Full text of "Livestock-fishery interaction studies, Big Creek, Utah : progress report 2 to the USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 1980 to May 1981"

See other formats

BIG CREEK, UTAH

38C

172112

/0 '/STd/ _

LIVESTOCK-FISHERY INTERACTION STUDIES
BIG CREEK, UTAH

• US

?sn

Progress Report 2 to the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake
District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah

June 1980 to May 19S1

William S. Platts
Rodger Loren Nelson

USDA- Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, Idaho

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

ABSTRACT

Big Creek exhibits the positive effects of restricting livestock
impacts on riparian vegetation and streambanks. With the related ex¬
ceptions of excessive fine channel sediments, high channel substrate
embeddedness, and correspondingly reduced fish populations, the riparian
and fishery habitat within the ungrazed area is markedly superior to
similar habitats in the grazed pasture. The negative features inside
the ungrazed area are suspected to result from the improper functioning
of instream habitat improvement structures which, while improving pool
abundance and apparent quality, may have increased sediment deposition.
Further trend analysis will help clarify these interacting forces. The
present continuous grazing system on Big Creek will be changed in 1981
to a deferred system. The continuance of this study will allow a de¬
termination of the ability of this new system to protect and enhance
the already impacted riparian-stream environments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This progress report represents the study and integration of in¬
formative material from various sources. Except as otherwise noted,
however, all specific data pertaining to the Randolph Planning Unit and
the Big Creek Allotment prior to the initiation of this study was
obtained from the Randolph Planning Unit Grazing Management Final En¬
vironmental Statement, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake
District, Salt Lake City, Utah; therefore, in order to keep unwieldy
referencing to a minimum, this publication is only cited where abso¬
lutely necessary.

Special appreciation is extended to Gerry Ferringer, State Fishery
Biologist, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, Salt Lake
City, Utah, help in coordinating this study; to Dave Bomholdt, Fisheries
Biologist, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District Office,
Salt Lake City, Utah, for his efforts in providing technical informa¬
tion; to Dexter Pitman, Regional Fisheries Manager, Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources, Northern Regional Office, Ogden, Utah, for his
assistance in organizing the fish population analysis of Big Creek; to
D. Cal McCluskey, Wildlife Biologist, USDI, Bureau of Land Management,
Salt Lake District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, for technical infor¬
mation and photographs of Big Creek; and to Dave Young, Fisheries
Biologist, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Sevier River Resource Area,
Richfield, Utah, for photographs illustrating field techniques.

PREFACE

This is the second in a series of progress reports that present the
results of The Big Creek, Utah, Livestock-Fishery Interaction Studies,
and is intended to supplement Progress Report 1 (Platts, Nelson, and
Martin, 1980). We have included sufficient information in this report
for it to stand alone and to provide a comparison of results from 1979
and 1980; the reader may, however, wish to refer to Progress Report 1
for a more comprehensive presentation of the results obtained in 1979.

iii

CONTENTS

Abstract . i

Acknowledgements . ii

Preface . iii

Introduction . 1

Study Area Description .

The Situation . 3

Grazing Patterns . 11

Methods . 14

General . 14

Geomorp’nic/ Aqua tic Analysis . 16

Riparian Habitat Analysis . 17

Streamside Herbage Analysis . 19

Hydraulic and Channel Geometry Analysis . 19

Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Analysis . 19

Fish Population Analysis . 19

Results . 21

Geomorphic /Aqua tic Analysis . 21

Riparian Habitat Analysis . 24

Streamside Herbage Analysis . 24

Hydraulic and Channel Geometry Analysis . 27

Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Analysis . 27

Fish Population Analysis . 31

Conclusions . 34

Publications Cited . 36

Selected References . 39

i v

INTRODUCTION

There are 1.9 billion acres of land in the 48 conterminous United
States, of which some 1.2 billion (65 percent) are rangelands; as of
1970, 69 percent of this range was grazed by domestic livestock. In the
western United States, most of these rangelands are public lands ad¬
ministered by federal agencies. In Utah, for example, 66 percent of the
state is federally owned and of this, some 24 million acres (43 percent)
are administered by the USDI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)— .

Many streams of various sizes traverse this vast area, but despite
their prevalence (Utah, for example, has some 2500 miles of stream on
BLM land) they represent relatively little acreage. These streams,
together with their adjacent riparian zones, contribute significantly to
the productivity of the range, especially in arid and semi-arid regions,
and present unique problems in multiple use management. Unfortunately,
this fact has only recently become widely appreciated and streams and
riparian zones have frequently been ignored in rangeland planning and
management in the past, largely due to their small relative size.

The various classes of livestock utilize the range in different
ways, necessitating different management practices to increase the
compatibility of each class with riparian and aquatic habitat. Cattle,
for example, will congregate on lesser slopes and bottomlands, while
sheep, which are less dependent on water, usually favor steeper slopes
and upland areas (Stoddart and Smith 1955) . Since sheep are also
usually herded whereas cattle are not, management techniques to keep
watersheds from being significantly altered differ between these two
classes of livestock. The commonly used cattle management techniques
are suspected to be less congenial than those used with sheep and are
therefore the focus of this study.

Since the riparian zone, which forms the interface between the
aquatic and terrestrial range ecosystems, is disproportionately im¬
portant to both areas, effective management of the riparian zone is
critical. Because of soil moisture, soil fertility, and related factors,
the riparian ecosystem is more productive than the adjacent, drier
upland range, and its vegetation is more palatable. Coupled with this
are other riparian features, such as gentler terrain, increased ‘shade,
and drinking water, which add to the attractiveness of the riparian zone
to cattle and lead to preferential use.

The riparian zone also provides critical fishery habitat components
which are largely determined by streamside vegetation. Overhanging
vegetation and undercut streambanks are an important source of pro¬
tective cover, food, and shade. Shading prevents water temperatures

— ' ^Duff, D. 1980. Personal correspondence.
Intermountain Regional Office, Ogden, Utah.

USDA, Forest Service,

from rising or fluctuating drastically, which can lead to shifts in
species composition from salmonids to more tolerant species of non-game
fish (Platts 1980] . In addition, detritus .formed from terrestrial
plants is a principal source of food for aquatic invertebrates and
ultimately fish (Minshall 1967] . Streamside vegetation also serves as a
barrier to terrestrial pollutants and controls water velocity and
streambank erosion. Since these features are all susceptible to al¬
teration by grazing animals, the needs of the resident fishery and the
stockman can conflict.

Presently, there is an unfortunate dearth of factual information
regarding the impacts of livestock grazing on riparian and aquatic
ecosystems. As yet, only limited research has been directed toward
lessening these impacts, though the constant increase in range use by
cattle since the late 1800's has generally degraded rangelands and led
to altered riparian habitats (Platts 1978) . The resulting controversy
surrounding the use of public rangelands by livestock and its potential
conflicts with fishery needs has led to the emergence of livestock
management as a national environmental issue (Leopold 1975; Platts
1978) .

Working in this- information vacuum, fisheries biologists have
intuitively hypothesized that grazing of the riparian zone can signif¬
icantly alter a fishery. Such alteration is believed to occur through
physical modification of key stream features. Such changes as channel
broadening, decreases in depth and pool-riffle ratio, loss of vegetative
and structural cover, accelerated bank erosion and sedimentation,
increased water temperature, and related factors are expected to modify
the character of the fishery. These changes, however, have yet to be
sufficently evaluated and identified for routine inclusion in management
strategies. Additional studies that will provide solutions to these
potential problems must be conducted (Meehan and Platts 1978) .

Against this background of limited information, it should come as
no surprise that little help can be given the land manager in deter¬
mining alternate strategies in situations where livestock are known to
be exerting undue stress on the fishery. Valid analytical techniques
for assessing the magnitude of livestock impacts have yet to be fully
developed. Without these tools, it is difficult to determine whether
changes in grazing patterns are indicated and what strategies should be
implemented.

The Big Creek study is part of a comprehensive program to develop
an array of field techniques coupled with computer analysis that will
accurately identify the complex interactions that occur between dif¬
ferent grazing intensities and classes of livestock and fish. Field
studies are currently being conducted on eleven sites in Idaho, two
sites in Nevada, and two sites in Utah (Figure 1) . The Idaho studies
monitor impacts to streams in moist, forested, high mountain meadows,
while the Utah and Nevada studies monitor impacts to streams in the more
arid sagebrush type meadows. These studies are structured to allow

IDAHO BATHOLITH

1 Lower Stolle

2 Cougar Stolle

3 Guard Stolle

4 Upper Stolle

5 Johnson Creek

6 Elk Creek

7 Lower Bear Valley

8 Upper Bear Valley

9 Lower Frenchman Creek

10 Upper Frenchman Creek

11 Spring Creek

HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN

12 Gance Creek

13 Tabor Creek

BONNEVILLE BASIN

14 Big Creek

15 Otter Creek

Figure 1. Distribution of livestock-fishery study areas.

time-trend analysis of livestock impacts on streams and will help the
land manager select grazing systems that are as compatible as possible
with fishery needs.

