GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-34

1979

WAYNE BOWERS

BILL HOSFORD

ART OAKLEY

CARL BOND

PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION

FOREST SERVICE U. S. OEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
This publication is part of the series

Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands -

The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon. The

purpose of the series is to provide a range

manager with the necessary information on

wildlife and its relationship to habitat conditions in managed rangelands in order that the

manager may make fully informed decisions.

The information in this series is specific to

the Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon and is

generally applicable to the shrub-steppe areas

of the Western United States. The principles

and processes described, however, are generally applicable to all managed rangelands. The

purpose of the series is to provide specific information for a particular area but in doing so

to develop a process for considering the welfare

of wildlife when range management decisions

are made.

The series is composed of 14 separate

publications designed to form a comprehensive

whole. Although each part will be an independent treatment of a specific subject, when

combined in sequence, the individual parts will

be as chapters in a book.

Individual parts will be printed as they

become available. In this way the information

will be more quickly available to potential

users. This means, however, that the sequence

of printing will not be in the same order as the

final organization of the separates into a comprehensive whole.

A list of the publications in the series, their

current availability, and their final organization is shown on the inside back cover of this

publication.

Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands

. .

- The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon

is a cooperative effort of the USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station, and United States

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.
Introduction

Southeastern Oregon has a variety of fish

habitats which include major rivers, tributary

streams, large and small reservoirs, lakes, and

springs. These habitats are directly related to

and highly dependent on the conditions of the

surrounding rangeland watersheds. Satterlund

(1975, p. 22) put it this way: “Rangelands may

yield little water, but they are second only to

cultivated lands as a source of water quality

problems.“ It may be fairly stated, therefore,

that man’s agricultural activities in rangelands of southeastern Oregon have altered

aquatic habitats more than any other land use.

And of all the agriculturally oriented activities

in southeastern Oregon rangelands, livestock

grazing has exerted greater influence on more

aquatic habitats than any other land use

(Gunderson 1968, Marcuson 1977). Gebhards

(1970, p. 3) summed it up:

Man has gained the knowledge and

technical skill that makes him capable

of completely altering, or nullifying

natures handiwork-but he rarely

ponders his inability to duplicate it.

. ..Today. through the science of

hydrology we know that a stream is in

reality the end product of a watershed.

Water originating as precipitation

flows across and through the surface of

the watershed to form the stream.

Changes brought about in the watershed by...road construction, overgrazing by livestock, or other disturbances of the land, can greatly alter the

pattern of water movement and even

water quality within the watershed.

Thirty-eight species of fish are known to occur in southeastern Oregon (Bond 1973) (table

1). Some of these species, including trout

(S&20 spp.), were once native to most

streams. If habitat conditions are or become

suitable for good trout production, populations

of other indigenous cold-water fish, such as

sculpins (Cottus spp.), mountain whitefish

(Prosopium williamsoni), and some suckers

(Cutostomus spp.), will also thrive because

their basic habitat requirements are similar

(table 2).

Some species, such as bass (Micropterus

spp.), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), and catfish

(Ictrdurus spp.), have been introduced and provide good fisheries. Introduced fish either have

occupied habitats which have been alt.ered in a

way that favors their living requirements or

have occupied natural habitats that are suitable to them but unsuitable or marginal for

trout. Introduced species may also partially

displace native non-game species, and may

pose a threat to sensitive species.

Annual sto.cking programs have also

developed important fisheries in some reservoirs and specific sections of streams.

Although such stocking programs will continue to be important, the production of native

trout in hundreds of kilometers of streams is

considered to be the highest priority and is emphasized in this chapter.
Table l-Fishes that are known to occur in southeastern Oregon’

Trout and Salmon:

Redband trout

Brown trout

Rainbow trout

Alvord cutthroat

Kokanee

Coho salmon

Brook trout

Dolly Varden trout

Mountain whitefish

Sturgeons:

White sturgeon

Salmo species

Salmo trutta

Salmo gairdneri

Salmo clarki subspecies

Oncorhynchus nerka

Oncorhynchus kisutch

Salvelinus fontinalis

Salvelinus malma

Prosopium williamsoni

Acipenser transmontanus

Sunfishes:

Smallmouth bass

Largemouth bass

Warmouth bass

Bluegill

White crappie

Black crappie

Perches:

Yellow perch

Catfishes:

Channel catfish

Black bullhead

Brown bullhead

Flathead catfish

Tadpole madtom

Micropterus dolomieui

Micropterus salmoides

Lepomis gulosus

Lepomis macrochirus

Pomonis annularis

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Perca flavescens

Ictalurus punctatus

Ictalurus melas

Ictalurus nebulosus

Pylodictus olivaris

Noturus gyrinus

Sculpins:

Mottled sculpin

Torrent sculpin

Piute sculpin

Shorthead sculpin

Cottus bairdi semiscaber

Cottus rhotheus

Cottus beldingi

Cottus confusus

Minnows and Carp:

