EPA 908-R-94-001
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO
Water Division
Water Quality Branch
September 1994
Monitoring Primer for
Rangeland Watersheds
-------
EPA 908-R-94-001
September 1994
MONITORING PRIMER FOR
RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
by
Thomas E. Bedell
Certified Range Management Consultant
Philomath, Oregon
and
John C. Backhouse
Department of Rangeland Resources
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
Society for Range Management
1839 York Street
Denver, Colorado 80206
Submitted to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
The material in this document has been subject to Agency technical and policy review and approved
for publication as an EPA report. The views expressed by individual authors, however, are
their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
People who design and carry out projects to improve functioning of rangeland
watersheds have a great challenge to meet. This primer was developed to help them
define their challenges and to develop means by which they can measure progress toward
meeting their watershed objectives. The primer also addresses forested areas in the
western United States which are grazed by livestock. Riparian zone vegetation monitoring
approaches also are included. Monitoring the aquatic zone is addressed in a separate
publication, "Monitoring Protocols to Evaluate Water Quality Effects of Grazing
Management on Western Rangeland Streams, EPA 910/R-93-017"
Section 2 will help primer users to develop goals and objectives which can be
monitored using relatively straightforward methodology. Stress is placed on objectives
which will improve the functioning of the watershed and not necessarily the productivity of
associated products. When rangeland watersheds are in healthy condition and functioning
properly, however, a high level of various products can arise from them, in addition to good
water quality and quantity.
Section 6 addresses rationale for management actions which we believe will
improve watershed functioning. Emphasis is placed on vegetation grazing management
since most rangelands are grazed by livestock. Kinds and amounts of vegetation
appropriate to each ecological site are the basis for a well functioning watershed. Actions
which promote appropriate vegetation can result in improvement, but monitoring for that
improvement must be done in order to know one's relative progress.
Monitoring in uplands and riparian zones means using indirect indicators. Some of
the indirect indicators we discuss are infiltration rates, sedimentation rates, plant species
changes, vegetation cover, and other measurements to discern trends toward objectives
We describe relative strengths and weaknesses of several vegetation and soils
measurements in Section 7 References are given which will give primer users direct
guidance for the various methods.
Monitoring is more than just gathering data. People must make inferences from the
approaches they use, whether or not they be by photos, descriptions and/or actual
measured attributes. This is why objectives for a project must be developed in a way such
that clear implications can be concluded from any suitable monitoring approach.
Thomas E. Bedell John C. Buckhouse
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN
RANGELAND WATERSHEDS 4
3. WATER QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS 16
4. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND RANGELAND WATERSHEDS 19
5. SOME NEW CONCEPTS TO GO WITH THE CURRENT ONES 20
6. MANAGEMENT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS WHICH
DIRECTLY AFFECTS WATER QUALITY 23
7. MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS 27
8. APPENDICES 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This primer was developed to aid people who design and implement on-the-
ground rangeland watershed projects which have improved water quality as a primary
goal. Rangeland as defined by the Society for Range Management, is "Land on which
the native vegetation (climax or natural potential) is predominantly grasses, grass-like
plants, forbs, or shrubs. Includes lands revegetated naturally or artificially when
routine management of that vegetation is accomplished mainly through manipulation
of grazing. Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, most
deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes and wet meadows." We also
include grazed forested areas of the western United States in the context of
rangeland. And, riparian zone vegetation associated with rangeland watersheds is
addressed in this primer. A glossary of terms (Appendix I) will be of assistance to
readers unfamiliar with some of the terminology.
Although not all the land in any single watershed project will likely be
rangeland, the authors of this primer assume that most of the watershed(s) would be
of that nature. The authors further presume that a substantial portion of the
rangeland watersheds will have a livestock grazing component. This primer was
designed for people who may not have a range management background, but who
have responsibility for a rangeland watershed project, and who need to gain some
insight on how they should go about putting together objectives and how they might
develop a monitoring approach to attain those objectives. There are a number of
related subjects in the body of this primer because the authors believe that people
function best when they clearly understand what they need to be doing and most of
all, why they need to be doing it. Therefore, it may appear to a reader that we never
get to the root of the monitoring subject. However, our intent is to lead you through
the process of trying to build the necessary understanding for your intentions so you
will have the maximum success in attaining them.