This progress report deals exclusively with the Big Creek, Utah
study which has the following objectives:

1. Determine the rehabilitation potential of Big Creek based on
past, present, and future use strategies.

2. Evaluate the improved management techniques proposed by the
BLM.

3. Evaluate the continuous grazing system currently in use on
the Big Creek Allotment.

4. Make recommendations regarding optimum grazing strategies
relative to use of riparian forage.

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

Randolph Planning Unit

The Randolph Planning Unit comprises much of Rich County, the
completely rural corner of extreme northeastern Utah adjacent to the
Idaho and Wyoming borders (Figure 2) . This is the Bear River drainage
basin, which is a tributary of the Bonneville Basin of Western Utah,
part of the Great Basin of the Intermountain region of the western
United States. Physiographically, this region is also part of Bailey's
(1978) Wyoming Basin Province because of its separation from the Great
Basin by the Wasatch Mountains. It is an area of variable relief,
consisting primarily of gently rolling hills covered by vegetation
typical of the northern desert shrub lands, but it also includes for¬
ested mountains, alkaline bottom lands and flood plains. The climatic
regime is representative of such steppes, with cold winters and short
hot summers. Precipitation averages from 10 to 14 inches, making the
region semi-arid, and falls mainly in the winter and spring. Summer
thunderstorms are generally violent with little rainwater absorbed into
the ground water supply, so vegetation development is largely dependent
on snow accumulation and subsequent gradual release of meltwater. Many
plant species exist in the area, but because of local variations in
relief, precipitation, temperature, historic use pattern, and edaphic
conditions, the dominant plant association is the sagebrush-wheatgrass
typical of this ecoregion.

The planning unit itself comprises 569,102 acres, of which 170,583
acres are public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

It is divided into 19 grazing allotments, which are composed of a mix¬
ture of public, private and state lands. Typically, the fertile valleys
are privately owned while the sagebrush uplands represent the public
domain.

Since Rich County was settled in 1870, agriculture, especially
cattle production, has been the chief industry. In semi-arid regions
such as this, the best lands have typically been cultivated and thus
removed from grazing, making the shrubby uplands extremely important to
the livestock industry. Critical spring and fall range is generally
deficient in the cultivated areas, but can be provided by the uplands
(Stoddart and Smith 1955) . Since these less-arable uplands constitute
the public lands of the Randolph Planning Unit, grazing of public lands
is an important economic issue.

Big Creek Allotment

Big Creek is the third largest of the 19 grazing allotments in the
Randolph Planning Unit, and is located immediately southeast of the city
of Randolph (Figure 2). Its 33,255 acres include two perennial streams,
Randolph Creek and Big Creek. The latter is currently being studied by
the BLM to assess livestock impacts on riparian and aquatic habitat.

Part of the allotment has been fenced to exclude cattle from 0.6 miles
of stream, so that time trends in stream deterioriation or rehabili¬
tation can be monitored. This exclosure currently represents the only
stream reach in the planning unit rated by the Bureau to be good fishery
habitat (Figures 3 and 4) , and is populated by rainbow trout ( Salmo
gairdneri) , yellowstone cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki bouvieri) , sculpin
(Cottus sp.) and sucker (Catostomus sp) ; stocking by the Utah Divison of
Wildlife Resources helps maintain game fish populations.

THE SITUATION

Range Habitat

The land surrounding Big Creek is a semi-arid shrubsteppe. As is
generally the case in ecosystems controlled by abiotic factors, the
plant and animal communities are dominated by a few very abundant
species. In this instance, the rolling hills support an almost uniform
growth of big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) , a plant of relatively
little forage value for livestock. This vegetation type, of which 75%
is this one species, accounts for 65% of the BLM land in the planning
unit; surprisingly, despite this abundance big sagebrush may not even be
the natural dominant in many cases. The second most abundant vegetation
type in the planning unit as a whole is bunchgrass, represented chiefly
by the exotic, palatable, crested wheatgrass (Agropgron cristatum) ,
which accounts for only 9.1% of the vegetation.

Sagebrush, though undoubtedly an important component of the natural
climax vegetation, may not naturally be the dominant it now is. Con¬
siderable evidence exists which points to grazing-induced vegetation
shifts being the cause of its present dominance over much of the western
range (Bailey 1978; Christensen and Johnson 1964; Christensen 1963;
Stoddart and Smith 1955; USDA 1936). Christensen (1963), in fact,
reporting on undisturbed stands of grasses dominated by bluebunch
wheatgrass (Agropgxon spicatum) in central Utah, states that sagebrush
is rarely dominant in areas protected from grazing. From such evidence,

Figure 3. Stream reach in the central portion of the
existing livestock exclosure. Note the
abundance of grass on the banks and dense
brush beyond the fenceline.

Figure '■* .

Stream reach in the upper section of the
exclosure. Note the overhanging grasses
and the willow on the right bank.

it seems likely that in northeastern Utah, which is subject to con¬
siderable influence from the Great Plains to the east, much of the land
now dominated by sagebrush would be climax grassland in the absence of
grazing.

Normal plant succession progresses toward a climax type that is
most stable relative to ambient conditions. Disruptive forces or long
term changes in ambient conditions can modify this sequence, however,
favoring another species composition. In the intermountain region,
cattle may represent such a long term change in ambient conditions,
selectively exerting grazing pressure on the bunchgrasses relative to
the sagebrush. Coupled with a history of range overuse, a shift in
species composition toward big sagebrush dominance is to be expected.
Thus, the quality of the range deteriorates in response to grazing
pressure, possibly maintaining big sagebrush as a grazing disclimax.

In order to control this retrogressive succession, various manage¬
ment techniques are used. These include herbicide applications and
burning to reduce brush cover, as well as various pasturing techniques
to directly reduce grazing pressure at certain times.

Riparian Habitat

In the Randolph Planning Unit, riparian vegetation accounts for
only 0.7% of the BLM land. Because of this, it is easily and often
overlooked in range planning. This highly productive zone that sep¬
arates the aquatic ecosystem from the terrestrial range ecosystem is far
more important than its low relative abundance would suggest. In fact,
the Randolph Planning Unit Environmental Statement (USDI 1979) states
that aquatic/riparian and fisheries habitat may be the most important
habitat type in Rich County. It's importance comes from the fact that
crucial resources for wildlife, livestock, water quality, and fish are
provided by this zone. For livestock the riparian zone provides water,
generally moister more palatable vegetation, gentle terrain, and shade.

Since cattle may preferentially graze riparian vegetation, the
riparian zone can be expected to be heavily used under any grazing
system. If historical use patterns have led to general range deteri¬
oration, it is only reasonable to expect at least equal alteration of
riparian habitat. Congregation of cattle along streambanks can modify
the habitat through such direct physical action as reduction of stream-
side vegetation and bank trampling. These, in turn, can lead to de¬
creases in overhanging cover, streambank stability, pool quality, pool-
riffle ratio, and overall water quality. If shifts in riparian species
composition parallel such shifts in upland range vegetation, selection
for a grazing dis-climax in the riparian zone may also have occurred.
This is important, because not all plants provide equal cover or bank
stability .

Management Considerations

The preceeding discussion brings up the question of management.
There are basically five systems of livestock management used to control
the distribution of livestock over the range. These systems are con¬
tinuous or seasonal grazing, rotation grazing, deferred grazing, de¬
ferred rotation grazing, and rest-rotation grazing (Meehan and Platts
1978). These commonly used systems are designed to increase range plant
vigor, and thus help rangelands recover from historical abuse. Their
effectiveness in promoting recovery of riparian vegetation, however,
needs clarification.

Continuous grazing is common in the Randolph Planning Unit, and
consists of stocking an allotment in the spring and removing the animals
in the fall. It is almost a no-management system, except that timing of
stocking and removal can be manipulated so as to avoid critical develop¬
mental stages of the forage plants. Nevertheless, it is an unsuccessful
system, as noted by Hormay (1970) who states that under continuous
grazing at any stocking level, the more palatable and accessible plants
will be killed or eliminated.

Another popular grazing system is rest-rotation grazing, which sub¬
divides an allotment into pastures which are then systematically grazed
and rested. If correctly applied, this system can help restore the
vigor of range plants, with the amount of rest required being determined
by characteristics of the forage plants involved (Hormay 1970) . Whether
this system can benefit riparian vegetation, however, is still open to
question and there are, in fact, indications that it cannot help the re¬
covery of abused riparian habitat. Meehan and Platts (1978) suggest
that this system may be harmful to riparian ecosystems because of in¬
creased potential fop .livestock movement and use of the riparian zone.

A study by Starostka— on Seven-Mile Creek, Utah, suggests that not only
may riparian habitats not be improved under a rest-rotation system, but
increased production of riparian vegetation following a year of rest may
increase the attractiveness of this zone to cattle. This could ac¬
celerate modification of the riparian zone since structural damage does
not recover as rapidly as vegetation (Figure 5), nor do all plant
species recover at the same rate. In an on-going BLM study. Duff (1977,
1978) found that woody vegetation along Big Creek recovered more slowly
than grasses, and that only 6 weeks of grazing were required to return
the riparian habitat within the Big Creek exclosure, which had been
rested for four years, to pre-rest conditions.