Carp

Tui chub

Lahontan redside

Redside shiner

Long-nose date

Leopard date

S eckled date

&iselmouth

Northern squawfish

Cyprinus carpio

Gila bicolor

Richardsonius egregius

Richardsonius balteatus balteatus also

R. b. hydrophlox

Rhinichthys cataractae dulcis

Rhinichthys falcatus

Rhinichthys osculus

Acrocheilus alutaceus

Ptychocheilus oregonensis

Suckers:

Largescale sucker

Bridgelip sucker

Lahontan sucker

Mountain sucker

Catostomus macrocheilus

Catostomus columbianus

Catostomus tahoensis

Catostomus platyrhynchus

‘Bond. Carl E., 1974. Endangered plants and animals of Oregon. I. Freshwater fishes. Spec. Rep. 205

(revised). 9 p. Agric. Exp. Stn.. Oreg. State Univ.. Corvallis.

2
Table 2-Habitat requirements for fishes of southeastern Oregon. X = habitat(s)

where species normally occurs, 0 = habitat(s) where species can be found

Species Small

Cold’ 1 Warm

Stream’

Medium

Cold 1 Warm

Large Small

reser- reser- voir or Lake Spring Large

Cold 1 Warm voi? Pond’

Trout & Salmon

Redband trout

Brown trout

Rainbow trout

Alvord cutthroat

Brook trout

l&&V;den trout

Coho

Mountain whitefish

:

0

0

X

::

:

0

X

::

::

X

X

::

::

0

::

::

::

X

X

X

0 0 0

X 0 0

X

X 0 X 0 X

X

Sturgeons

White sturgeon

Sunfishes

Smallmouth bass

Largemouth bass

Warmouth bass

Bluegill

White crappie

Black crappie

Perches

Yellow perch

Catfishes

Channel catfish

Black bullhead

Brown bullhead

Flathead catfish

Tadpole madtom

Sculpins

Mottled sculpin

Torrent sculpin

Piute scul in

Shorthea sculpin B

Minnows

Carp

Tui chub

Lahontan redside

Redside shiner

Longnose date

Leopard date

Speckled date

Chiselmouth

Northern squawfish

Suckers

Largescale sucker

Bridgelip sucker

Lahontan sucker

Mountain sucker

0

X X 0

xx

X

::

X

X

:

0

X

X

X

X

0 X X X

0

0”

::

X

X

::

X

0 0

0

0 0 0 0

0 ::

X X

::

0 ; X

X :: ;

X

0

::

0

X X X X X

::

X

X

X

:: 0 :: :: iz

0

X :: 0

::

‘Stream size is based on average width of water (wetted perimeter of streambed or channel) during the summer low-flow

period.

Small = Less than 3.04 m (10 feet)

Medium = 3.4 to 7.6 m (11 to 25 feat)

Large = Greater than 7.6 m (25 feet). including main rivers,such as the Snake, Owyhee, and Malheur (lower parts of

North and South forks) Rivers.

‘Cold - Refers to streams with maximal summer water temperatures usually less than 21°C (70°F).

Warm - Refers to streams with maximal summer water temperatures commonly over 21 “C (70°F).

‘Reservoirs over 10.1 surface hectares (25 surface acres) in size and 4.5 m (15 feet) in depth at usual minimum level.

‘Bodies of water less than 10.1 surface hectares (25 surface acres) in size and 3.04 m (10 feet) in depth at usual minimum

level. Includes many smal1 farm ponds.

3
Objectives

No long-term research has been specifically

aimed at the factors affecting trout production

in southeastern Oregon, but studies are

available that define the habitat components

necessary for good trout production, identify

limiting factors, and describe land-use conflicts. Data specific to southeastern Oregon

and applicable data from other areas are,

therefore, synthesized to provide rangeland

managers with the information necessary to

make the best possible decisions with respect

to fish habitat management. Our objectives

are to present these data in a way that will

assist managers in evaluating trade-offs while

achieving short-term management goals, and

to present a tool that can be used simultaneously in long-range land-use planning.

Assumptions

In order to fulfill the charge of this chapter

it was necessary to recognize the following

assumptions:

1. All land management activities will

have some impact(s) on fish habitat. Those activities that affect the riparian zone will have

the greatest impact.

2. Water quality and habitat conditions in

downstream areas are directly affected by land

management activities in upstream tributary

systems.

3. Trout populations have predictable

responses to changes in habitat conditions.

4. If trout habitat is optimal, life requirements of other cold-water species will

generally be fulfilled.

5. Because of the increasing public interest

in “wild trout,” more intensive management of

native trout and their habitats will be required

in future years. Management will, therefore, be

concentrated primarily in the medium- and

small-sized tributary streams where most of

these fish are found.

6. Because of increasing public concern for

certain non-game fishes, land managers will

also have to consider management activities

that affect those species.