If you are primarily interested in what and how to monitor attributes of the
aquatic portion of a rangeland watershed, you should consult "Monitoring Protocols
to Evaluate Water Quality Effects of Grazing Management on Western Rangeland
Streams" by S. B. Bauer and T A. Burton, EPA 910/R-93-017. The document
covers, in some detail, the various components of streams and other bodies of water
including morphology of the systems and streambank characteristics as they affect
water quality.
There probably is no "model" kind of project which we could use as an
example to lead you through the development and implementation process. Our
primary hope is that the scope would be watershed-based. When we look at how
land management will affect water quality which originates from that land, the natural
unit is the watershed. Watersheds all have outlets although many in the West drain
into inner basins and do not end up in the ocean. Essentially, a range watershed
could be of many different sizes and complexities. It should be obvious that
monitoring complexity will increase as one deals with larger watersheds with more
INTRODUCTION
-------
tributaries. Keeping the project size and scope manageable should be a primary
consideration. These acreages will vary, but areas of more than 100,000 to 120,000
acres should probably be divided into phases or different projects.
The focus of most projects will be on improvement of land resource
management so that outputs, including high water quality (quantity, also), will be
more sustainable than heretofore. With this in mind, the primer will allow you to gain
a better appreciation of rangeland watersheds with their myriad components and
influences, of what you might want to measure or track, of how you might want to
go about doing that, and a little of how you might look at evaluating what you find.
Managing a watershed is not complicated. We need to realize it is
management of every small area and understanding the three processes that leads to
success. The entire watershed must be completely cared for regardless of ownership.
Each small piece of the landscape plays its part in the health of the entire watershed.
All parts of a watershed are equally important.
Paying attention primarily to the riparian zone which is mostly a watershed's
release mechanism will not make up for lack of attention to any part of the associated
uplands which are so important for water capture and storage as well as production
of desirable vegetation for the various rangeland uses.
Therefore, certain goals for the primer are established at the outset.
• We want readers to be able to apply these ideas to real, on-the-ground
situations. We are not talking theory, for the most part. There is one part of
the primer where some new and different concepts are discussed and the
purpose for that is to make you aware of coming possibilities.
• We want projects to have realistic, attainable goals and objectives. Therefore,
the information you as a project designer, implementor and monitor need to
develop, must be pointed toward answering or addressing goals and objectives.
• We want you to be able to use all your talents in developing a successful
project but we want you also to recognize when you need to seek other
assistance.
• Lastly, we want you to be able to determine whether or not the changes that
will be made will have significant effects on the water quality coming from the
watersheds in the project. The methods, of necessity, may need to be indirect
because there are really very few direct measures of water quality outside of
measuring water in a stream. Even with direct stream measurements, we need
to know where in the watershed the best and worst conditions exist that
contribute to the stream. The term indirect means measurements such as plant
cover, relative presence and amount of plant species, soil erosion or water
infiltration characteristics at different times. Then we must determine for each
INTRODUCTION
-------
site and situation under consideration whether or not the changes are helpful in
meeting project objectives.
There are some things this primer is not designed to do. We don't intend for it
to be a monitoring guide or manual. It is much too general for that. Several excellent
monitoring manuals do exist and they are referenced at appropriate places in the
primer. We do trust that this primer will give you helpful insight and guidance.
• We can't discuss all the methods that exist. There literally are dozens of
methods one could use to assess the different kinds of situations which exist in
the western United States. We will discuss some general approaches with
suggested methodologies but surely there will be some we'll miss. Chapter 7
contains a comprehensive table or matrix of rangeland watershed monitoring
protocols including their general strengths and weaknesses.
• The primer won't be a play by play approach. It will take professional
judgment on your part to see what parts fit your situations and try to adapt
what you find here. Rangelands are quite variable and grazing management is
site-specific. A recipe approach to guidance is simply not practicable.
• It may not be an answer-provider. In fact, it may be a question-giver.
• The primer hopefully will help you make the right decisions. But, it can't make
the decisions for you.
In summary, we want the primer to be a straightforward, easy to read,
understandable approach to designing and putting into effect good work plans for
rangeland watershed projects. When you are conducting the project, we expect you
to be able to use effective monitoring strategies and tactics which won't overtax
anyone's ability to comprehend what is going on.