The three other systems either defer grazing for parts of the
season or are combinations of seasonal deferment and resting; none have
clearly been shown to be effective in helping riparian vegetation re¬
cover though some may be more successful than others. Only one system

—Starostka, V. J. (n.d.) Some effects of rest-rotation grazing
on the aquatic habitat of Seven-Mile Creek. Report on file USDA,
Forest Service, Richfield, Utah.

Figure 5.

Stream reach in the lower por
exclosure. This area experie
trespass use in 1979. Note t
as well as the grasses inters
shrubs .

t i on of the
need some
he bank sloughing
parsed among the

clearly stands out as being useful in riparian recovery: complete rest.
This can be accomplished by fencing, as the BLM intends to do on some
stream reaches in the Randolph Planning Unit, and though it cannot be
the final solution it must be a consideration if high quality riparian
habitat is to be conserved. The answer to this vexing problem should
become clearer as this study progresses, since it will monitor three
grazing systems: non-grazing in the exclosure, the continuous system
that has been historically used, and the deferred-rotation system to be
implemented by the BLM to improve range conditions. The deferred-
rotation system will allow some rest during the grazing season for each
of the three pastures which make up the Big Creek allotment.

GRAZING PATTERNS

History

Since settlement of Rich County in 1870, livestock production has
remained the number one industry. This has primarily been represented
by various sizes of cow-calf ranching operations, ranging from small
operations averaging 65 head to large operations averaging 536 head.
Because the allotments are used for spring to early winter grazing, the
rancher must have sufficient winter forage for his cattle. For this
reason, base property is used to determine the grazing preference which
for the Big Creek Allotment is potentially 4045 AUM's (not including
suspended non-use) .

The present grazing preference of 6742 AUM's is the result of a 40%
reduction in use over the three years 1961 through 1963. Subsequent to
this reduction, readjudication sub-divided the Randolph Grazing Unit
into the Big Creek and New Canyon Allotments. Of the 6742 AUM's poten¬
tially allocated for the Big Creek Allotment, 2697 were put into sus¬
pended non-use, leaving 4045 AUM's in active status. As can be seen
from Table 1, however, the tendency has been for authorized use to be a
lesser amount.

The historic management system for the Big Creek Allotment, and
presumably the older Randolph Grazing Unit, has been an allotment-wide
continuous system. This system normally provides no rest period for any
part of the allotment during the grazing season, but in this case a
drift fence built across the lower portion of the allotment defers _ ,
grazing on the upper two-thirds of the allotment early in the season— .
Application of this system results in stocking the allotment in early
May without regard to development of the key forage species, and removal
after attainment of permitted use. The level of use has been 3478
cattle AUM's reached in mid-September and 402 sheep AUM's reached in
late-December. It should be noted that use intensity in AUM's is a

—^Anderson, G. (1979 unpublished). Big Creek allotment, grazing
history and recommendations for MFP-3 decisions. (Data on file, USDI,
BLM, Salt Lake Dist. Office, Salt Lake City, Utah).

function of animal numbers and time on the range; it gives no direct
indication of vegetation use, which has consistently been heavy on the
following scale:

Slight

Light

Moderate

Heavy

Severe

0 - 10%
11 - 40%
41 - 60%
61 - 80%
SI -100%

Such heavy use has, in turn, led to generally deteriorated range
conditions, as evaluated by the 1978 range trend survey, which shows 61%
of the range in static condition and 39% declining—. Since 1978 was not
a drought year and precipitation during the crop year was near normal,
it is unlikely that this downward trend is a climatic artifact.

The Bureau of Land Management has determined that under present
range conditions only 3116 AUM's forage are actually available to live¬
stock, suggesting that the allotment has consistently been overstocked
(Table 1) and necessitating a 25% reduction in stocking level. The
range vegetation use was 65% for the years 1976, 1977, and 1978, 15%
greater than the desired use of 50% for grasses and well into the heavy
use level. Since riparian vegetation is frequently grazed more heavily
than the dryer range vegetation, the possibility exists that riparian
vegetation has been utilized at the severe level. At the very least,
this system can be expected to have led to a considerably altered
riparian habitat.

In order to assess the damage to the riparian habitat and its
ability to recover when removed from grazing pressure, the BLM con¬
structed an exclosure on the Big Creek allotment to exclude 0.6 miles of
the stream from grazing. Despite the occasional occurrence of trespass
use, particularly in 1974 when aquatic and riparian conditions reverted
to pre-rest conditions as a result of heavy use, the riparian and
aquatic habitats have recovered markedly (Duff 1977, 1978). Trespass
use again occurred in 1979, though apparently not quite as heavily.

This small section of Big Creek presently accounts for all of the
fishery habitat in Rich County that the BLM considers to be in good
condition.

Present and Future Trends

The BLM is attempting to apply improved management of livestock on
the Big Creek Allotment, but the changes proposed in the Randolph
Planning Unit Grazing Management Final Environment Statement (USD I 1979)

— Anderson, G. (1979 unpublished). Big Creek allotment, grazing
history and recommendations for MFP-3 decisions. (Data on file, USDI,
BLM, Salt Lake Dist. Office, Salt Lake City, Utah).

1 O

I.iMc

I . — 1. 1 vosl oi'k tiii 1 1 1 • i )’ ( 'hk' ill , 81 y, Crc?i*k A I I ol wont , K i < • I » County, II I «'i 1 1 .

Vl'iAU

tilt A/ INC I'AHAMKTKK

197/,

19 79

19 70

1977

1978

1979

1980

J.93JL.

1 98 2

1.981 _

1-184 _

A 1 lot mon 1 Ac i o.ij*o

20 146

70340

20340

>0 0. A

2032.6

20 W>

n:,r>r>

n 7 s r>

8 V/ Vi

1 17 V»

\ PV»

(ii .1/ i ii}.' Sysl cm

A WC

AWC

AIM)

A I'D

/.I'D

A< i 1 vc Cm i lc

I/.78

l/i 711

Vi 78

lA 78

)2, /a

3613

3804

N.l).

N.l*.

Aii I Itor i /oil
llso < At»M ) S ^

SllOO|.

7.02

A 02

2. 02

A 02

2,02

6 JO

9 19

r) 89

N.l).

• N.l).

N.l).

Tol ;i 1

1880

WHO

8880

1880

2,1)2, 1

4 14 1

4 34 )

N.l).

N.D.

sio. i- inj’ n.i to

r>/ 1 f)

9/10

N.l).

N.l). '

N.l).

Oil lie

9/0)

0/19

9/ 1 9

>1/19

9/19

9/ 1 9

>1/ 1 9

9/ 1 9

N.l).

itiit os

Slioop

12/)l

12/11

12/31

12/11

12/31

N.l).

j It. III)',. Voj'.ol .» 1 1 011 II so

llo.ivy ( h')%

llo.ivy (OV/

(>'»7.

692.

l>97.

Mod o i .i t o

N.l).

1 ns iilo

It 1 |»;i r i .mi Kxo 1 osiiro

llo.ivy

SI i >> 1 1 1

SI I ('.111

SI l(-l,l

S 1 i }*lil

1 77

N.l).

N.D.

Vim;oI <i t ion

llso Outs iilo

Kxo 1 nstil o

lloii vy

N.l).

797

Hr/

ii..a.

JL1L

HLi.O

_ N.JL _

I / M.in.ipomont .'il f « • r 1981 i s s»il»jrrl to dove* I npmrtil of ;m inlorium iii.iii;i);i.MiUMit f\ / N.l). - No D.il.i

r I .in rli.it Is (in ronl I v hoiiiK dr.ifted. r>/ IWi - 1978 V.iluus mprosonl .i I i vo yo.ir .ivoroj-o.

\ / A I lot iiionl -w ido omit. I minus (stMson.i I ) .

\ t 'i - |>.is ( ii ro<l ilo f «• r roil .

are currently undergoing revision. The new proposals will probably
involve a four-pasture deferred grazing system on the expanded allotment
as shown in Table 1—. but specific information is lacking at this time.

The newly proposed grazing strategy may improve the aquatic and
riparian habitat within the allotment, and these studies will determine
if this hypothesis is rejected or not. The purpose of the new grazing
strategy however, will probably improve overall range conditions, not
fishery habitat in particular (as was the case under the ES) , except on
those stream reaches on which additional livestock exclosures will be
constructed (USDI 1979); this includes 2.9 miles on Randolph Creek in
the allotment.

METHODS

General

Ongoing studies are presently being conducted on a total of 15
study sites, 11 in Idaho and two each in Nevada and Utah. These sites
are generally in meadow environments on National Forest lands, and lower
elevation sagebrush type meadows on Bureau of Land Management lands.