Stream Zones in

Southeastern Oregon

Streams in southeastern Oregon generally

originate in mountains ranging in elevation

from 2 134 to 2 734 m (7,000 to 9,000 ft). As

streams descend from the mountains, they

pass through three distinctive zones-boulder,

floodway, pastoral-and may terminate in a

desert sump (fig. 1).

The upper reach of a stream, the boulder

zone or headwaters, normally has a steep

gradient, falling at a rate of 7.6 m per

kilometer (25 ftlmi) or more (fig. 2). This zone is

characterized by high velocity water with

coarse bedload material and a narrow channel

that goes through a steep-walled, bedrock

gorge, Vertical erosion of the channel main

tains a V-shaped valley.

The gradient gradually decreases as a

stream flows into the floodway zone, and there

is a corresponding reduction in water velocity

(fig. 3). A floodway zone is characterized by a

coarse, sand to baseball-sized, sediment load

which is constantly shifting, forming gravel

bars, islands, and new channels (Palmer 1976).

This zone forms floodplains along large

streams which are extensively used for

agriculture.

In the pastoral zone, which includes the

lower reach of a stream, the fine bedload

material, silt and sand, forms compacted

banks with a deeper meandering channel (fig.

4). Stream banks are often steep and tree-lined.

Water velocity is much reduced, and some of

the small streams disappear into the ground in

what is called a “desert sump“ (fig. 5).

Undisturbed stream courses with dense

streamside vegetation, stable soils, and

moderate gradients-l to 2 percent-keep

water from rapidly descending a stream

system. Streamside vegetation is important

since it stabilizes streambanks and the movement of sediments; this, in turn, gradually

reduces the width of a stream and increases the

4
i

Ae5wt 5wp

Figure l.-Graphic summary of stream channels of southeastern Oregon streams.

channel depth which creates better habitat

conditions for trout (White and Bryriildson

1967). Aquatic communities experience a

minimum of disturbance where these conditions occur.

Where streamside vegetation is lacking,

however, water temperatures rise because of

increased exposure to solar radiation. An exposed rock formation, such as canyon walls or

especially a bedrock stream bottom, acts as a

heat sink that retains heat longer than does the

surrounding habitat. Consequently, water temperatures, that would normally decrease rather

rapidly after sundown, remain warm for a

longer time, particularly on a hot day. Native

desert trout can withstand a few hours of high

water temperatures, but only if they can find

relief in water of cooler temperatures sometime

during the day. Where this is not possible,

Figure P.-The boulder zone is the upper

reach or headwaters of a stream which normally has a steep gradient and falls at a

rate of 7.6 m per kilometer (25 ftlmi) or

more. (Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife photograph by Bill Hosford)
Figure 3.-m the floodway zone there is a gradual decrease in stream gradrent and a correspondmg reduction in water velocity. (Oregon Depart.

ment of Fish and Wildlife photograph by Bill Hosford)

Figure 4.-In the pastoral zone the lower reach of a stream often has banks

that are steep and tree-lined. (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

photograph by Bill Hosford)

6
Figure 5.-A desert sump is an area in the desert where a stream terminates and disappears into the ground. (Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife photograph by Bill Hosford)

their available habitat may be severely

restricted or they may be eliminated from a

stream.

The best habitat conditions for trout production are generally in the lower boulder and

upper floodway zones where water temperatures are cool and riffle-pool ratios are adequate (Elser 1968). As a stream approaches

equilibrium in the lower floodway and pastoral

zones, new meanders and channels are created.

Water temperatures become high, siltation increases, and riffle-pool ratios decrease or are

non-existent. Such habitat conditions are more

suitable for production of warm-water species

of fish than for trout.

Optimum Stream Conditions for

Trout Habitat

Native species of trout, adapted to desert

environments, have a remarkable ability to

survive adverse conditions of high water

temperatures, high alkalinities, unusually low

streamflows, and marginal spawning areas.

These conditions are not ideal and, consequently, trout populations are usually

depressed.

If optimal habitat conditions for trout pro

duction are considered as management objectives, it should be recognized that not all of

them can be achieved in every stream. Some

streams, for example, may be too wide for

streamside vegetation to provide canopy cover

that adequately shades the surface of the

water, and alternative management strategies

will have to be considered.

The following habitat conditions are optimal for trout production in desert

environments:

1. Water Temperature. Summer temperatures should not exceed 21°C (70°F). Certain strains of native trout can successfully

survive water temperatures of 27°C (80.6’F)

for short periods during the day and can also

tolerate a 16” to 20°C (30” to 35°F) diurnal

temperature fluctuation. Such extremes are

not desirable.

7
2. Stable Streambanks. Stable non-eroding

streambanks and watersheds are essential to

protect spawning gravel, aquatic insects, trout

eggs, and recently hatched fry from becoming

suffocated by fine sediments, such as sand and

silty material (Behnke and Zarn 1976). Acceptable streambanks have 80 percent or more of

their total lineal distance in a stable condition.