Helping our rangeland watersheds to function better is a big challenge. Society
won't benefit unless that happens.
INTRODUCTION
-------
2. BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING
IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
The whole idea behind monitoring is relatively simple, One needs to have some
evidence that progress is being made toward reaching the goals and objectives that
were set. Much of what managers do is monitoring. Each time a person informally
checks on something is a form of monitoring. However, we usually don't write down
our observations or follow a prescribed format. Consequently, when we get to the
"end" of whatever we were doing, we often don't know whether or not we
progressed.
At least three different kinds of monitoring exist. These are implementation,
effectiveness, and validation monitoring.
1. Implementation monitoring is about the kind of management applied, e.g., land
treatment, grazing use dates, project completion dates, costs, etc. It is the
historical record and may vary quite a bit in its detail.
2. Effectiveness monitoring concerns short-term effects of management, e.g.,
patterns of grazing use, the kind of growing season, natural events such as fire,
drought, floods, etc.
3. Validation monitoring deals with long-term effects of management, e.g., trends in
soil loss, vegetation composition, vegetation age-class and structure changes and
the like. Validation monitoring generally is more data or measurement intensive,
and expensive, too. This level of monitoring needs to discern to what extent
changes are due to management as compared, for example, due to weather.
This primer does not explicitly focus on one or another kind of monitoring, except
that a combination of effectiveness and validation monitoring is suggested. We will
address project goal and objective development later in this section and relate
monitoring to that.
Watersheds have various components and functions that need to be understood.
Three basic breakdowns often are made: (1) the uplands, (2) the riparian zones, (3)
the aquatic zones. Often the delineation of these components is arbitrary. This
primer will not deal with the aquatic zone which is essentially the stream or water
body and all of the physical and biological components which directly affect the water
including the quality of that water, e.g., streambank condition, channel morphology,
surface roughness, etc.
We will look at the riparian zone which is the terrestrial part of the area next to
the aquatic zone whose vegetation and soils are directly affected by the water in the
aquatic zone. If the terrain is fairly steep, the riparian zone won't be very wide; it
may only be along the streambank itself. When the gradient is more level, the zone
BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
-------
of water influence (surface and subsurface) may extend some distance from the
water body itself.
The uplands are the rest of the watershed whose vegetation and soils are not
directly a product of the water, whether surface or subsurface influenced. At some
point along the riparian zone, topography will change such that the formative factors
for soil and thus vegetation won't be strongly affected by the soil moisture from the
riparian zone. There can be, no doubt, some gradations. For the purposes of this
primer, we will not be concerned with those. On the other hand, there are more or
less direct influences of vegetation along a water body which affect water quality,
e.g., shade. The source of the shade may be as much a function of the steepness
and direction of slopes as it is of the vegetation itself. All of these factors interact
which then points us to trying to understand the basic functioning of watersheds.
The following paragraphs explain this. The information was extracted, with
modification, from EM 8436 "Watershed Management Guide for the Interior
Northwest", pages 2 and 3. These same phenomena work whether you are on the
Great Plains or the warm desert.
WHAT IS A WATERSHED?
We can think of a watershed using the simplest description as the land on
which water falls from the atmosphere, is stored within the soil, and, over a period of
time, is released downslope to other locations. All land is part of a watershed.
We can also visualize each watershed as a catchment area divided from the next
watershed by topographic features like ridgetops. The water that falls within a
watershed or catchment, but isn't used by existing vegetation, will seek the lowest
points through ground water or surface runoff. Ultimately, it should appear in the
aquifers, streams, rivers, and lakes.
All life depends on water. But, soil and its attendant vegetation becomes the
means by which water promotes life. Entire societies have disappeared because they
didn't properly understand and care for their soil resource or properly manage their
pastures and rangelands.
No other resource comes close to the soil's importance. Without healthy
productive soil, plants and animals and people probably couldn't exist.
We don't directly manage soil, for the most part. We manage the vegetation that
grows in the soil. We directly manage domestic grazing animals. We indirectly
manage grazing wildlife through hunting and domestic livestock grazing influences on
the vegetation. We also alter the soil surface on forest and rangelands by building
roads and by mining; both activities directly affect the water cycle.
BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
-------
With respect to watersheds, the water cycle refers to those processes in which
water falls in either liquid or solid form and:
• is captured so it has an opportunity to move into the soil,
• is transpired by the vegetation,
• stays and is retained in the soil, or
• moves through the soil by gravity into aquifers, springs, streams, rivers, lakes -
and ultimately the sea.
From that liquid form, it can then return to the atmosphere by evaporation and
start the cycle again.
WATERSHED FUNCTIONS
A watershed has three primary water-related functions:
• capturing water,
• storing it in the soil, and
• releasing it beneficially, i.e. at rates appropriate to some optimal condition for
the site(s).
Capture
Capture means the process of water from the atmosphere getting into the soil. All
moisture received from the atmosphere, whether in liquid or solid form, should have
the maximum opportunity to enter the ground where it falls.
Managers of range and forestland can affect water capture by influencing how far
the water infiltrates the soil surface and percolates.
Infiltration is the movement of moisture from the atmosphere into and through the
soil surface. Percolation is the downward movement of water through the soil profile.
Several factors affecting infiltration rate are fixed, such as soil type (primarily
texture, structure, and depth), topography, and climate (probable type of weather
events). Soil texture is the proportion of sand, silt, and clay particles; whereas,
structure refers to the way these particles are arranged within the various layers of
the soil profile.
However, you can influence infiltration rates by managing vegetation. The plant
species (kinds and amounts) and their arrangement (pattern) for any site can be
~6 BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS^
-------
managed to give water the maximum opportunity to penetrate the surface where it
falls. This minimizes the overland flow that causes erosion.
You can manage vegetation structure (vertical arrangement of plants) and the
density of plant cover (the proportion of surface covered by vegetation) at or near the
soil surface so almost all moisture that falls reaches and can enter the ground. Good
infiltration rates are beneficially influenced by:
• plant cover that reduces raindrop impact upon the soil surface and minimizes
soil crusting,
• plant litter and organic matter on and incorporated into the soil surface to
absorb moisture and help maintain soil structure, and
• plant cover that will trap snow at or very near the soil surface (this also will
retard the rate of soil freezing to enhance water's chance to enter soil during
the winter months).
Some moisture is captured in the foliage of trees and shrubs. In areas of low
precipitation where trees and shrubs have come to dominate a site, these plants often
catch snow and even some rain so that it evaporates or sublimates (goes from solid
to vapor phase directly) before it has a chance to reach the soil surface and infiltrate.
Healthy vegetative cover with its accompanying root mass can keep soil more
permeable so moisture readily percolates into the soil profile for storage. Water often
follows abandoned root channels as well as live roots, which may penetrate
compacted soil layers or deeper horizons. Percolation also is aided by activity from
burrowing animals, insects, and earthworms and also from fracturing within
subsurface layers.
In uplands, the fundamental focus of the concept of capture relates to the soil's
ability to infiltrate water. In riparian areas, a fundamentally important determinant of
capture is channel morphology and pattern that decreases the rate of water transport
and causes flood water to flood a floodplain. Many channels (especially low gradient
meandering channels) have lost access to the floodplain by becoming entrenched and
therefore surface area for infiltration is severely reduced. The floodplain detention is
also a critical part of watershed storage (surface water as opposed to within soil).
Storage Of Water In Soil
Once water permeates into the soil, it's stored between soil particles in the soil
profile. Management practices can significantly affect storage capacity on any
particular site. However, keep in mind that the amount of moisture soil can hold
depends on its depth, texture, and structure.
BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
-------
Beyond field capacity, which is the amount of water a soil holds when saturated,
water will either percolate deeply or run off the surface. Soil moisture moves from
the site in three ways:
• through plants that grow on the site,
• through excessive water that flows through the soil profile and into subsurface
flows or seeps and then released, and
• through direct evaporation or sublimation from bare soil surfaces (capillary
action).
The kinds and amount of vegetation, and the plant community structure, can
greatly affect the storage on any particular site. For example, a site can have a high
amount of less desirable vegetation such as noxious weeds, brush, or weedy trees
that extracts water from the deeper soil profile.
If you can reduce a significant amount of that vegetation, allowing more desirable
plants to succeed, the soil water formerly used by the undesirables can either be used
by the more desirable plants or percolate through the soil profile. Desirable plants are
defined as those species best meeting management objectives for a site. They may
not all be species native to the site but they must be able to grow and reproduce
successfully on the site.
