provides no rest period for any part of the allotment during the grazing season, but in this case a drift fence built across the lower portion of the allotment defers _ , grazing on the upper two-thirds of the allotment early in the season— . Application of this system results in stocking the allotment in early May without regard to development of the key forage species, and removal after attainment of permitted use. The level of use has been 3478 cattle AUM's reached in mid-September and 402 sheep AUM's reached in late-December. It should be noted that use intensity in AUM's is a —^Anderson, G. (1979 unpublished). Big Creek allotment, grazing history and recommendations for MFP-3 decisions. (Data on file, USDI, BLM, Salt Lake Dist. Office, Salt Lake City, Utah). 11 function of animal numbers and time on the range; it gives no direct indication of vegetation use, which has consistently been heavy on the following scale: Slight Light Moderate Heavy Severe 0 - 10% 11 - 40% 41 - 60% 61 - 80% SI -100% Such heavy use has, in turn, led to generally deteriorated range conditions, as evaluated by the 1978 range trend survey, which shows 61% of the range in static condition and 39% declining—. Since 1978 was not a drought year and precipitation during the crop year was near normal, it is unlikely that this downward trend is a climatic artifact. The Bureau of Land Management has determined that under present range conditions only 3116 AUM's forage are actually available to live¬ stock, suggesting that the allotment has consistently been overstocked (Table 1) and necessitating a 25% reduction in stocking level. The range vegetation use was 65% for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978, 15% greater than the desired use of 50% for grasses and well into the heavy use level. Since riparian vegetation is frequently grazed more heavily than the dryer range vegetation, the possibility exists that riparian vegetation has been utilized at the severe level. At the very least, this system can be expected to have led to a considerably altered riparian habitat. In order to assess the damage to the riparian habitat and its ability to recover when removed from grazing pressure, the BLM con¬ structed an exclosure on the Big Creek allotment to exclude 0.6 miles of the stream from grazing. Despite the occasional occurrence of trespass use, particularly in 1974 when aquatic and riparian conditions reverted to pre-rest conditions as a result of heavy use, the riparian and aquatic habitats have recovered markedly (Duff 1977, 1978). Trespass use again occurred in 1979, though apparently not quite as heavily. This small section of Big Creek presently accounts for all of the fishery habitat in Rich County that the BLM considers to be in good condition. Present and Future Trends The BLM is attempting to apply improved management of livestock on the Big Creek Allotment, but the changes proposed in the Randolph Planning Unit Grazing Management Final Environment Statement (USD I 1979) 4/ — Anderson, G. (1979 unpublished). Big Creek allotment, grazing history and recommendations for MFP-3 decisions. (Data on file, USDI, BLM, Salt Lake Dist. Office, Salt Lake City, Utah). 1 O I.iMc 1/ I . — 1. 1 vosl oi'k tiii 1 1 1 • i )’ ( 'hk' ill , 81 y, Crc?i*k A I I ol wont , K i < • I » County, II I «'i 1 1 . Vl'iAU tilt A/ INC I'AHAMKTKK 197/, 19 79 19 70 1977 1978 1979 1980 J.93JL. 1 98 2 1.981 _ 1-184 _ A 1 lot mon 1 Ac i o.ij*o 20 146 70340 20340 >0 0. A 2032.6 20 W> n:,r>r> n 7 s r> 8 V/ Vi 1 17 V» \ PV» (ii .1/ i ii}.' Sysl cm 21 A WC AWC AWC AWC AWC AWC AWC AWC 8/ AIM) A I'D /.I'D A< i 1 vc Cm i lc I/.78 l/i 711 Vi 78 lA 78 )2, /a 3613 3804 3804 A/ N.l). N.l). N.l*. Aii I Itor i /oil llso < At»M ) S ^ SllOO|. 7.02 A 02 2. 02 A 02 2,02 6 JO 9 19 r) 89 N.l). • N.l). N.l). Tol ;i 1 1880 WHO 8880 1880 1880 2,1)2, 1 4 14 1 4 34 ) N.l). N.l). N.D. sio. i- inj’ n.i to r>/ 1 f) 9/10 9/10 9/10 9/10 9/10 9/10 9/10 N.l). N.l). ' N.l). Oil lie 9/0) 0/19 9/ 1 9 >1/19 9/19 9/ 1 9 >1/ 1 9 9/ 1 9 N.l). N.l). N.l). itiit os Slioop 12/)l 12/11 12/11 12/31 12/31 12/11 12/31 12/31 N.l). N.l). N.l). j It. III)',. Voj'.ol .» 1 1 011 II so llo.ivy ( h')% llo.ivy (OV/ (>'»7. 692. l>97. Mod o i .i t o N.l). N.l). N.l). N.l). N.l). 1 ns iilo It 1 |»;i r i .mi Kxo 1 osiiro llo.ivy SI i >> 1 1 1 SI I ('.111 SI l(-l,l S 1 i }*lil 1 77 0 N.l). N.l). N.l). N.D. Vim;oI / IWi - 1978 V.iluus mprosonl .i I i vo yo.ir .ivoroj-o. \ / A I lot iiionl -w ido omit. I minus (stMson.i I ) . \ t 'i - |>.is ( ii ro‘J - 0.26 1 .09 1.01 " 1.17 0.23 0. 