3. Streambed Sedimentation. The rifflerubble areas of streams are most important for

food production and spawning (Cordone and

Kelley 1961). At least 75 percent of the total

riffle-rubble area in a stream should be free of

siltation less than 0.8 mm (.03 in) in size. Furthermore, trout populations will be reduced if

pools become filled with sediments which

eliminate rearing or hiding areas.

4. pH Range. Most good desert trout

waters have a pH between 6.5 and 9.0.

Although some species of fish can tolerate a

higher pH (10 to 10.5), this is not a desirable

condition.

5. Streamside Vegetation. Streamside

vegetation is the most important key in maintaining good trout habitat for several reasons:

a. Streamside vegetation is essential in

providing shade which keeps water

temperatures from becoming lethal

during hot weather (Brown 1976).

Such vegetation may consist of trees,

shrubs, grasses, sedges or other

plants. Streamside vegetation should

shade at least 75 percent of the

stream surface during the hours of 11

am to 4 pm from June to September,

because solar radiation is highest during this time of day and season.

Topography, rocks, and canyon

walls can provide some of this needed

shade in some situations.

Streambank vegetation also acts

as habitat for terrestrial insects

which, when they fall into a stream,

are an important food source for fish

(Butler and Hawthorne 1968, Chapman 1966, Ellis and Gowing 1957,

Meehan et al. 1977).

b . Streambank vegetative cover

provides protection from erosion during periods of high water. Plant roots

help hold soil in place. Stems and

leaves bend with the water flow,

which reduces scouring and also acts

as sediment traps. Sediment traps

catch silt before it moves down

stream and settles on the more important food-producing and spawning

areas of trout.

6. Instream cover is essential to trout for

resting, protection from predators, and produce

tion of food’. Various types of cover, such as

boulders, provide instream habitat niches

which act as a base for continual fish occupancy. The trout carrying-capacity of a stream,

in otherwise good condition, is greatly reduced

without adequate instream habitat niches.

Optimal instream cover should be available

over at least 50 percent of the total stream

area. Such cover may include rocks, turbulent

water in pools or riffles, debris, tree roots,

overhanging banks, or aquatic vegetation

(Boussu 1954).

Overhanging streamside vegetation may

augment or replace instream cover provided

such vegetation is not more than 60.8 centimeters (2 ft) above the water. Overhanging

vegetation should cover at least 50 percent of

the streambanks and is particularly crucial on

the outside bends of streams.

Effects of Livestock on

Fish Habitat

Rangelands of southeastern Oregon have

been historically grazed by cattle (Bos sp.),

horses (Equus sp.), and sheep (Ouis sp.). Much

of this activity was unrestricted and livestock

exceeded the carrying capacity of ranges causing severe range deterioration by 1900 (Heady

and Bartolome 1977, Foss 1960). Many of the

‘Binns, Allen N.. 1976. Evaluation of habitat quality in

Wyoming trout streams. Unpublished paper presented at

the Am. Fish Sot.. Annu. Meet.. Dearborn, Mich. 33 p.

8
uplands were denuded of soil-stabilizing plants

which resulted in extensive sheet, rill, and

gully erosion. Extensive down-cutting of

stream channels on valley floors was also

caused by heavy grazing2 (Winegar 1977).

In many areas, especially during summer

and early fall, riparian zones were extensively

overused by livestock because of the lush plant

growth and the proximity to water. Continued

heavy livestock use of riparian zones produced

the following results:

1. Compaction of soils due to livestock

trampling caused a reduction of water infiltration, increased water runoff, and made successful reproduction difficult for many species

of plants. This, along with a loss of ground

cover, caused soil erosion throughout many

watersheds.

2. Riparian vegetation needed to provide

shade to streams was eliminated, and overhanging streambanks were broken down which

resulted in loss of escape cover and accelerated

bank erosion.

3. Some highly productive wet meadows

have been lost because stream channels have

eroded their way down, lowering the water

table. This process has resulted in the encroachment of dry-site plant species, such as

sagebrush (Artemisia spp.). Consequently,

small streams that once had adequate flows

during summer months are now intermittent

or dry, creating a substantial loss of trout

habitat.

4. Some streambottoms have been historically burned to eliminate dense vegetation and

facilitate the gathering of livestock. This practice has been devastating to the entire riparian

zone and associated fish habitat.

5. Coliform bacteria counts are extremely

high in some streams due to livestock faces and

carcasses. These materials not only impair

‘McKinley. Charles. 1965. The management of land

and related water resources in Oregon-A case study in

administrative federalism. p. 21-31. A manuscript partially supported by a grant to Reed College from the

Resources for the Future Inc., Washington, D.C., on fife at

Dep. of Interior Library, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

water quality but also pose potential health

problems for recreationists.