The purpose of these studies is to refine techniques for monitoring and
assessing the impacts of livestock on riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

The basic design of each study site is to stratify 1800 feet of
stream reach into 181 transects at 10-foot intervals. The stream reach
is then sub-divided into three 600-foot sections, the middle section
fenced to provide an area for manipulation with the two outer sections
serving as up- and downstream controls. Livestock are then either
introduced to or excluded from the fenced area depending on the goals of
the individual study. Annual monitoring of each section then provides
information on each relative to the others over the course of several
seasons of use.

This design has been modified for the Big Creek study to compensate
for the nature of the existing exclosure, which is one-half mile long as
opposed to the 600 feet called for in the fishery study methodology. To
account for this, only the lower and middle sections are continous with
transects 1 through 122 inclusive. The exclosure fenceline is between
transects 61 and 62. Upstream and beginning immediately above the
fenceline of the exclosure are transects 122 through 183. Figure 6
gives a schematic description of this arrangement.

The data collected fall into four basic categories: 1) geomorphic
or aquatic, 2) riparian or streamside, 3) hydrologic, and 4) biological,
and comprise the following:

— ^Yardley, C. 1981. Personal correspondence, USDI, BLM, Salt Lake
District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Transect It

Transect It
61 62

Transect

122

Transect It
123

Tran sec t
183

Transect It
61 62

Transect It
183

Figure 6. Schematic illustration of the livestock exclosure and the

Livestock-Fishery Interaction Study design, Big Creek, Utah.

Geomorphic/ Aquatic

1. Substrate materials

2. Substrate embeddedness

3. Stream width and depth

4. Bank-stream contact water depth

5. Pool width and quality and feature

6. Riffle width

7. Streambank angle

8. Streambank undercut

9. Fisheries environment quality rating

Riparian

10.

Streamside habitat type

11.

Streambank stability

12.

Overhanging vegetation

13.

Vegetation use (ocular and herbage

meter)

14.

Streambank alteration (natural and

artificial)

Hydrologic

15.

Stream profile

16.

Stream gradient

17.

Stream velocity

Biolc

igical

18. Fish species composition, number and biomass

A brief description of the procedures used in this study follows.
More detailed descriptions can be found in Morris and others (1976), Neal
and others (1976) , Platts (1974) , Platts (1976) , Ray and Megahan (1978) .

Geomorphic/ Aquatic Analysis

These measurements describe the physiography of the stream being
studied and can therefore be used to document livestock induced struc¬
tural changes when monitored over several grazing seasons. Geomorphic/
aquatic measurements are analyzed statistically to determine means
variances, standard deviations, standard errors, 95 percent confidence
intervals, student's T values, and F values for each variable in each
study site.

Water Column

Stream width is a horizontal measurement of that area of the
transect covered by water. Stream depth is the average of four water
depths taken at selected intervals across the transect from the water
surface to the channel bottom. Water depth at the intersection of the
streambank or stream channel with the edge of water is a direct mea¬
surement from water surface to channel bottom. Pools are classified as
that area of the water column usually deeper than riffles and slower in
water velocity. Riffle is the remainder of the column. Pool quality
rating is based on the pool's ability to provide certain rearing re¬
quirements of fish, such as width, depth, and cover.

Streambanks

Streambank alteration readings attempt to quantify the natural and
artificial changes occurring to the streambank, and are given as a
percentage. The streambank angle is measured with a clinometer (Figures
7 and 8) , which determines the downward slope of the streambank to the
water. Streambank undercut is a direct horizontal measurement, parallel
to the stream channel, of the erosion of the bank at the water influence
area. Fisheries environment quality ratings depict the general ability
of the bank-stream contact zone to provide the conditions believed
necessary for high fish standing crops. This rating is a function of
both stream characteristics at the bank (pool or riffle] and available
cover.

Stream Channel

Substrate materials are classified into five classes by visually
projecting each one-foot division of a measuring tape to the streambed
surface and assigning the major observed sediment class to each divi¬
sion. Sediments are classified as boulder, rubble, gravel, and fine
sediment. Instream vegetative cover is a direct measurement of the
vegetative cover on the channel intercepted by the transect. Stream
channel substrate embeddedness measures the gasket effect of fine
sediment around the larger size substrate particles.

Riparian Habitat Analysis

These measurements attempt to describe the riparian interface
between the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This zone provides many
of the habitat requirements of fish, such as cover and food. It is also
especially vulnerable to alteration by livestock because such char¬
acteristics as higher forage production and palatability, shade, and
even terrain tend to encourage preferential use. Annual monitoring of
these data after the grazing season illustrates changes in many critical
fishery habitat parameters. These measurements are subjected to the
same statistical analyses as the georaorphic/aquatic measurements.

Figure 7. Using a clinometer and measuring rod to

measure the angle of an undercut streambank.

riaure S. Close up view or clinometer illustrating

i.l adil:

msci s ure

O i cOOU C '4 D

iesrees .

Streamside cover categorizes the dominant vegetation as tree,
brush, grass, or exposed. Streamside cover stability is a four group
rating of the ability of the streambanks to resist erosion. Vegetative
overhang directly measures the length of the vegetation overhanging the
water column within 12 inches of the water surface (Figures 9 and 10) .
Habitat rating is based on the belief that sand banks are of least
importance to fish, while brush-sod banks are of the greatest value.
Intermediate types are ranked accordingly by dominant and subdominant
characters. Measurement of vegetation use is done both by ocular
assessment and with an electronic capacitance herbage meter.

Streamside Herbage Analysis

In order to provide a quantitative complement to an ocular vege¬
tation use assessment, a Neal Electronics model 18-2000 herbage meter is
used to measure standing vegetation. A double-sampling technique is
used in which primary readings are taken at approximately every fourth
transect, and linear regression analysis of meter readings against green
weight of clipped plots in the secondary sample provides a quantitative
estimate of forage biomass and use.

Hydraulic Geometry and Stream Channel Analysis

Ten transects in the central section of each 600-foot stream reach
are used for hydrologic analysis. The data obtained here allow us to
generate a stream cross section map. Periodic measurement over the
course of the study shows quantitative changes due to erosion and
deposition of channel materials. The stakes are surveyed to detect
changes in their relative positions and the water surface is surveyed to
allow monitoring of changes in channel gradient.

Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Analysis

These analyses were performed under contract for the USDI, BLM,
Salt Lake District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, and made available for
our use in these studies.

Fish Population Analysis

Fish populations are sampled with either battery powered, portable,
backpack mounted electrofishers or with gasoline powered, motor en¬
ergized units. Salmonids are counted, measured, and weighed, while non-
salmonids are counted and weighed as a group. All are handled as
carefully as practicable, and promptly returned to the stream alive.

Fish population estimates are obtained for each species encountered
using a four-step maximum likelihood depletion model.

RESULTS

Geomorphic/Aquatic Analysis

The 1980 stream habitat condition variable means, their 95 percent
confidence intervals, and an indicator of significance in the differ¬
ences between treatment and combined control means are presented in
table 2. Means for both 1979 and 1980 are presented for comparison in
table 3.

Water Column

In general, Big Creek presents a classic picture of the differences
between grazed and ungrazed aquatic and riparian habitats. Inside the
ungrazed exclosure, Big Creek is significantly narrower and deeper with
significantly more pool areas of higher quality than the grazed area
outside the exclosure. The difference in pool feature, however, indi¬
cates that gabions may be influential in controlling the pool/riffle
ratio .

Streambanks

Streambank contact zone characteristics also show the effect of
reduced grazing in the exclosure. Bank undercuts average almost twice
as deep in the treatment area; average bank angle is significantly
reduced, and bank water depth is significantly greater. These traits
are all reflected in the fisheries rating, which is almost maximal in
the treatment area but not very high in the control areas. The presence
of gabions, however, will also tend to increase the fisheries rating in
the treatment area because of the greater amount of pool at the contact
zone.

Stream Channel

Substrate conditions do not, at first glance, appear to exhibit
this classic picture since small fines are significantly more abundant
in the treatment area while gravel is significantly less abundant and
more highly embedded. This is probably due however, to the presence of
the gabions in the treatment section which may be allowing the fine
sediments to precipitate out of the water column more readily, thereby
embedding the larger substrate materials. Boulder and rubble are sig¬
nificantly more abundant in the treatment area while large fine sedi¬
ments show little variation between sites. Instream vegetative cover
also is significantly more abundant in the treatment zone than in the
controls considered together, probably due to its scarcity in site 1.

Little time-trend analysis can be completed after only two years of
study, but it appears that many of the structural parameters are in
flux, though not dramatically so.

Tii tile 2 . - - 1980 Cuomo rph i c/ uqiui t i c and riparian means with their 95 percent confidence intervals, 11 i k Creek, Utah (9/3-4/80). An asterisk (*)
denotes a significant difference (l’<0.05) between treatment and combined control means.