14 - 0.31 0.50 0.45 - 0.55 lable 3. --Comparison of geomorph i c/aquat ic and riparian means for 1979 and 19B0f gig Creek, Utah. to oi Va liable Si te 1979 Site 2 1980 1979 1980 1979 Si te 3 1980 Overall 1979 1980 (•oomorphic/Aquat ic Stream Width (feet) Stream Depth (feet) Uiffle Width (percent) Pool Width (percent) Poo I Ra t i ng Pool l-eat lire Hank Angle (degrees) Hank Undercut (feet) Hank Water Depth (feet) Subs t ra te limbeddedness Boulder (percent) Rubble (percent) Crave 1 (percent) l ines >0.8 mm (percent) l ines <0.8 mm (percent) Instream Vegetative Cover (feet) li slier ies Rating R i pa r i an Hank Cover Stability Stream Cover Habitat Type Vegetation Utilization (percent) Hank Alteration - Natural (percent) Hank Alteration - Artificial (percent) Vegetative Overhang (feet) 12.5 13.3 + 0.8 11.7 0.52 0.50 ♦ 0.07 0.87 78.5 43.7 -34.8 42.1 21.5 50.3 + 34.8 57.0 1.0 3. 1 + 1.5 3.0 1.5 1 . 2 - 0.3 5.7 130 130 - 2 113 0 . 08 0. 10 + 0.02 0. 10 0. 10 0.08 -0.11 0.50 2.0 3. 3 + 0.4 2.2 0. 1 3. 3 + 3.2 0.4 1 .0 3.0 + 1.7 24.1 81.3 82.8 + 1.5 23.0 0.0 0.4 + 0.4 0 15.5 0.0 - 5.0 49.0 1 . 2 0.8 - 0.4 3.3 1.2 2.0 + 0.8 2.0 1 . 7 1.6 - 0. 1 3.4 1.0 1.4 - 0.5 2. 1 12.0 10.0 - 2.0 15.3 70 87 + 1 1 17 13 6 - 7 12 20 63 + 34 * 4 0.07 0. 18 + 0.11 0.51 12.3 + 0.6 12.0 13.8 1 .00 + 0.13 0.00 . 0.68 14.0 - 27.2 01.7 28.6 85.1 + 27.2 38.3 71.4 4.5 *- 0.9 3.1 3.0 6.2 0.5 1 .0 1.0 104 - 0 138 124 0.22 + 0 . 03 0.07 0. 14 0.24 - 0.35 0.61 0.14 2.3 + 0. 1 2.2 3.0 6. 1 5.7 0.0 0.0 33.6 * 0.5 0. 1 0.0 15.2 - 7.8 50.0 08.0 0. 3 - 0.6 2.3 0.0 44.8 - 3.2 ' 45.8 31 . 1 3.2 - 0. 1 5.1 3. 2 4.3 + 1 . 7 1.9 2.4 3.2 - 0.2 2.0 1 . 7 2.1 0.0 1 .8 1 .5 IS. 3 0.0 11.8 13.5 0 -17 73 77 7 - 4 10 5 20 + 10 24 58 1.09- + 0.52 0.12 0.2: ♦ 0.0 12.3 13. 1 • 0.8 + 0.02 0.68 0 . 70 ♦ 0.08 -33. 1 01 . 2 29 . 1 -32.1 + 33. 1 38.8 70.9 i32.1 + 0.8 2.8 3.8 + 1.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 0.0 14 120 120 - 0 + 0.07 0. 1 1 0.15 + 0.04 - 0.4 7 0.47 0.15 - 0.32 + 0.8 2.5 2.0 + 0.4 0. 0 0.2 3.1 + 2.0 - 0. 1 3.6 12.4 + 3.8 + 18.0 51.0 55.0 + 3.7 - 2.3 1 . 1 0.3 - 0.8 -14.7 30.8 - 28.6 - 8.2 - 1.0 3.2 2.4 - 0.8 + 0.5 1 .0 2.0 + 1.0 - 0. 3 2.4 2.2 - 0.2 -0.3 1 .9 1 .6 - 0.3 + 1.7 13.3 12.9 -0.4 - 4 56 55 - 1 - 5 1 2 6 - 0 + 34 10 4 7 + 28 + 0.11 0.25 0.50 + 0.25 Riparian Habitat Analysis The 1980 riparian analysis means, their 95 percent confidence intervals, and an indicator of significance in the difference between treatment and combined control means are presented in table 2. Means from both 1979 and 1980 are presented for comparison in table 3. Riparian characters also reflect the positive effect of the Big Creek exclosure on aquatic and riparian habitats. The habitat ranking in the treatment area is significantly better than in the control sites, probably due to the presence of more brush and sod with reduced amounts of bare ground. Stream cover and bank cover stability rankings are also significantly higher in the treatment area while vegetation also over¬ hangs the stream in the treatment area significantly more. Streambank alteration is much greater in the control sites, particularly artificial alteration. Vegetation use is not occurring within the exclosure and occurred at similar rates in the two control sites. Time-trend information with just two years of data precludes definite conclusions in riparian habitat at this time. Slight improve¬ ments or, at least, stable conditions, appear to exist in the treatment area which are not apparent in either of the control sites. Streamside Herbage Analysis Figure 10 presents the herbage meter regression lines (linear calibration) and relevant statistics based on the regression of green vegetation weights on meter readings for 1979 and 1980. From these it can readily be seen that our double-sampling technique provides an effective, accurate method of estimating vegetation weights in the unclipped samples along the transect lines. The high correlation coefficients (r) are highly significant (P <0.01) for both years, with the proportion of the variation in Y (weights) due to its regression on X (meter readings) never less than 0.88 (r“) . Of additional interest is the parallel nature of these two lines; the fact that such close agree¬ ment in calibration could be achieved in two different years is taken as further indication of the validity of our herbage meter technique. Table 4 gives estimated average ^vegetation weights per sample plot and total biomass in pounds per acre— for each year in the riparian —We are using the term "biomass" rather than "production" to avoid confusion. Production is defined as the total elaboration of vegetal tissue and is assumed to be equal in the grazed and ungrazed pastures, whereas biomass is the amount of vegetal tissue on site at the time of analysis; therefore, protected biomass (production) less grazed (re¬ maining) biomass equals utilization. We are, however, considering only biomass contributed by new growth. 