Studies have shown that in stream sections

where livestock use is light or is eliminated by

fencing, production of trout increases substantially. The average increase in fish production

was 184 percent for five study areas3 ‘

(Gunderson 1968, Marcuson 1970, Lorz 1974)

(fig. 6). These data indicate that trout production in streams currently being heavily grazed

VIaire. Errol W.. 1977. Fish populations and habitat

studies on Camp Creek. Unpublished data on file at Oreg.

Dep. Fish and Wildl., John Day.

‘Duff. Donald A., 1977. Big Creek aquatic habitat

management and impacts from livestock grazing. Unpublished paper presented at the Bonneville Chapter of

the Am. Fish Sot.. Annu. Meet., Ramada Inn, Salt Lake

City. Utah. 13 p.

Five independent StudiesY

Figure 6.-Percent increase in trout produca

tion in areas of controlled or light cattle

grazing as compared with heavily grazed

areas of the same streams.

‘Source:

l.Gunderson (1968): Rock Creek, Montana-brown trout

(Safmo tt-uttaJ (exclosure).

2.Claire (1977): Camp Creek, Oregon-rainbow trout

(Sulmo g&&en’) (exclosure with controlled grazing).

3.Marcuson (1970): Rock Creek, Montana-brown trout

(exclosure).

4. Duff (1977): Big Creek, Utah-rainbow and cutthroat

trout (Salmo clarki) (exclosure).

5.Lorz (1974): Little Deschutes River, Oregon-brown

trout (light grazing).

‘Percent increase of trout in kilograms per hectare

(Ibslacre) for all studies except Camp Creek; Claire (1977)

reported increase in number of fish per linear distance of

stream studies.

9
could be increased about 200 percent if

management decisions were made to optimize

habitat conditions for trout.

Water temperatures in areas adjacent to

exclosures were found to be high; and as a

result, such fishes as suckers, date

(Rhinichthys spp.), and shiners (Richardsonius

spp.) were prevalent. In one stream, for example, date were 4.5 times more numerous in a

stream section with season-long grazing use

than within a 13.year-old exclosure with controlled grazing (no grazing within the first 6

years and light grazing thereafter). Water

temperatures from 26 August to 11 September

downstream from the exclosure were 6.7”C

(12OF) higher 25.6”C (78’F) than within the exclosure 139°C (66°F) (Claire 1977).

Streambank erosion has also been common

outside exclosures. Heavily grazed sections

generally cause the stream channel to be

widened, resulting in decreased water depth

and increased water temperature (White and

Brynildson 1967, Van Velson n.d.) (fig. 7a).

Figure 7b and 7c ihustrate the natural stream

Figure 7.-Stream habitat conditions with heavy grazing (A) and

subsequent improvement over a lo-year period-providing

livestock razing is discontinued (B and C). Adapted from

White and ryniidson (1967). 83

A. Late summer stream conditions with heavy livestock use: Bank

vegetation and aquatic vegetation grazed and trampled. Banks

eroded and streambed mostly covered by shiftin sediment.

Water and streambed exposed to sun. These con 8itions offer

trout no cover, no place to spawn, little food, unfavorable

temperatures, and turbid water.

d

B. Late summer conditions after 2 to 3 years without grazing:

Streambank vegetation includes grasses, young willows, wild

rose and aider-vegetation binding soils, sediment being

deposited, and stream receiving some shade. Trout habitat improved with increased cover, more food, and better spawning

conditions.

10
C. Late summer stream conditions after 5 to 10 ears of non-use by

livestock: Streambanks are well vegetated w thY 2.4. to 4.6-m. (8.

to 15foot) high willow, wild rose, alder, cottonwood, red osier

dogwood, grasses, shrubs, and sedges. Stream has numerous

overhan

trout ha1

ing banks with little sediment movement. Excellent

itat providing cover, cold water, food, and spawning

area.

processes that restore degraded habitats to

productive conditions when grazing use is

eliminated for a number of years (fig. 8).

Although no documentation was found, it

seems to be obvious that any wild herbivore using the riparian zone is going to have an effect

on the condition, species composition, and

growth of the plant community.

Figure I.-Natural processes can restore

degraded habitat to a productive condition

for native trout when livestock grazing is

eliminated. (Photograph by Robert R.

Kindschy)

Management Tips

Livestock grazing is the dominant land

management program on public lands in

southeastern Oregon. Most of the tips concern

this land use, and are designed to assist a

manager in making decisions that are beneficial for trout production.

The previously discussed optimal habitat

requirements for trout are repeated here as

generalized objectives, the achievement of

which wilI lead to good trout habitat:

1. Where possible, streams should be 75

percent or more shaded with a vegetative

canopy cover to maintain summer water

temperatures below 21.1% (70°F).

2. Streambanks should be well vegetated

to prevent active erosion from occurring on at

least 80 percent of their total lineal distance.

, .,

3. Instream cover for trout should be

about 50 percent of the total stream area, including overhanging bank vegetation on 50

percent or more of the streambanks.