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Over a 1 1

Va ri al) ) c

Mean Interval-

Mean Interval

(ieoiiiorplt i c/Aipia t i c

Stream Width (feet)*

13.3

12.5

14 . 1

12.3

11.5

13.1

13.8

13.0

14.0

13.1

12.7

13.6

Stream depth (feet)*

0.S9

0.50

0.07

1.00

0.92

1.09

0.68

0.60

0.76

0.71

0.81

Riffle Width (percent)*

43.7

35.8

51.7

14.9

0.9

22.8

28.6

20.6

30.5

29.1

24.5

33.7

Pool Width (percent)*

50.3

85. 1

77.2

93. 1

71.4

63.5

79.4

70.9

60.2

75.4

Pool Rating*

3. 1

2.8

3.4

4.5

4.2

4.8

3.9

3.6

4.2

3. B

3.6

4.0

Pool Peat ore*

1.2

0.7

1.7

5.7

0.7

1.0

0.5

1.5

2.8

2.5

3. 1

Hank Angle (degrees)*

134

120

141

104

1 1 1

124

110

132

120

lib

-■

125

Hank Undercut (feet)*

U. 1U

0.05

0.10

0.22

0. 10

0.27

0.14

0.09

0. 20

0. 15

0. 12

0. 18

Hank Wilier Depth (feet)*

0.08

0 . 02

0.13

0.24

0. 19

0. 30

0. 14

0.08

0.20

0. 15

0. 12

0. 19

Suhst l it t e liiiiheddedness*

3.3

3.1

3.0

2.3

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.7

3.2

2.9

2.7

3.0

Houider (percent)*

3. 3

1.2

5.3

6. 1

4.1

8.2

0.0

2.1

3. 1

1 .9

4.3

Rubble (percent)*

3.0

0.0

8.9

33.0

28.3

38.9

0.0

5.3

12.4

9.3

15.4

(»ravel (percent)*

82.8

77.3

88.3

15.2

9.8

20.7

08.9

52.5

58.8

55.0

52.5

58.8

l ines 0.8 min (percent)

0.4

0. 1

0.8

0. 3

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.4

0. 3

0.3

0.5

Pines D.8 mm (percent)*

9.9

3. 1

1 o . 8

44.8

37 . 9

SI .0

31.1

24.3

38.0

28.0

24.7

32.5

Inst ream Vegetative (‘over (feet)*

0. 1

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.2

0. 3

fisheries Rating*

2.0

1.8

2.2

4 . 3

4 . 1

4.5

2.4

2.2

2.0

2.9

2.8

“

3.0

Ri pari an

Hank (lover Stability*

1.6

1 .‘l

1.7

3.2

3.0

3.4

1.7

1.5

1.9

2.2

2. 1

2.3

Stream (lover*

1 .‘\

1.3

1.5

2.1

1.9

2.2

1.5

1.4

1.0

1 .6

1.0

1.7

Habitat Type*

10.0

9. 1

10.8

15.3

14.5

16.2

13.5

12.6

14.3

12.9

12.4

14.4

Vegetation lit i l i z a t ion (percent)*

Hank Al lerat i on-Natura 1 (percent)
Hank Al terati on-Art i f icial

(percent )

23 '

Vegetative Overhang (feet)*

0. 18

().(>‘J

0.26

1 .09

1.01

1.17

0.23

0. 14

0.31

0.50

0.45

0.55

lable 3. --Comparison of geomorph i c/aquat ic and riparian means for 1979 and 19B0f gig Creek, Utah.

Va liable

Si te

1979

Site 2

1980

1979

1980

1979

Si te 3
1980

Overall

1979

1980

(•oomorphic/Aquat ic

Stream Width (feet)

Stream Depth (feet)

Uiffle Width (percent)

Pool Width (percent)

Poo I Ra t i ng

Pool l-eat lire

Hank Angle (degrees)

Hank Undercut (feet)

Hank Water Depth (feet)

Subs t ra te limbeddedness
Boulder (percent)

Rubble (percent)

Crave 1 (percent)
l ines >0.8 mm (percent)
l ines <0.8 mm (percent)

Instream Vegetative Cover (feet)
li slier ies Rating

R i pa r i an

Hank Cover Stability
Stream Cover
Habitat Type

Vegetation Utilization (percent)
Hank Alteration - Natural (percent)
Hank Alteration - Artificial
(percent)

Vegetative Overhang (feet)

12.5 13.3 + 0.8 11.7

0.52

0.50

♦ 0.07

0.87

78.5

43.7

-34.8

42.1

21.5

50.3

+ 34.8

57.0

1.0

3. 1

+ 1.5

3.0

1.5

1 . 2

- 0.3

5.7

130

- 2

113

0 . 08

0. 10

+ 0.02

0. 10

0.08

-0.11

0.50

2.0

3. 3

+ 0.4

2.2

0. 1

3. 3

+ 3.2

0.4

1 .0

3.0

+ 1.7

24.1

81.3

82.8

+ 1.5

23.0

0.0

0.4

+ 0.4

15.5

0.0

- 5.0

49.0

1 . 2

0.8

- 0.4

3.3

1.2

2.0

+ 0.8

2.0

1 . 7

1.6

- 0. 1

3.4

1.0

1.4

- 0.5

2. 1

12.0

10.0

- 2.0

15.3

+ 1 1

- 7

+ 34

* 4

0.07

0. 18

+ 0.11

0.51

12.3

0.6

12.0

13.8

1 .00

0.13

0.00

. 0.68

14.0

27.2

01.7

28.6

85.1

27.2

38.3

71.4

4.5

0.9

3.1

3.0

6.2

0.5

1 .0

1.0

104

138

124

0.22

0 . 03

0.07

0. 14

0.24

0.35

0.61

0.14

2.3

0. 1

2.2

3.0

6. 1

5.7

0.0

33.6

0.5

0. 1

0.0

15.2

7.8

50.0

08.0

0. 3

0.6

2.3

0.0

44.8

3.2 '

45.8

31 . 1

3.2

0. 1

5.1

3. 2

4.3

1 . 7

1.9

2.4

3.2

- 0.2

2.0

1 . 7

2.1

0.0

1 .8

1 .5

IS. 3

0.0

11.8

13.5

-17

- 4

+ 10

1.09-

+ 0.52

0.12

0.2:

♦ 0.0

12.3

13. 1

• 0.8

+ 0.02

0.68

0 . 70

♦ 0.08

-33. 1

01 . 2

29 . 1

-32.1

+ 33. 1

38.8

70.9

i32.1

+ 0.8

2.8

3.8

+ 1.0

0.0

2.8

0.0

120

- 0

+ 0.07

0. 1 1

0.15

+ 0.04

- 0.4 7

0.47

0.15

- 0.32

+ 0.8

2.5

2.0

+ 0.4

0. 0

0.2

3.1

+ 2.0

- 0. 1

3.6

12.4

+ 3.8

+ 18.0

51.0

55.0

+ 3.7

- 2.3

1 . 1

0.3

- 0.8

-14.7

30.8 -

28.6

- 8.2

- 1.0

3.2

2.4

- 0.8

+ 0.5

1 .0

2.0

+ 1.0

- 0. 3

2.4

2.2

- 0.2

-0.3

1 .9

1 .6

- 0.3

+ 1.7

13.3

12.9

-0.4

- 4

- 1

- 5

1 2

- 0

+ 34

4 7

+ 28

+ 0.11

0.25

0.50

+ 0.25

Riparian Habitat Analysis

The 1980 riparian analysis means, their 95 percent confidence
intervals, and an indicator of significance in the difference between
treatment and combined control means are presented in table 2. Means
from both 1979 and 1980 are presented for comparison in table 3.

Riparian characters also reflect the positive effect of the Big
Creek exclosure on aquatic and riparian habitats. The habitat ranking
in the treatment area is significantly better than in the control sites,
probably due to the presence of more brush and sod with reduced amounts
of bare ground. Stream cover and bank cover stability rankings are also
significantly higher in the treatment area while vegetation also over¬
hangs the stream in the treatment area significantly more. Streambank
alteration is much greater in the control sites, particularly artificial
alteration. Vegetation use is not occurring within the exclosure and
occurred at similar rates in the two control sites.

Time-trend information with just two years of data precludes
definite conclusions in riparian habitat at this time. Slight improve¬
ments or, at least, stable conditions, appear to exist in the treatment
area which are not apparent in either of the control sites.

Streamside Herbage Analysis

Figure 10 presents the herbage meter regression lines (linear
calibration) and relevant statistics based on the regression of green
vegetation weights on meter readings for 1979 and 1980. From these it
can readily be seen that our double-sampling technique provides an
effective, accurate method of estimating vegetation weights in the
unclipped samples along the transect lines. The high correlation
coefficients (r) are highly significant (P <0.01) for both years, with
the proportion of the variation in Y (weights) due to its regression on
X (meter readings) never less than 0.88 (r“) . Of additional interest is
the parallel nature of these two lines; the fact that such close agree¬
ment in calibration could be achieved in two different years is taken as
further indication of the validity of our herbage meter technique.