24 460 440 400 400 330 360 34 0 320 300 230 260 240 220 200 ISO 160 140 120 100 30 60 40 20 0 0 10-20 30 40 30 60 70 30 90 100 110 120 130 140 METER READING Streamside herbage analysis regression statistics and linear calibration lines for 1979 and 1980, Big Creek, Utah. o c zone, along with a percent vegetation utilization estimate based on the difference in biomass between grazed and protected sites. -Herbage, evaluation was performed in October in 1979 and in September 1980, so the lower average biomass figures observed in 1980 are probably the result of different phenological stages of the vegetation. Comparison of the meter method of percent utilization with visual estimation (Table 5) reveals that agreement between the two methods is satisfactory in that the difference does not exceed 15 percent. For both years the ocular estimate is lower than the meter estimate, which is probably because the meter registers biomass differences that are not visible, including reduced production because of past use. Table 4. Herbage weight, biomass, and use at time of sampling by site for 1979 and 1980, Big Creek, Utah Variable Year Site Management Mean Weight (gm) Mean Biomass (lb/ac) % Use 1979i/ 1 grazed 14.9 715 84 2 protected 93.0 4464 0 1980 1 grazed 0 0 100 2 protected 195.8 9398 0 — Those familiar with Progress Report 1 will note that these data have been changed. Results presented in that report were found to be incorrect and have been corrected here. If you have Progress Report 1 in your files, we hope you will correct this error. Table 5. Comparison of ocular and herbage meter use estimates in site 1 for 1979 and 1980. Vegetation Use Year_ Herbage Meter_ Ocular 73 88 1979 84 1980 100 26 Additionally, the meter will record biomass as zero when it becomes electrically indistinguishable from the soil. Thus, a use estimate of 100 percent determined by meter analysis can result when some vegetation still remains but is unusable to stock; this will not occur with the ocular estimate. Of particular interest in this analysis is the great difference in biomass between 1979 and 1980. We feel that this is attributable largely to the fact that sampling in 1979 was performed in October following peak production and moisture content whereas the sampling in 1980 was performed in early September, closer to the period of peak biomass production; since we must take these measurements as close to the cessation of grazing each season as possible, this in¬ consistency will be unavoidable but inconsequential in regard to utili¬ zation estimates. Hydraulic and Channel Geometry Analysis Hydrologic surveys were not conducted in 1980. The reader may wish to refer to Progress Report 1 for results obtained in 1979. Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Analysis This topic was not addressed in Progress Report 1 because it is not a regular component of our battery of measurements. The data presented in this section were provided by Dave Bornholdt, Fisheries Biologist, USDI Bureau of Land Management, but responsibility for their application to this study rests solely with the authors. Water Quality Water quality surveys of Big Creek were conducted in the summers of 1975 and 1979 and the results are tabulated in Table 7. Only two values are available for any of the parameters and streams can be expected to exhibit certain natural fluctuations in these characteristics; never¬ theless, some of the changes that appear to have occurred in important parameters are sufficiently dramatic as to merit some comment. Among these are turbidity, carbonate, and copper, a common heavy metal con¬ taminant, which declined from a potentially dangerous level to virtual absence. Less dramatic changes were detected in total dissolved solids (TDS) , total hardness, alkalinity, pH, bicarbonate, and nitrate, all of which declined slightly. The heavy metals, lead, mercury, iron, zinc, copper, chromium, cadimum, and manganese are all present in various concentrations, but, except for the dramatic decline in copper and a modest gain in iron, they have remained relatively stable. In general, it can be safely stated that the water in Big Creek is relatively hard, turbid, and somewhat alkaline, though none of these parameters are necessarily excessive. Some concern, however, can be 27 Table 7. ---Water quality characteristics of Big Creek, and 1979. Utah, 1975 Parameter 1975 Year 1975 >1/ Turbidity (JTU) 0. 