1 1
4. At least 75 percent of riffle-rubble areas

of streams should be free of siltation or fine

sediments.

Attainment of all of these goals on all

streams may not be possible because of various

site-specific limitations on particular streams.

Specific actions that may be taken to maintain

or improve native trout habitat are as follows:

1. Implement grazing systems that will

create and/or maintain the requirements for

good condition trout habitat. Livestock

management alternatives that should be considered to improve degraded stream habitats

and riparian zones include: (a) deferred grazing

on streamside areas until fall months, and

(b) on high priority streams, schedule exclusion

of riparian areas from livestock grazing until

substantial habitat improvement has occurred-this may require from 5 to 10 years,

depending on the existing conditions of the

habitat. Permanent elimination of livestock

grazing in most areas is neither desirable ‘nor

feasible, but grazing should be closely controlled to improve habitats in poor condition

and to maintain healthy riparian vegetation

and productive fish habitat.

2. Fencing may be necessary on the most

important trout streams to protect the easily

damaged habitat. The entire riparian zone

should be excluded from pastures in these

areas. Corridor fences are usually considered

undesirable but can be used to obtain immediate improvement in small areas where

streambank erosion is a serious problem. Gap

fences, less expensive to erect, often require

annual maintenance.

3. Encourage livestock use away from

riparian zones. Management practices, such as

salting, water developments, and herding, can

relieve pressure on riparian zones and

markedly improve upland range conditions.

4. Artificial revegetation of streambanks

may produce vegetative recovery more rapidly

than natural revegetation. Recovery of critical

streamside cover can be accelerated by several

years when trees, shrubs, and grasses are

planted. Plantings in the riparian zone should

include willow (Sulix sp.), alder (Alnus sp.), cottonwood (Populus sp.), quaking aspen (Populus

tremuloides), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), chokecher,y (Prunus uirginiana), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), red-osier

dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), reed canary

grass (Ph.&an’s arundinacea) (Rise variety),

streambank wheatgrass (Agropyron

dasytachyum), and yellow-blossom sweet

clover (MeGlotus officinalis). Research is

needed, however, to develop varieties of

riparian plants that are less palatable to

livestock.

5. Stream improvement structures should

be installed only after a thorough field evaluation. Recommendations of both hydrologists

and fishery biologists should be included in

project planning. Recommended structures for

streams are trash catchers, gabions, small rock

dams, individual boulder placement, rock jetties, and silt-log drops. The type of instream

structure recommended will depend on sitespecific conditions of each stream. Some structures could serve the dual purpose of increasing the water table in areas of former wet

meadows as well as improving trout habitat.

6. Riparian vegetation should be protected

during herbicide treatments designed to improve range forage for livestock use. Certain

chemicals are toxic to fish and other aquatic

organisms. Use of streamside buffer strips and

adherence to all other standard procedures for

herbicide applications, including close contract

supervision, are imperative.

7. Controlled beaver (Cus tor canadensis)

populations are an asset to small trout streams

and their attendant wildlife (Kirby 1975). They

help retain water, influence the water table in

the streamside zone, and provide some good

pools for trout. A regulated trapping harvest is

essential to maintain healthy beaver populations compatible with good trout habitat.

Regulation of livestock grazing is also essential to perpetuate viable stands of aspen and

willow (DeByle 1976, Schier 1976, Smith et al.

1972).

Uncontrolled beaver populations may be

destructive to trout habitat on some higher

elevation streams. Beaver can completely cut

down large aspen groves and willow patches

(Hall 1960). After food supplies are eliminated,

the beavers either move or die of starvation.

12
In southeastern Oregon, for example,

riparian aspen groves are small, relatively rare,

and are easily eliminated by the combination of

beaver and livestock use. Consequently, many

aspen groves have little or no regeneration or

regrowth because young plants are eaten by

livestock before they become well-established.

Since aspen regeneration is through adventitious shoots, root suckers, or root sprouts,

there are ways to rejuvenate a declining grove

that is not subject to either beaver or livestock

use (Jones 1975, Jones and lkujillo 1975,

Schier 1975, 1976). Where beaver or livestock

use an aspen grove, however, exclusion of

livestock will be necessary for a long enough

period of time to allow the young aspen to

become established and large enough to withstand livestock use.

Extensive soil erosion may occur within

the former aspen-willow areas, and beaver

ponds usually become filled with sediment. Old

beaver dams may eventually break and discharge heavy sediment loads downstream.

8. Improvements of existing roads or construction of new roads along streams inhabited

by native trout could have severely adverse effects upon these fish populations (Whitney and

Bailey 1959). Roads along streams destroy the

riparian vegetation and thereby remove trout

cover and increase water temperatures. Further, sediment movement into streams from

roads, particularly road construction, is

detrimental to aquatic life. If streamside road

construction is unavoidable, however, culverts

should be placed so as to minimize erosion and

provide easy fish passage.