Table 4 gives estimated average ^vegetation weights per sample plot
and total biomass in pounds per acre— for each year in the riparian

—We are using the term "biomass" rather than "production" to avoid
confusion. Production is defined as the total elaboration of vegetal
tissue and is assumed to be equal in the grazed and ungrazed pastures,
whereas biomass is the amount of vegetal tissue on site at the time of
analysis; therefore, protected biomass (production) less grazed (re¬
maining) biomass equals utilization. We are, however, considering only
biomass contributed by new growth.

460

440

400

330

360

34 0

320

300

230

260

240

220

200

ISO

160

140

120

100

0 10-20 30 40 30 60 70 30 90 100 110 120 130 140

METER READING

Streamside herbage analysis regression statistics and linear
calibration lines for 1979 and 1980, Big Creek, Utah.

o c

zone, along with a percent vegetation utilization estimate based on the
difference in biomass between grazed and protected sites. -Herbage,
evaluation was performed in October in 1979 and in September 1980, so
the lower average biomass figures observed in 1980 are probably the
result of different phenological stages of the vegetation. Comparison
of the meter method of percent utilization with visual estimation
(Table 5) reveals that agreement between the two methods is satisfactory
in that the difference does not exceed 15 percent. For both years the
ocular estimate is lower than the meter estimate, which is probably
because the meter registers biomass differences that are not visible,
including reduced production because of past use.

Table 4. Herbage weight, biomass, and use at time of sampling by
site for 1979 and 1980, Big Creek, Utah

Variable

Year

Site

Management

Mean

Weight (gm)

Mean

Biomass (lb/ac)

% Use

1979i/

grazed

14.9

715

protected

93.0

4464

1980

grazed

100

protected

195.8

9398

— Those familiar with Progress Report 1 will note that these data
have been changed. Results presented in that report were found to be
incorrect and have been corrected here. If you have Progress Report 1
in your files, we hope you will correct this error.

Table 5. Comparison of ocular and herbage meter use estimates
in site 1 for 1979 and 1980.

Vegetation Use

Year_ Herbage Meter_ Ocular

73
88

1979

1980

100

Additionally, the meter will record biomass as zero when it becomes
electrically indistinguishable from the soil. Thus, a use estimate of
100 percent determined by meter analysis can result when some vegetation
still remains but is unusable to stock; this will not occur with the
ocular estimate. Of particular interest in this analysis is the great
difference in biomass between 1979 and 1980. We feel that this is
attributable largely to the fact that sampling in 1979 was performed in
October following peak production and moisture content whereas the
sampling in 1980 was performed in early September, closer to the period
of peak biomass production; since we must take these measurements as
close to the cessation of grazing each season as possible, this in¬
consistency will be unavoidable but inconsequential in regard to utili¬
zation estimates.

Hydraulic and Channel Geometry Analysis

Hydrologic surveys were not conducted in 1980. The reader may wish
to refer to Progress Report 1 for results obtained in 1979.

Water Quality and Macroinvertebrate Analysis

This topic was not addressed in Progress Report 1 because it is not
a regular component of our battery of measurements. The data presented
in this section were provided by Dave Bornholdt, Fisheries Biologist,
USDI Bureau of Land Management, but responsibility for their application
to this study rests solely with the authors.

Water Quality

Water quality surveys of Big Creek were conducted in the summers of
1975 and 1979 and the results are tabulated in Table 7. Only two values
are available for any of the parameters and streams can be expected to
exhibit certain natural fluctuations in these characteristics; never¬
theless, some of the changes that appear to have occurred in important
parameters are sufficiently dramatic as to merit some comment. Among
these are turbidity, carbonate, and copper, a common heavy metal con¬
taminant, which declined from a potentially dangerous level to virtual
absence. Less dramatic changes were detected in total dissolved solids
(TDS) , total hardness, alkalinity, pH, bicarbonate, and nitrate, all of
which declined slightly. The heavy metals, lead, mercury, iron, zinc,
copper, chromium, cadimum, and manganese are all present in various
concentrations, but, except for the dramatic decline in copper and a
modest gain in iron, they have remained relatively stable.

In general, it can be safely stated that the water in Big Creek is
relatively hard, turbid, and somewhat alkaline, though none of these
parameters are necessarily excessive. Some concern, however, can be

Table 7. ---Water quality characteristics of Big Creek,
and 1979.

Utah, 1975

Parameter

1975

Year

1975

>1/

Turbidity (JTU)

Total Coliform (S/lOOml)

112

Fecal Coliform (tf/lOOml)

7 .

.44

Conductivity ( mhos/cm)

490

550

Tot. dissolved solids (mg/1)

319

210

Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)

5 .

Tot. hardness as Caco, (mg/1)

18S

175

Alkalinity as CaCO„(mg/l)

186

195

Bicarbonate as HCOf(mg/l)

225 .

187

Carbonate as CO, (mg/1)

Phosphate as P0^(mg/1)

. 11

Nitrate as NO, N (mg/1)

.12

Sulfate as S0^(mg/1)

■ Aluminum as AI(mg/l)

1 .

.84

Arsenic as As (mg/1)

.007

Barium as Ba(mg/1)

.38

Boron as B(mg/1)

Cadmium as Cd(mg/1)

.001

.003

Calcium as Ca(mg/1)

52.

Chloride as Cl (mg/1)

10.

Chromium as Cr(Hex, in mg/1)

.01

Cyanide as Cn(mg/1)

.01

Copper as Cu(rag/1)

,05

.001

Fluoride as F(mg/1)

,12

. 10

Tot. Iron as Fe(mg/1)

,15

. 35

Filtered Iron as Fe(mg/1)

.08

.04

Lead as Pb(mg/1)

,02

.013

Magnesium as Mg(mg/1)

13.

11,

Manganese as Mn(mg/1)

,02

.022

Mercury as Hg(mg/1)

,001

.005

Potassium as K(mg/1)

,60

. 15

Selenium as Se(mg/1)

,01

.001

Silica as Si07(mg/1)

10.

Silver as Ag(mg/1)

,001

.002

Sodium as Na(mg/1)

,49

Zinc as Zn(mg/1)

,01

.005

—^Analysis performed by Ford Chemical

Laboratory, Inc.

, Salt Lak

Utah.

— .Analysis performed by Pioneer Laboratory, Inc. Pensacola, Florida.
— ^ND = No data available

attached to the levels of phosphate, nitrate, and dissolved oxygen (DO),
the former being high and latter two rather low. The phosphate and
nitrate levels may be explained by the geology of the watershed which
contains uplifted marine sediments and probably includes part of the
Paleozoic phosphoria formation that forms the phosphate fields of south¬
eastern Idaho. Platts and Martin (197S) found streams draining these
areas in Idaho to possess similar concentrations of phosphate and
nitrate, with phosphate in the range 0.09 to 0.11 mg/1 and nitrate in
the range 0.1 to 0.21 mg/1. This concentration of phosphate is con¬
siderably above the 0.1 mg/1 level known to be conducive to high biotic
production (McKee and Wolf 1971) and the 0.05 mg/1 total phosphorous
level recommended as the upper limit that should be allowed in streams
flowing in to lakes (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
1968). The nitrate concentration, however, is relatively low and may be
a potential limiting factor in fish production; according to McKee and
Wolf (1971) only 5 percent of the waters in the United States supporting
good fish populations have nitrate concentrations less than 0.2 mg/1.
Dissolved oxygen may be another potential trouble spot because of its
apparent low level, which is near the 5.0 mg/1 level that is needed to
maintain a good, mixed fish fauna (McKee and Wolf 1971) .

Temperature

Temperature monitoring took place within the livestock exclosure in
1977 and 1978, though measurments were taken in the spring of 1978 and
the summer of 1978. As a result, no comparison between the two years is
possible. What is clear is that temperatures in May can be as low as
36°F (2°C) and as high as 61°F^(16°C), with a mean high of about 54 Fq
(12°C) . In the summer of 1978— 7 , temperatures never dropped below 45 F
(7°C) and reached as high as 70°F (21°C) , with a mean high and low of
66°F (19°C) and 55°F (11.5°C) respectively. Although these temperatures
are within healthy limits for trout, the highs are well above the
rainbow trout optimum of 55°F (13°C) (McKee and Wolf 1971) ; this con¬
sideration assumes additional significance when the depleted oxygen
concentration is taken into account because more oxygen is required by
fish at the warmer temperatures.

Macro invertebrates

Macroinvertebrate surveys were made in 1976, 1977, and 1978 and the
results are displayed in Table 8. There appears to be some seasonal

— ^Big Creek microinvertebrate analysis performed by USDA Forest
service. Region 4, Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis Lab, Uinta National Forest
and on file with USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District
Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Table 8. Macroinvertebrate characteristics of Big Creek in 1976,
1977, and 1978-/

Variable

Sample

Date

Mean Diversity
Index (DAT)— ^

Quality—^

Rating

Mean Standing
Crop (gn/m2)-/

Quality—^

Rating

9/10/76

13.6

Good

10.45

Excellent

6/29/77

9.4

Fair

2.66

Good

8/30/77

10. S

Fair/Good

6.62

Excellent

6/13/78

10.6

Fair/Good

12.74

Excellent

8/23/78

14.0

Good

2.33

Good

— Analysis performed by USDA Forest Service, Region 4, Aquatic
Ecosystem Analysis Lab, Uinta National Forest.