74 28 Total Coliform (S/lOOml) 6 112 Fecal Coliform (tf/lOOml) 0 93 pH 7 . 66 8. .44 Conductivity ( mhos/cm) 490 550 Tot. dissolved solids (mg/1) 319 210 Dissolved oxygen (mg/1) ND 5 . .4 Tot. hardness as Caco, (mg/1) 18S 175 Alkalinity as CaCO„(mg/l) 186 195 Bicarbonate as HCOf(mg/l) 225 . 40 187 Carbonate as CO, (mg/1) 0. 01 6, .0 Phosphate as P0^(mg/1) 0. 12 0, . 11 Nitrate as NO, N (mg/1) 0. 19 0, .12 Sulfate as S0^(mg/1) ■ Aluminum as AI(mg/l) 9. 70 1 . .0 0. 08 0, .84 Arsenic as As (mg/1) 0. 01 0. .007 Barium as Ba(mg/1) 0. 06 0, .38 Boron as B(mg/1) 0. 01 5- Cadmium as Cd(mg/1) 0. .001 0, .003 Calcium as Ca(mg/1) 52. .0 50 Chloride as Cl (mg/1) 10. ,0 6. .9 Chromium as Cr(Hex, in mg/1) 0. .01 0, .5 Cyanide as Cn(mg/1) 0. .01 0 .01 Copper as Cu(rag/1) 0. ,05 0, .001 Fluoride as F(mg/1) 0. ,12 0, . 10 Tot. Iron as Fe(mg/1) 0. ,15 0 . 35 Filtered Iron as Fe(mg/1) 0. .08 0. .04 Lead as Pb(mg/1) 0. ,02 0, .013 Magnesium as Mg(mg/1) 13. 92 11, .5 Manganese as Mn(mg/1) 0. ,02 0, .022 Mercury as Hg(mg/1) 0. ,001 0, .005 Potassium as K(mg/1) 0. ,60 0 . 15 Selenium as Se(mg/1) 0. ,01 0 .001 Silica as Si07(mg/1) 10. ,0 1 .2 Silver as Ag(mg/1) 0. ,001 0, .002 Sodium as Na(mg/1) 9. ,49 5 .6 Zinc as Zn(mg/1) 0. ,01 0 .005 —^Analysis performed by Ford Chemical Laboratory, Inc. , Salt Lak Utah. 2/ — .Analysis performed by Pioneer Laboratory, Inc. Pensacola, Florida. — ^ND = No data available attached to the levels of phosphate, nitrate, and dissolved oxygen (DO), the former being high and latter two rather low. The phosphate and nitrate levels may be explained by the geology of the watershed which contains uplifted marine sediments and probably includes part of the Paleozoic phosphoria formation that forms the phosphate fields of south¬ eastern Idaho. Platts and Martin (197S) found streams draining these areas in Idaho to possess similar concentrations of phosphate and nitrate, with phosphate in the range 0.09 to 0.11 mg/1 and nitrate in the range 0.1 to 0.21 mg/1. This concentration of phosphate is con¬ siderably above the 0.1 mg/1 level known to be conducive to high biotic production (McKee and Wolf 1971) and the 0.05 mg/1 total phosphorous level recommended as the upper limit that should be allowed in streams flowing in to lakes (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration 1968). The nitrate concentration, however, is relatively low and may be a potential limiting factor in fish production; according to McKee and Wolf (1971) only 5 percent of the waters in the United States supporting good fish populations have nitrate concentrations less than 0.2 mg/1. Dissolved oxygen may be another potential trouble spot because of its apparent low level, which is near the 5.0 mg/1 level that is needed to maintain a good, mixed fish fauna (McKee and Wolf 1971) . Temperature Temperature monitoring took place within the livestock exclosure in 1977 and 1978, though measurments were taken in the spring of 1978 and the summer of 1978. As a result, no comparison between the two years is possible. What is clear is that temperatures in May can be as low as 36°F (2°C) and as high as 61°F^(16°C), with a mean high of about 54 Fq (12°C) . In the summer of 1978— 7 , temperatures never dropped below 45 F (7°C) and reached as high as 70°F (21°C) , with a mean high and low of 66°F (19°C) and 55°F (11.5°C) respectively. Although these temperatures are within healthy limits for trout, the highs are well above the rainbow trout optimum of 55°F (13°C) (McKee and Wolf 1971) ; this con¬ sideration assumes additional significance when the depleted oxygen concentration is taken into account because more oxygen is required by fish at the warmer temperatures. Macro invertebrates Macroinvertebrate surveys were made in 1976, 1977, and 1978 and the results are displayed in Table 8. There appears to be some seasonal — ^Big Creek microinvertebrate