Improved, well-developed roads usually

result in better access and heavier public use.

Wild trout, therefore, are generally less abundant in areas where streams are easily

accessible.

9. Recreation use will continue to increase

in southeastern Oregon. It is suggested,

therefore, that developed recreation facilities

should not be constructed on any native trout

stream because of the tendency to overfish a

stream. New recreational facilities should be

located in the more accessible areas where fish

populations can be maintained either by stocking hatchery trout or with warm-water species.

In addition, if viable trout populations are

to be maintained, the construction of trails

along native trout streams is not

recommended.

10. Water management of large reservoirs

occurring on or adjacent to public lands in

southeastern Oregon are under the control of

the Bureau of Reclamation and/or irrigation

districts. Because of this, available options to

manage fish habitat must be related to the surrounding lands and upper watersheds. If the

surrounding rangelands are in good condition,

erosion wiIl be minimized and water flowing into reservoirs will be of sufficient quality to

maintain good fish populations.

Small reservoirs, constructed for stock

water developments, sometimes have water

conditions suitable for fishery development. If

water-gap fences are used to keep livestock out

of small reservoirs, they may cause

maintenance problems. For example, ice

breaks such fences; and where reservoirs fluctuate, livestock often get around the ends of

the gap fence. Fencing may be necessary,

therefore, to exclude livestock from the entire

reservoir area. Water can then be piped to a

livestock watering trough outside of the fence.

11. Springs that help maintain water

quality and quantity in downstream fish

habitats, especially during summer low-flow

periods, should be protected. Furthermore,

isolated springs in the desert environment of

southeastern Oregon sometimes contain

unique or rare species of fish.

12. Each spring, the Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife stocks the larger reservoirs, parts of the Malheur River, and many of

the smaller water developments with fingerling rainbow trout. Streams that are easily accessible and support heavy angling pressure

may receive legal-sized rainbow trout each

year. To help maintain strains of wild trout,

hatchery trout should not be released in

streams where native trout occur.

Habitats not suited for trout production,

but with fishery potential, may be stocked

with warm-water game fish if there is no

adverse impact on native non-game species.

13
Land managers should contact the local

fisheries biologist if they think some of their

water developments are suitable for fish production. If a reservoir is found to be suitable

habitat, the Department of Fish and Wildlife

will stock the desired species and manage the

fishery.

Management practices-on any part of a

rangeland watershed-ultimately affect the

riparian vegetation, water quality and quantity, and fish habitat. Proper resource management, especially livestock grazing, is imperative if we are to insure the welfare of our

aquatic habitats and their riparian zones.

Streams, rivers, lakes, and their attendant

riparian zones are the barometers that reflect

the care man takes of his land-support base.

Spence (1938, p. 23) summed it up:

. ..Is it not wiser, under any condition, to suffer now and begin to rebuild

on investment than to continue to gamble year after year, and finally end with

a total loss...? The problem becomes

even more serious when the welfare to

future generations is considered.

Fortunately, natural processes not only can

help restore streams that are in poor condition

but also can help reverse the downward trend

of stream habitats. With the existing

knowledge of natural processes, management

strategies can be tailored to improve stream

habitats; but their maintenance and repair will

require the cooperative efforts of both public

and private rangeland managers because

streams ignore political boundaries.

Literature Cited

Behnke, R. J., and Mark Zarn.

1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trouts.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-28,45 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range

Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Bond, Carl E.

1973. Keys to Oregon freshwater fishes.

Tech. Bull. 58 (revised), 42 p. Agric.

Exp. Stn., Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis.

4

Bond, Carl E.

1974. Endangered plants and animals of

Oregon. I. Freshwater fishes. Spec. Rep.

205 (revised), 9 p. Agric. Exp. Stn.,

Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis.

Boussu, Marvin F.

1954. Relationship between trout populations and cover on a small stream. J.

Wildl. Manage. 18(2):229-239.

Brown, G. W.

1976. Forestry and water quality. ‘73 p.

Oreg. State Univ. Book Stores, Inc.,

Corvallis.

Butler, Robert L., and Vernon M. Hawthorne.

1968. The reactions of dominant trout to

changes in overhead artificial cover.

Trans. Am. Fish Sot. 97(1):37-41.

Chapman, D. W.

1966. Food and space as regulations of

salmonid populations in streams. Am.

Nat. 100(913):345-357.

Cordone, Almo J., and Don W. Kelley.

1961. The influences of inorganic sediment

on the aquatic life of streams. Calif. Fish

and Game 47(2):189-228.

DeByle, Norbert V.

1976. The aspen forest after harvest.

In Proceedings of the Symposium, Utilization and Marketing as Tools for

Aspen Management in the Rocky Mountains. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-29, p. 35-40. Rocky Mt. For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Ellis, Robert J., and Howard Gowing.

1957. Relationship between food supply

and condition of wild brown trout,

Salmo trutta Linnaeus, in a Michigan

stream. Limnol. & Oceano. ll(4):

299-308.

