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
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
o
■M-
Z
o
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
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
o
X
o
I"-
o
-O'
T —
X
o
03
<
z
<
z
<
z
<
z
to m
•o-
z
UJ
UJ Z
o
UJ
o
o
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
o o o
03
co
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
CM
00
o o o o
o o o
o o o o
o o o
in o o o o
CO
CO
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
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
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
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
CO
CO
CM
I
LU
CM
CO
CM
i
*
LU
CO
CM
i
LU
O
CO
CM
■
LU
CD
CM
CM
i
LU
CO
CM
CM
i
LU
I''-
CM
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
CO
LU
oo
to
CO
CO
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
o
o
CM
z
o
m
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
o
LU
o
o
o
CM CO
CO OO
cd m
LU
o
o
o
CO
CO OO
cd m
■M-
o
o
CM
o
OO
CD
CD
O
OO
O
M-
oo
CD
LU
Z
LU
LU
O
CM
O
m
o
CD
X
o
O
00
X
o
m
o
oo
x
o
M"
O
O
0O
X
o
m
o
o
CO
X
o
o
CM
O
CO
X
o
n~
o
oo
T —
X
o
o
<
Z
<
Z
<
z
o o o o o
o
CD
CD
OO o o o o
CD
h~
CO
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
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
o o o
o o o
T-
Z
LU
LU
z
o
LU
o
o
O
o
in
m
in
o
O
o
o
CM
o
00
O
o
z
CM
o
r--
co
o
CO
CM
in
o
o
M-
T“
co
co
o
T—
*
LU
CD
o
CO
CM
CM
oo
X
o
CD
*"
CD
in
■M-
O
o
z
UJ
LU
z
o
LU
m
O
<
<
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
CM
▼“
o
oo
o
o
oo
z
o
z
z
CM
i
*
LU
in
o
oo
co
o
CO
oo
CD
CD
3
o
m
CD
m
T“
■M-
CD
o
z
LU
in
o
o
LU
m
o
o
o
in
M"
oo
h-
O
o
o
t —
,T“
o
oo
CM
o
oo
CM
CD
O
o
CO
CO
CM
m
oo
o
o
in
X
co
oo
CO
T —
v>
1 —
^ —
h-
o
CM
X—
X
CO
CO
CO
LU
CD
m
M'
oo
o
Z
LU
LU
Z
o
UJ
o
o
o
o
CM
CD
o
oo
O
o
o
T—
o
oo
o
o
CD
z
CO
T“
r-
o
o
CD
CM
i
LU
in
o
oo
CO
in
n-
o
oo
r~-
1
o
2
o
CD
o
T—
CM
CM
CM
cd in
■O'
z
LU
UJ z
o
UJ
o
o
oo
O O
CO
M-
in
o o
C"- co
CO
N
CD
in
co oo
cd m
M-
o
r-
X
o
o
T- o o o o
CD
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
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
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
CO
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
o
co
x
o
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
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
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
O
>«
CL
o
c
CO
O
■M
C
<0
0
1
Cl)
CL
TJ
C
CO
a>
n
E
3
-o
c
CO
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
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
c
o
O
0
E
o
<
0
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
in
in
m o
■ i i ■ i i i
in in • 1
o ■■■■■> in
tj-
i i m • i m m
o
in
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
in
in
■m-
o
in
in
in
m
co
in
r-
o
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
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
o
C/3
CD
'o
CD
CL
CO
2r-
o
-1 — 4
CO
t_
CD
■a
c
D
o-
_ao
xo
03
CD
>
o
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
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
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
O
O
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
o
CM 'O' O O
r- 03
■o -O’
cm m
r~-
co
O O T-
c
o
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
CO
A
03 X= 0
= TO x:
03 o co
CL
0
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
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
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 |—
m o m (— h- t—
CM CM
o m m i—
CO t-
m
CM
in
co
o
co
m
<A
^ £
CD
CD
<D
XI
£
,g> c
CD W
2
<A
E
XI
.■t:
X)
XI
CO
c
<z
CD
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
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
o
o
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
O
CO
Is-
O
O
CM
Is-
UJ
O
CM
m
UJ
o
CO
I
m
o
o
co
X
o
in
o
o
co
X
o
CO
o
CO
s
o
oo
o
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
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
O
O
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
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
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
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
o
o
o
co 05 o o m
CM O O
CM ^ oo
O O
CM
z
CM
o
o
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
co
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
o
o
m
CM CO
05 CO
CM 00
co m
LU
o
o
o
in
in co
oo CO
CM OO
co m
UJ
o
o
Z
o
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"
■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
m
o
co
o
CM
o
co
T—
X
o
00
o
m
T —
X
o
05
o
co
X
o
CM
o
o
s
o
o
CM
O
in
X
o
co
o
t'-
X
o
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
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
o
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
<
o
f—
o
o
O M-
CM T-
oo
o o
oo
z
T—
1^
z
o
T —
CO
Tt
m
o in
05
T —
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
o
o o
r* ^
00
O O
o
o
z
z
m
o o
CO
CO
m
2
O oo
o
CO 00
oo
co m
M-
M; z
UJ
UJ Z
o
UJ
o
o
o
o
y-
05
oo
O Tt
CM 00
co
o o
CM
z
CM
in
■M-
r—
CO
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
o
c/>
TO
O
TO
CL
CO
£
O
TO
"O
3
D
TO
JD
TO
h-
TO
>
O
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
CO
CM
i
*
LU
I-'-
co
CM
i
LU
m
CO
CM
I
LU
CO
CO
CM
I
*
LU
in
CM
CM
I
Q
LU
O’
CM
CM
LU
CO
CM
CM
i
*
LU
CM
CM
CM
*
LU
CM
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
m
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
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
o
co
CD
o
CD
Q.
CO
£
0
to
1
0)
T3
C
3
0
ra
01
H-
CD
>
O
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
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
O
co
LO
CM
LO
CM
O
CO
O
CM
LO
LO
LO
LO LO | —
CM CM
O LO (—
LO
LO LO LO
LO
O LO I—
O LO I—
LO
O LO h-
o
CO
o
LO
o
o
LO
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
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
CM
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
o
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
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
o
o
r^-
o
CM
r'-
co
o
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
CO
CO
UJ
Ul
CO
CO
■G
&
V)
<
m
CO
m
CM
m
o
M-
o
CM
m
CM
m
&
o
CO
o
o
$
o
r-
o
o
x
o
05
O
o
s
o
o
CM
o
CO
%
o
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
o
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
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
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
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
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--
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
co
o
m
m
co
o
in
05
co
o
m
o
e^
UJ
(/)
UJ
UJ
CO
t- m
i— m
co 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
o
X
o
co
3
o
I"-
o
co
§
o
05
O
CM
X
o
CM
O
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
o
o
CM
O
CM
O
O
O
O
|£
2 3
05 C
C =
O) 05
I 2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
o
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
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
CO
00 Z UJ
UJ z
o
UJ
o
o
r-
T~ h- CO
O O
CO
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
o
o
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 live stems in stand
No data collected - - see original data sheet
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
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
o
tn
TO
O
TO
CL
tn
£
0
1
TO
■a
3
3
CD
T“*
TO
13
TO
TO
>
O
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
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
CO
CD
CD
t- H
i i i i i
O
CO
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
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
-Q
CO
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.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11