analysis performed by USDA Forest service. Region 4, Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis Lab, Uinta National Forest and on file with USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 29 Table 8. Macroinvertebrate characteristics of Big Creek in 1976, 1977, and 1978-/ Variable Sample Date Mean Diversity Index (DAT)— ^ Quality—^ Rating Mean Standing Crop (gn/m2)-/ Quality—^ Rating 9/10/76 13.6 Good 10.45 Excellent 6/29/77 9.4 Fair 2.66 Good 8/30/77 10. S Fair/Good 6.62 Excellent 6/13/78 10.6 Fair/Good 12.74 Excellent 8/23/78 14.0 Good 2.33 Good — Analysis performed by USDA Forest Service, Region 4, Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis Lab, Uinta National Forest. 2/ — Average of mean, for three sampling stations. — Scale used by Region 4 USDA Forest Service, Aquatic. Ecosystem .Analysis Lab, Uinta National Forest. 30 fluctuation in both diversity and standing crop, with 197S values higher than those of the two previous years. According to the lab report, "each station had some species bordering on clean water requirements so riparian habitat improvements could show positive results in a rela¬ tively short period of time". Fish Population Analysis Table 9 lists the results of the 1980 fish population survey of Big Creek, which are compared with corresponding results from the 1979 survey 'in Table 10. Big Creek continues to possess relatively few' game fish per unit area, including fewer rainbow trout than in 1979. This reduction in the number of rainbow trout, however, is compensated by an influx of cut¬ throat trout, probably a result of passive c^rift from upstream during the unusually heavy runoff in January, 1980—. The large average fish size found at all sites for both species of trout indicate that very little natural reproduction of game species occurs under present con¬ ditions. The presence of the livestock exclosure has little apparent effect on the fish populations in the treatment site, which continues to possess the smallest fish standing crop. This statement may not be entirely correct because there is no before-the-fact (pre-exclosure) fish population data for comparison. Interestingly, however, fluc¬ tuations in game fish abundance have not been as great in the study area, though species composition has changed. These circumstances may be due to the gabions which have created more and higher quality pools, but have also promoted considerable deposition of sediment in the site, therefore, the negative effects of the increased sedimentation may be more significant to the fishery than the improvements in pool-riffle ratio and bank characteristics. Without before-the-fact data this thinking cannot be validated until most time-trend information is obtained. Non-game species continue to dominate the fish community of Big Creek. Sculpin numbers were higher in 1980 than 1979 over the complete study area and are most abundant where game fish are also most abundant (site 3). Suckers, on the other hand, have declined in abundance, though they also reach peak abundance where game fish numbers are not maximal. Sculpin are the most successful fish in populating this reach of Big Creek under present conditions. 8 / —Pitman, D. 1981. Personal correspondence, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Northern Regional Office, Ogden, Utah. 51 Table 9. --Fish population analysis results for 1980, Big Creek, Utah. Data provided by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Northern Regional Office, Ogden, Utah. / Total No. Mean Length Mean Weight Population 95% . Standing Crop 2 Collected (In.) (nun) (Oz.) (gin) Estimate C.I.— X No/ft No/nr Rainbow Trout Site 1 9 10.1 257 6.1 172 2/ N.A.-' rTj 0.0011 0.012 Site 2 . Site 3 - 4 9.5 242 5.2 148 N.A. L^n.a. 0 . 0005 0 . 006 1 10.3 262 6.2 176 N.A. N.A. 0.0001 0.001 Overa l 1 14 10.0 253 5.8 165 17 13-21 0.0006 0 . 006 Cutthroat Trout Site 1 0 — — — — 0 N.A. 0 . 0000 0.000 Site 2 . Site 3 3 7.1 181 2.2 63 N.A. N.A. 0.0004 0.004 23 6.5 164 1.7 49 26 22-30 0.0028 0.030 Overall 26 6.5 166 1.8 51 28 24-32 0.0011 0.012 Sculpin Site 1 1395 N.T.—/ N.T. 0.1 4.0 N.A. N.A. 0.1748 1.882 Site 2 . Site 3 667 N.T. N.T. 0.1 3.6 914 785-1043 0.0904 0.973 1293 N.T. N.T. 0.2 5.3 1319 130-1329 0.1562 1.681 Overa 1 1 3355 N.T. N.T. 0.2 4.4 34 30 3373-3487 0.1423 1.532 Sucker Si te 1 2 5.4 136 1.1 32 N.A. N.A. 0 . 