Elser, Allen A.

1968. Fish populations of a trout stream in

relation to major habitat zones and

channel alterations. Trans. Am. Fish

Sot. 97(4):389-397. . .

Foss, Phillip 0.

1960. Politics and grass: The administration of grazing on the public domain.

263 p. Univ. Wash. Press, Seattle.

Gebhards, Stacy.

1970. The vanishing stream. Idaho Wildl.

Rev. 22(5):3-8.
Giger, Richard D.

1973. Streamflow requirements of salmonids. Fed. Aid Job Final Rep. - AFS

62, 117 p. Oreg. Wildl. Comm., Portland.

Gunderson, Donald R.

1968. Floodplain use related to stream

morphology and fish populations. J.

Wildl. Manage. 32(2):507-514.

Hall, Joseph G.

1960. Willow and aspen in the ecology of

beaver on S

T

hen Creek, California.

Ecology 41(3):4 4-494.

Heady, F. Harold, and James Bartolome.

I%‘?‘. The Vale rangelands rehabilitation

program: The desert repaired in southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv.

Resour. Bull. PNW-70, 139 p. Pac.

Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,

Portland, Oreg.

Jones, John R.

1975. Regeneration on an aspen clearcut in

Arizona. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

RM-2858 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range

Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Jones, John R., and David P. Trujillo.

1975. Development of some young aspen

stands in Arizona. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Pap. RM-151, 11 p. Rocky Mt. For.

and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Kirby, Ronald E.

1975. Wildlife utilization of beaver flowages on the Chippewa National Forest,

north-central Minnesota. Loon 47(4):

180-185.

Lewis, Stephen L.

1969. Physical factors influencing fish

populations in pools of a trout stream.

Trans. Am. Fish Sot. 98(1):14-19.

Lorz, Harold W.

1974. Ecology and management of brown

trout in Little Deschutes River. Fishery

R8. Rep. No. 8, 49 p. Oreg. Wildl.

Comm., Corvallis.

Marcuson. Patrick E.

19’70. Rock Creek floodplain study. D-J

Job Prog. Rep., Proj. F-20-R-14, 4 p.

Mont. Dep. Fish and Game.

Marcuson, Patrick E.

1977. The effect of cattle grazing on brown

trout in Rock Creek, Montana. Spec.

Rep. Proj. No. F-20-R-21, II-a, 26 p.

Mont. Dep. Fish and Game. Fish Div.

15

Meehan, William R., Frederick J. Swanson,

and James R. &dell.

1977. Influence of riparian vegetation on

aquatic ecosystems with particular

reference to salmonid fishes and their

food supply. In Importance, Preservation and’ Management of Riparian

Habitat: A Symposium. R. Roy Johnson

and Dale A. Jones (Tech. Coordinators).

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-43, p. 137-145. Rocky Mt. For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Palmer, L.

1976. River management criteria for Ore

gon and Washington. Geomorphology

and engineering. Dowden, Hutchinson &

Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Penn. p.

329-346.

Satterlund, Donald R.

1975. The water resource in range ecosystems management. In Range, Multiple Use Management, p. 19-26. Wash.

State Univ., Oreg. State Univ., Univ.

Idaho.

Schier, George A.

1975. Deterioration of aspen clones in the

middle Rocky Mountains. USDA For.

Serv. Res. Pap. INT-170, 14 p. Intermt.

For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

Schier, George A.

1976. Physiological and environmental factors controlling vegetative regeneration

of aspen. In Proceedings of the Symposium, Utilization and Marketing as

Tools for Aspen Management in the

Rocky Mountains. USDA For. Serv.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-29, p. 20-23. Rocky

Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Smith, Arthur D., Paul A. Lucas, Calvin 0.

Baker, and George W. Scatter.

1972. The effects of deer and domestic

livestock on aspen regeneration in Utah.

Publ. No. 72-1, 32 p. Utah Div. Wildl.

Resour., Utah State Univ., Logan.

Spence, Liter E.

1938. Range management for soil and

water conservation. Utah Jumper

9: 18-25.
Van Velson, Rod.

[n.d.] The rainbow trout in the North

Platte Valley. Contribution of Federal

Aid in Fish Restoration, Project F-4-R

Nebraska, in conjunction with the

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission,

Lincoln, Nebr. 14 p.

White, Ray J., and Oscar M. Brynildson.

1967. Guidelines for management of trout

stream habitat in Wisconsin. Tech. Bull.

No. 39, 65 p. Dep. Nat. Resour., Div.

Conserv., Madison, Wis.

Whitney, Arthur N., and Jack E. Bailey.

1959. Detrimental effects of highway construction on a Montana stream. Trans.

Am. Fish Sot. 88( 1):72-73.

Winegar, Harold H.

1977. Camp Creek channel fencing-plant,

wildlife, soil, and water response. Rangeman’s J. 4(1):10-12.

16