— Average of mean, for three sampling stations.

— Scale used by Region 4 USDA Forest Service, Aquatic. Ecosystem
.Analysis Lab, Uinta National Forest.

fluctuation in both diversity and standing crop, with 197S values higher
than those of the two previous years. According to the lab report,

"each station had some species bordering on clean water requirements so
riparian habitat improvements could show positive results in a rela¬
tively short period of time".

Fish Population Analysis

Table 9 lists the results of the 1980 fish population survey of Big
Creek, which are compared with corresponding results from the 1979
survey 'in Table 10.

Big Creek continues to possess relatively few' game fish per unit
area, including fewer rainbow trout than in 1979. This reduction in the
number of rainbow trout, however, is compensated by an influx of cut¬
throat trout, probably a result of passive c^rift from upstream during
the unusually heavy runoff in January, 1980—. The large average fish
size found at all sites for both species of trout indicate that very
little natural reproduction of game species occurs under present con¬
ditions. The presence of the livestock exclosure has little apparent
effect on the fish populations in the treatment site, which continues to
possess the smallest fish standing crop. This statement may not be
entirely correct because there is no before-the-fact (pre-exclosure)
fish population data for comparison. Interestingly, however, fluc¬
tuations in game fish abundance have not been as great in the study
area, though species composition has changed. These circumstances may
be due to the gabions which have created more and higher quality pools,
but have also promoted considerable deposition of sediment in the site,
therefore, the negative effects of the increased sedimentation may be
more significant to the fishery than the improvements in pool-riffle
ratio and bank characteristics. Without before-the-fact data this
thinking cannot be validated until most time-trend information is
obtained.

Non-game species continue to dominate the fish community of Big
Creek. Sculpin numbers were higher in 1980 than 1979 over the complete
study area and are most abundant where game fish are also most abundant
(site 3). Suckers, on the other hand, have declined in abundance,
though they also reach peak abundance where game fish numbers are not
maximal. Sculpin are the most successful fish in populating this reach
of Big Creek under present conditions.

8 /

—Pitman, D. 1981. Personal correspondence, Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources, Northern Regional Office, Ogden, Utah.

Table 9. --Fish population analysis results for 1980, Big Creek, Utah. Data provided by Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources, Northern Regional Office, Ogden, Utah. /

Total No. Mean Length Mean Weight Population 95% . Standing Crop 2

Collected (In.) (nun) (Oz.) (gin) Estimate C.I.— X No/ft No/nr

Rainbow Trout

Site 1

10.1

257

6.1

172

N.A.-'

rTj

0.0011

0.012

Site 2 .

Site 3 -

9.5

242

5.2

148

N.A.

L^n.a.

0 . 0005

0 . 006

10.3

262

6.2

176

N.A.

0.0001

0.001

Overa l 1

10.0

253

5.8

165

13-21

0.0006

0 . 006

Cutthroat Trout

Site 1

—

N.A.

0 . 0000

0.000

Site 2 .

Site 3

7.1

181

2.2

N.A.

0.0004

0.004

6.5

164

1.7

22-30

0.0028

0.030

Overall

6.5

166

1.8

24-32

0.0011

0.012

Sculpin

Site 1

1395

N.T.—/

N.T.

0.1

4.0

N.A.

0.1748

1.882

Site 2 .

Site 3

667

N.T.

0.1

3.6

914

785-1043

0.0904

0.973

1293

N.T.

0.2

5.3

1319

130-1329

0.1562

1.681

Overa 1 1

3355

N.T.

0.2

4.4

34 30

3373-3487

0.1423

1.532

Sucker

Si te 1

5.4

136

1.1

N.A.

0 . 0003

0.003

Site 2

5.1

129

1.1

N.A.

0.0008

0.009

Site 3

3.8

0.9

23-37

0.0027

0.029

Overa 1 1

4.2

106

0.9

28-38

0.0013

0.014

— C.I. - Confidence interval
2/

— N.A. - Not available
3/

— Three catch effort

A /

— N.T. - Not taken

1 . 1 1 > 1 . |o. II miii ol 1070 .iihI 1080 I i sli population analysis

Kc :»« hi i*s , Nort licrn Uot'ional Ollicc, Oj'ilon, III. ill.

S|»*v i os/St inly Ai

I 070

l*opn la I i oil Moan Moan

I .innate l.oiijjtli (mm) IVoii'Jit ( i» m )

Ua i nbou* I ron I

Silo 1

S i i o .!

, '/
ft

23 1

1 fit)

238

1 38

Site 3

251

157

Overa 1 1

,8l/

21a

1 1 3

ail i liroa t Trout

S i | c 1

Siio 7

0 ,

Silo ■>

.1/

.1 . .

1 fin

•to

Ovora 1 1

.1/

Ini

W ai 1 |i i n

Sili* 1

0 1(1

N.T.

5.8

Siio .!

SSI

N.T.

0. 1

S i | o

102 3

N.T.

5. a

I K o ra 1 1

200

N.T.

5.0

•lit L o r

Sito l

1 7

N.T.

2 1

Silo 2

% 1

N . I .

sr»

Silo 3

' 1

N.T.

Uv ora 1 1

7.!

N.T.

* ^ lot i 1 on l oh no

)0|>o 1 a 1 i on r

; l I ma t o a va i 1 a

hlo

. . . I .

Not l a lorn

l> i }• Crook , III .ill .

10. SO results Mipplietl hy lltali Division ol WiUllilo

rosn Its,

Sraiuli.iii* Crop .
No . / I t . ” N« • . / in ~

10 SO

l*o|>ii 1 ;■ t ion Me. in Mt-.ui SI

list intuit* I.eitgl It (mill) Weight (gtitl No. /It No. /in

0.0007

0.007

0.0000

0.000

0 uooo

o.oio

O.OUOS

0.000

0.0000

0.000

0.0000

0.000

O.OUO 1

0.00 1

2(»

o.oooi

0.001

1 .

.07

1 30!*

.of.

.87

Oil

.00

1 a 1 0

S 130

002

0 .

023

.005

0 ,

050

. 00 n

.030

.003

.030

2!»7

172

0.001 1

0.01 2

2 12

118

0 . ooos

0 . (Mil)

2n2

1 7<i

0 . 0001

0 . ODI

2 1 1 3

u.r.

0.000(1

0 . 1)00

0.0000

0. 000

INI

0.0001

0.00 1

In 1

•ID

0.0028

0 . 030

loo

0.001 1

0.01 2

N.T.

1 . 0

0.17

N.T.

3 . <>

0.00

N.T.

5 . 3

o. in

N.T.

•1 . •!

0. I I

1 >(.

0.000

0 . 00 ■

1 •*»

0.001

0.00’.

l in

> s

0.003

0.0."

1 On

0.001

0.0 1 1

CONCLUSIONS

The principal value of our Big Creek studies to the BLM is to
apprise them of the compatibility of the past and presently used grazing
system (continuous) with the needs of the riparian-stream environments.

The studies indicate that the continuous grazing system is not com¬
patible with Big Creek habitat. Continuation of the studies will
determine if the proposed deferred grazing system will better meet
stream habitat needs. The studies demonstrate that Big Creek is capable
of rehabilitating itself under complete rest from cattle grazing.

The studies are also evaluating the effects of the instream habitat
improvement structures, and findings to date suggest that the instream
structures have not achieved the desired improvement of game fish popu¬
lations; and, perhaps, should therefore not have been installed. We
hesitate, however, to prematurely make this judgement because our time-
trend analysis is beginning to indicate that the factors limiting the
population are possibly more off-site that on-site. We believe that the
new exclosure project that the BLM is going to initiate may reduce off¬
site limitations and increase game fish biomass in all of the exclosure
areas. Continuation of the studies will determine if the exclosures are
increasing fish populations.

An additional benefit of the study is that at the end of the 5-year
period, we will be able to provide the BLM with>a methodology for docu¬
menting and monitoring Basin-Range streams in relation to livestock
impacts that will have known statistical validity. Because Basin-Range
streams are different than Rocky Mountain streams, the family of attri¬
butes to be monitored will be different so as to meet the requirements
posed by the different limiting factors in Basin-Range streams.

Our studies have indicated that Big Creek is a heavily degraded
stream that requires rehabilitation. The limiting factors that we are
identifying lead us to believe that the best rehabilitative approach at
this time would be to increase brush cover over and around the stream.

This can be accomplished with an improved grazing system, increased
exclosure size, planting shrubs and protecting them from grazing, or a
combination of these strategies. Our time-trend studies will determine
the value and productive effects of any improvement efforts.

The Big Creek study is also benefitting us in our over-all livestock-
fishery interaction studies by allowing us to compare Basin-Range streams
with Rocky Mountain streams, determine impacts from various grazing
strategy, and test our methodology in various types of aquatic habitat.
These would not directly benefit the BLM, but in the future they can be
expected to be beneficial.