0003 0.003 Site 2 6 5.1 129 1.1 30 N.A. N.A. 0.0008 0.009 Site 3 22 3.8 97 0.9 25 30 23-37 0.0027 0.029 Overa 1 1 30 4.2 106 0.9 26 33 28-38 0.0013 0.014 — C.I. - Confidence interval 2/ — N.A. - Not available 3/ — Three catch effort A / — N.T. - Not taken 1 . 1 1 > 1 . |o. II miii ol 1070 .iihI 1080 I i sli population analysis Kc :»« hi i*s , Nort licrn Uot'ional Ollicc, Oj'ilon, III. ill. S|»*v i os/St inly Ai I 070 l*opn la I i oil Moan Moan I .innate l.oiijjtli (mm) IVoii'Jit ( i» m ) U) LO Ua i nbou* I ron I Silo 1 S i i o .! , '/ ft 23 1 1 fit) 238 1 38 Site 3 251 157 Overa 1 1 ,8l/ 21a 1 1 3 ail i liroa t Trout S i | c 1 0 0 0 Siio 7 0 , 0 0 Silo ■> .1/ .1 . . 1 fin •to Ovora 1 1 .1/ Ini 10 W ai 1 |i i n Sili* 1 0 1(1 N.T. 5.8 Siio .! SSI N.T. 0. 1 S i | o 102 3 N.T. 5. a I K o ra 1 1 200 N.T. 5.0 •lit L o r Sito l 1 7 N.T. 2 1 Silo 2 % 1 N . I . sr» Silo 3 ' 1 N.T. o Uv ora 1 1 7.! N.T. ID * ^ lot i 1 on l oh no )0|>o 1 a 1 i on r ; l I ma t o a va i 1 a hlo . . . I . Not l a lorn l> i }• Crook , III .ill . 10. SO results Mipplietl hy lltali Division ol WiUllilo rosn Its, Sraiuli.iii* Crop . No . / I t . ” N« • . / in ~ 10 SO l*o|>ii 1 ;■ t ion Me. in Mt-.ui SI list intuit* I.eitgl It (mill) Weight (gtitl No. /It No. /in 0.0007 0.007 0 0.0000 0.000 1 0 uooo o.oio 1 O.OUOS 0.000 17 0.0000 0.000 0 0.0000 0.000 a O.OUO 1 0.00 1 2(» o.oooi 0.001 28 0. 00 1 . .07 1 30!* 0. .of. 0. .87 Oil 0. 10 1 .00 1 a 1 0 0. 00 0 On S 130 0. 002 0 . 023 2 0. .005 0 , 050 I* 0. . 00 n 0. .030 30 0. .003 0. .030 33 2!»7 172 0.001 1 0.01 2 2 12 118 0 . ooos 0 . (Mil) 2n2 1 7 0.00 0 N.T. 5 . 3 o. in 1 N.T. •1 . •! 0. I I 1 1 >(. 32 0.000 0 . 00 ■ 1 •*» 30 0.001 0.00’. l in > s 0.003 0.0." 1 On 20 0.001 0.0 1 1 I CONCLUSIONS The principal value of our Big Creek studies to the BLM is to apprise them of the compatibility of the past and presently used grazing system (continuous) with the needs of the riparian-stream environments. The studies indicate that the continuous grazing system is not com¬ patible with Big Creek habitat. Continuation of the studies will determine if the proposed deferred grazing system will better meet stream habitat needs. The studies demonstrate that Big Creek is capable of rehabilitating itself under complete rest from cattle grazing. The studies are also evaluating the effects of the instream habitat improvement structures, and findings to date suggest that the instream structures have not achieved the desired improvement of game fish popu¬ lations; and, perhaps, should therefore not have been installed. We hesitate, however, to prematurely make this judgement because our time- trend analysis is beginning to indicate that the factors limiting the population are possibly more off-site that on-site. We believe that the new exclosure project that the BLM is going to initiate may reduce off¬ site limitations and increase game fish biomass in all of the exclosure areas. Continuation of the studies will determine if the exclosures are increasing fish populations. An additional benefit of the study is that at the end of the 5-year period, we will be able to provide the BLM with>a methodology for docu¬ menting and monitoring Basin-Range streams in relation to livestock impacts that will have known statistical validity. Because Basin-Range streams are different than Rocky Mountain streams, the family of attri¬ butes to be monitored will be different so as to meet the requirements posed by the different limiting factors in Basin-Range streams. Our studies have indicated that Big Creek is a heavily degraded stream that requires rehabilitation. The limiting factors that we are identifying lead us to believe that the best rehabilitative approach at this time would be to increase brush cover over and around the stream. This can be accomplished with an improved grazing system, increased exclosure size, planting shrubs and protecting them from grazing, or a combination of these strategies. Our time-trend studies will determine the value and productive effects of any improvement efforts. The Big Creek study is also benefitting us in our over-all livestock- fishery interaction studies by allowing us to compare Basin-Range streams with Rocky Mountain streams, determine impacts from various grazing strategy, and test our methodology in various types of aquatic habitat. These would not directly benefit the BLM, but in the future they can be expected to be beneficial. With two years of study, we have progressed sufficiently far that the BLM can evaluate our efforts and determine whether our package of products is going to answer the questions needed for proper range and fishery habitat management. Is the cost buying the BLM a product worthy of the expenditure? Does the study need any re-direction to make the 54 product worthy of the expenditure? Would our efforts be better expended on another stream in another situation to gain other answers (as long as this effort fits our over-all study goals)? Should the study be ter¬ minated? These questions should be seriously considered by the BLM to ensure that our final package of products will be of value. Only three years of proposed study remains, so for any re-direction to be meaning¬ ful, it should be implemented now; for this study to evaluate the coming change in grazing strategy means the necessary after-the-fact data must be collected. The before-the-fact data is now sufficient. 35 PUBLICATIONS CITED Bailey, Robert G. 1978. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. USDA For. Serv, Intermtn. Reg., Ogden, Utah, 77 p. Christensen, Earl M 1963. The foothill bunchgrass vegetation of central Utah. Ecology 44(1) : 1S6-1S8. Christensen, Earl M. and Hyrum B. Johnson 1964. Presettlement vegetation and vegetational change in three valleys in central Utah. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biol. Serv., Vol . 4, No. 4., BYU, Provo, Utah. Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, and P. K. Holmgren 1977. Intermountain flora. Vol. 6. Columbia 'University Press, New York, 584 p. Duff, Don A. 1978. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah - a summary of 8 years of study. In: O.B. Cope (ed.) Proc. For. Grazing Riparian/Stream Ecosystems, Trout Unlimited, Inc., Denver, Colo. Duff, Donald A. 1977. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. In: Livestock and Wildlife Fisheries Workshop, Reno, Nevada, 36 p. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration 1968. Water quality criteria. Report on the committee to the Federal Water Quality Control Administration, U. S. Dept. Inter., U. S. Gov. Print, off.. Wash., D. C., 234 p. Hormay, August L. 1970. Principles of rest-rotation grazing and multiple-use land management. USDA For. Serv., Training Text 4(2200), 26 p. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. (map and manual) Amer. Geog . Soc. Spec. Pub. 36, map scale 1:3, 168,000, 116 p. Leopold, A. S. 1975. Ecosystem deterioration under multiple-use. Wild Trout Manage. Sym., Trout Unlimited, Inc. p. 96-98. McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf 1971. Water quality criteria, second edition. State Water Resour. Control Board, Resour. Agency Calif. Publ. 5-A, 54S p. 36 I Meehan, William R. and William S. Platts 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. J. Soil and Water Cons. 55 (6) : 274-278 . Minshall, G. W. 1967. The role of allochthonous detritus in the trophic structure of a woodland spring brook community. Ecology 48 (1) : 159-149 . Morris, Meredith J., Kendall L. Johnson, and Donald L. Neal 1976. Sampling shrubranges with an electronic capacitance instru¬ ment. J. Range Manage. 29(1): 78-81. Neal, Donald L., Pat 0. Currie, and Meredith J. Morris 1976. Sampling herbaceous native vegetation with an electronic capacitance instrument. J. Range Manage. 29(1): 72-77. Platts, William S. 1974. Geomorphic and aquatic conditions influencing salmonids and stream classification with application to ecosystem classification. USDA For. Serv., Surface Environ, and Min. Proj . , Billings, MT, 200 p. Platts, William S. 1976. Validity in the use of aquatic methodologies to document stream environments for evaluating fishery conditions. In- stream Flow Needs Proc., Vol. 2, p. 267-284. Am. Fish Soc., Bethesda, Md. Platts, William S. 1978. Livestock interactions with fish and aquatic environments: problems in evaluation. 45d No. Am. and Nat ' 1 . Res. Conf., Wildl. Manage. Inst., Wash., D. C., p. 498-504. Platts, William S. and Susan B. Martin 1978. Hydrochemical influences on the fishery within the Phosphate Mining area of eastern Idaho, Research Note INT-246, USDA For. Ser., Intermt. Sta., Ogden, UT, 15 p. Platts, William S. 1980. Streamside management to protect bank-channel stability and aquatic life. (In press) USDA For. Serv. Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. Platts, William S., Rodger Loren Nelson, and Susan B. Martin 1980. Livestock-fishery interaction studies, Big Creek, Utah,. Progress Report 1., USDA For. Serv., Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Forestry Sciences Lab., Boise, Idaho, 57 p. Ray, Gary A. and Walter F. Megahan 1978. Measuring cross sections using a sag tape: a generalized procedure. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt . INT-47, USDA For. Serv. Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah, 12 p. Stoddart, Lawrence A. and Arthur D. Smith 1955. Range Management. McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y., 453 p. United States Department of Agriculture 1936. The western range. Letter from the Secretary of Agri¬ culture. USDA, Senate Document 199, 620 p. USDI, Bureau of Land Management 1979. Randolph planning unit grazing management final environmental statement. USDI Bur. Land Manage., Salt Lake City, Utah. 38 SELECTED REFERENCES Armour, Carl L. 1977. Effects of deteriorated range streams on trout. USDI Bur. Land Manage., Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho. Benke, R. J. and Mark Zarn 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trouts. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-28, USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn. , Fort Collins, Colo., 45 p. Benke, Robert J. 1979.' Monograph of the native trouts of the genus Salmo of western North America. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mtn. Reg., Lakewood, Colo., 163 p. Berry, Charles R., Jr. 1978. Impact of sagebrush management on riparian stream habitat. Utah. Coop. Fish Res. Unit. (Presented at Sagebrush Ecosys. Sym. , Utah State Univ., Logan, Utah). Bidwell, R. G. S. 1974. Plant physiology. MacMillian Publishing Co., Inc., New York, New York, 643 p. Branson, F. A., R. F. Miller, and I. S. McQueen 1967. Geographic distribution and factors affecting the distribu¬ tion of salt desert shrubs in the United States. J. Range Manage. 20 (5) : 287-296 . Christensen, Earl L. and Stanley L. Welsh 1963. Presettlement vegetation of the valleys of western Summit and Wasatch counties, Utah. Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. , Arts, and Letters, Vol. 40, Pt. 2, p. 163-174. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology 1974. Livestock grazing on federal lands in the 11 western states. J. Range Manage. 27 (3) : 174-181 . Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, and James L. Reveal 1972. Intermountain flora. Vol. 1, Hafner Publishing Co., New York, New York, 270 p. Currie, P. 0., M. J. Morris, and D. L. Neal 1973. Uses and capacities of electronic capacitance instruments for estimating standing herbage, Part 2, sown ranges. J. Br . Grassld. Soc. 28:155-160. Dix, Ralph L. 1964. A history of biotic and climatic changes within the north american grassland. In: Grazing in Terrestrial and Marine Environments, Blackwell's Sci. Publ., Adlard & Son, Ltd., Dorking, England. 39 Egglor, Willis A. 1941. Primary succession on volcanic deposits in southern Idaho. Ecol. Monogr. 11 (3) : 277-298 . Garrison, George A., Ardell J. Bjugstad, Don A. Duncan, Mort E. Lewis, and Dixie R. Smith 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. USDA For. Serv., Agric. Handb. 475, 68 p. Harris, Grant A. 1977. Changing philosophies of rangeland management in the United States. J. Range Manage. 30(1): 75-78. Hitchcock, A. J. 1935. Manual of the grasses of the United States. USDA, Misc. Publ . 200, 1040 p. Hunt, Charles B. 1967. Physiography of the United States. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco and London, 480 p. Jameson, Donald A. 1965. Phenology of the grasses of the northern Arizona pinyon- juniper type. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-47, USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn. , Fort Collins, Colo. Kothman, M. M. 1974. Grazing management terminology. J. Range Manage. 27(4)326:327. Kuchler, A. W. 1966. Potential natural vegetation (map). USDI Geol. Surv. Natl. Atlas, Veg.; map scale 1:7,500,000. Long, Robert W. 1974. Future of rangelands in the United States. J. Range Manage. 27(4) :253-255. Mirov, N. T. 1967. The genus Pinus . The Ronald Press Co., New York, 602 p. Platts, William S. 1980. Effects of sheep grazing on a riparian-stream environment. (Manuscript proposed for publ. J. Soil and Water Cons.) Snedecor, George W. and William G. Cochran 1967. Statistical methods. Iowa State Unlv. Press, Ames, Iowa, 6th ed. , 593 p. 40 * r f * BLM Library Denver Federal Center Bldg. 50, OC-521 P.O. Box 25047 Denver, CO 80225