With two years of study, we have progressed sufficiently far that
the BLM can evaluate our efforts and determine whether our package of
products is going to answer the questions needed for proper range and
fishery habitat management. Is the cost buying the BLM a product worthy
of the expenditure? Does the study need any re-direction to make the

product worthy of the expenditure? Would our efforts be better expended
on another stream in another situation to gain other answers (as long as
this effort fits our over-all study goals)? Should the study be ter¬
minated? These questions should be seriously considered by the BLM to
ensure that our final package of products will be of value. Only three
years of proposed study remains, so for any re-direction to be meaning¬
ful, it should be implemented now; for this study to evaluate the coming
change in grazing strategy means the necessary after-the-fact data must
be collected. The before-the-fact data is now sufficient.

PUBLICATIONS CITED

Bailey, Robert G.

1978. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. USDA
For. Serv, Intermtn. Reg., Ogden, Utah, 77 p.

Christensen, Earl M

1963. The foothill bunchgrass vegetation of central Utah.

Ecology 44(1) : 1S6-1S8.

Christensen, Earl M. and Hyrum B. Johnson

1964. Presettlement vegetation and vegetational change in three
valleys in central Utah. Brigham Young University Science
Bulletin, Biol. Serv., Vol . 4, No. 4., BYU, Provo, Utah.

Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, J. L. Reveal, and

P. K. Holmgren

1977. Intermountain flora. Vol. 6. Columbia 'University Press,

New York, 584 p.

Duff, Don A.

1978. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah -
a summary of 8 years of study. In: O.B. Cope (ed.) Proc.

For. Grazing Riparian/Stream Ecosystems, Trout Unlimited,

Inc., Denver, Colo.

Duff, Donald A.

1977. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek,
Utah. In: Livestock and Wildlife Fisheries Workshop,

Reno, Nevada, 36 p.

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration

1968. Water quality criteria. Report on the committee to the
Federal Water Quality Control Administration, U. S. Dept.
Inter., U. S. Gov. Print, off.. Wash., D. C., 234 p.

Hormay, August L.

1970. Principles of rest-rotation grazing and multiple-use land
management. USDA For. Serv., Training Text 4(2200), 26 p.

Kuchler, A. W.

1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United
States. (map and manual) Amer. Geog . Soc. Spec. Pub. 36,
map scale 1:3, 168,000, 116 p.

Leopold, A. S.

1975. Ecosystem deterioration under multiple-use. Wild Trout
Manage. Sym., Trout Unlimited, Inc. p. 96-98.

McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf

1971. Water quality criteria, second edition. State Water Resour.
Control Board, Resour. Agency Calif. Publ. 5-A, 54S p.

Meehan, William R. and William S. Platts

1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. J. Soil
and Water Cons. 55 (6) : 274-278 .

Minshall, G. W.

1967. The role of allochthonous detritus in the trophic structure
of a woodland spring brook community. Ecology 48 (1) : 159-149 .

Morris, Meredith J., Kendall L. Johnson, and Donald L. Neal

1976. Sampling shrubranges with an electronic capacitance instru¬
ment. J. Range Manage. 29(1): 78-81.

Neal, Donald L., Pat 0. Currie, and Meredith J. Morris

1976. Sampling herbaceous native vegetation with an electronic
capacitance instrument. J. Range Manage. 29(1): 72-77.

Platts, William S.

1974. Geomorphic and aquatic conditions influencing salmonids
and stream classification with application to ecosystem
classification. USDA For. Serv., Surface Environ, and Min.
Proj . , Billings, MT, 200 p.

Platts, William S.

1976. Validity in the use of aquatic methodologies to document
stream environments for evaluating fishery conditions. In-
stream Flow Needs Proc., Vol. 2, p. 267-284. Am. Fish
Soc., Bethesda, Md.

Platts, William S.

1978. Livestock interactions with fish and aquatic environments:
problems in evaluation. 45d No. Am. and Nat ' 1 . Res. Conf.,
Wildl. Manage. Inst., Wash., D. C., p. 498-504.

Platts, William S. and Susan B. Martin

1978. Hydrochemical influences on the fishery within the Phosphate
Mining area of eastern Idaho, Research Note INT-246, USDA
For. Ser., Intermt. Sta., Ogden, UT, 15 p.

Platts, William S.

1980. Streamside management to protect bank-channel stability and
aquatic life. (In press) USDA For. Serv. Intermtn. For. and
Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

Platts, William S., Rodger Loren Nelson, and Susan B. Martin

1980. Livestock-fishery interaction studies, Big Creek, Utah,.

Progress Report 1., USDA For. Serv., Intermtn. For. and Range
Exp. Stn., Forestry Sciences Lab., Boise, Idaho, 57 p.

Ray, Gary A. and Walter F. Megahan

1978. Measuring cross sections using a sag tape: a generalized
procedure. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt . INT-47, USDA For.
Serv. Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah, 12 p.

Stoddart, Lawrence A. and Arthur D. Smith

1955. Range Management. McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y., 453 p.

United States Department of Agriculture

1936. The western range. Letter from the Secretary of Agri¬
culture. USDA, Senate Document 199, 620 p.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management

1979. Randolph planning unit grazing management final environmental
statement. USDI Bur. Land Manage., Salt Lake City, Utah.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Armour, Carl L.

1977. Effects of deteriorated range streams on trout. USDI Bur.
Land Manage., Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho.

Benke, R. J. and Mark Zarn

1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western
trouts. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-28, USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mtn.

For. and Range Exp. Stn. , Fort Collins, Colo., 45 p.

Benke, Robert J.

1979.' Monograph of the native trouts of the genus Salmo of

western North America. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mtn. Reg.,
Lakewood, Colo., 163 p.

Berry, Charles R., Jr.

1978. Impact of sagebrush management on riparian stream habitat.
Utah. Coop. Fish Res. Unit. (Presented at Sagebrush Ecosys.

Sym. , Utah State Univ., Logan, Utah).

Bidwell, R. G. S.

1974. Plant physiology. MacMillian Publishing Co., Inc., New York,
New York, 643 p.

Branson, F. A., R. F. Miller, and I. S. McQueen

1967. Geographic distribution and factors affecting the distribu¬
tion of salt desert shrubs in the United States. J. Range
Manage. 20 (5) : 287-296 .

Christensen, Earl L. and Stanley L. Welsh

1963. Presettlement vegetation of the valleys of western Summit
and Wasatch counties, Utah. Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. , Arts, and
Letters, Vol. 40, Pt. 2, p. 163-174.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology

1974. Livestock grazing on federal lands in the 11 western states.
J. Range Manage. 27 (3) : 174-181 .

Cronquist, A., A. H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, and James L. Reveal

1972. Intermountain flora. Vol. 1, Hafner Publishing Co., New York,
New York, 270 p.

Currie, P. 0., M. J. Morris, and D. L. Neal

1973. Uses and capacities of electronic capacitance instruments
for estimating standing herbage, Part 2, sown ranges. J. Br .
Grassld. Soc. 28:155-160.

Dix, Ralph L.

1964. A history of biotic and climatic changes within the north
american grassland. In: Grazing in Terrestrial and Marine
Environments, Blackwell's Sci. Publ., Adlard & Son, Ltd.,
Dorking, England.

Egglor, Willis A.

1941. Primary succession on volcanic deposits in southern Idaho.
Ecol. Monogr. 11 (3) : 277-298 .

Garrison, George A., Ardell J. Bjugstad, Don A. Duncan, Mort E. Lewis,
and Dixie R. Smith

1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. USDA For. Serv., Agric. Handb. 475, 68 p.

Harris, Grant A.

1977. Changing philosophies of rangeland management in the United
States. J. Range Manage. 30(1): 75-78.

Hitchcock, A. J.

1935. Manual of the grasses of the United States. USDA, Misc.

Publ . 200, 1040 p.

Hunt, Charles B.

1967. Physiography of the United States. W. H. Freeman & Co.,

San Francisco and London, 480 p.

Jameson, Donald A.

1965. Phenology of the grasses of the northern Arizona pinyon-
juniper type. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-47, USDA For.

Serv., Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Stn. , Fort Collins, Colo.

Kothman, M. M.

1974. Grazing management terminology. J. Range Manage.
27(4)326:327.

Kuchler, A. W.

1966. Potential natural vegetation (map). USDI Geol. Surv. Natl.
Atlas, Veg.; map scale 1:7,500,000.

Long, Robert W.

1974. Future of rangelands in the United States. J. Range Manage.
27(4) :253-255.

Mirov, N. T.

1967. The genus Pinus . The Ronald Press Co., New York, 602 p.
Platts, William S.

1980. Effects of sheep grazing on a riparian-stream environment.
(Manuscript proposed for publ. J. Soil and Water Cons.)

Snedecor, George W. and William G. Cochran

1967. Statistical methods. Iowa State Unlv. Press, Ames, Iowa,

6th ed. , 593 p.

* r f *

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

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Livestock-fishery interaction studies, Big Creek, Utah : progress report 2 to the USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 1980 to May 1981"

See other formats