Management or treatment practices which modify the above soil surface
microclimate to reduce evaporation (slow the air movement; shade the soil and reduce
temperatures) can also conserve moisture.
Beneficial Release
In this process, water moves through the soil profile to the water table, seeps,
springs, and ultimately into streams and rivers which are conduits from the uplands.
Permanent or long term groundwater storage contributes to safe release. The amount
and rate of water released to surface flows depends on two factors:
• the water already in the soils of the uplands, riparian areas and streambanks in
excess of field capacity, including groundwater return flow, and
precipitation that exceeds the infiltration rate and flows over the soil surface
(overland flow)
Generally, more water moves through the soil profile as subsurface flows in
forested soils than in rangeland soils. The more healthy the watershed, e.g.,
desirable plant species in appropriate amounts and managed so they can reproduce
successfully, (no entrenched stream channels), the more likely the water will be
BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
-------
retained in the soil profile and on the soils (lakes and wetlands). The water's release
in a sustained manner is a result.
We make one premise that needs to be stated here. We assume it's desirable that
water should be released slowly through the stream system rather than rapidly
running over the land which results in short and severe peaks in streamflow.
The form and amount of vegetation growing in the various riparian zones strongly
and directly affects both the quality and, to some extent, the quantity of timing of
water moving through the soil. The most severe example of rapid release of water,
whether or not safely stored or captured, would be a straight or straightened channel
with little resistance to water movement.
We recognize the ideal outcomes of keeping water where it falls resulting in less
runoff and more even streamflow are difficult to obtain. There are a number of
circumstances or situations that interrupt the capture, storage, and safe release of
water but are beyond the manager's control.
One common example is when warm rains melt snow over frozen ground. Water
can't infiltrate and has no place to go but run off. However, we do feel there are
many ways we can conduct management that will beneficially affect these processes.
We should be able now to glimpse how valuable vegetation is to a watershed's
basic character. More detail will appear in forthcoming parts of the primer to show
how the vegetation type, structure and health can affect water quality and quantity.
But, first, we believe we should discuss something on project goals so our monitoring
will be developed on a realistic basis.
PROJECT GOAL AND OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT
We strongly recommend you look at the following steps and do them before, not
after, a project idea gets very far. Of course, if your project is already started, you
won't have the same luxury but that does not mean you can't or shouldn't back track
and cover these bases before proceeding further.
There are several processes or procedures you might want to take in the context
of getting goals and objectives down on paper. Those procedures are up to you. We
simply are suggesting one way to go about setting real, meaningful, desirable and
achievable goals and objectives.
Possible steps to take:
1. Talk with people who own and/or manage the land. Talk with people who live
and work in the area. Find out what they would like to see happen. Make certain
this is done. People don't like others making their decisions. They want
ownership.
BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
-------
2. Depending on the situation, find out what "outsiders" or people representing
various user groups want from the land. This is especially critical when some
public land is in the project, and, it is becoming more important even if all the land
is private.
Regarding the above steps, it is very desirable to determine both quality of life and
productivity components for the people involved in your project. People need to
agree and come to consensus on what they expect as outcomes over the long term
and, further, the kind and level of products they want and expect from the land which
will support their quality of life attributes. This may take quite a bit of time but will
be well worth it.
It will be quite evident during this initial phase how important baseline information
is. Remember, you haven't set out any definite goal yet. If you think about it, you
really can't do a lot until you have good baseline information on the current
conditions for the area you want to deal with. This should be more than simply
physical information such as land ownerships, etc. Baseline information means the
current kind and condition of the sites including their health, trend, and site potential
(see glossary), something on water quality coming from the watershed, and as much
current relevant detail as you can muster. The baseline information will be quite
valuable as you work with people in developing goals and objectives.
We recognize that, in many cases, perhaps most, good baseline information on
ecological sites, their status and health may not readily exist. What could be done in
these situations?
Qualitative descriptions may be all the information that can be developed. Photos
with appropriate, objective descriptions could be very helpful. Although not as
desirable as quantitative baseline information, these descriptions may work in order to
make some first approximation goal(s) and objectives.
Example: Let us assume there is all private land with only a small number of
ranches. Grazing systems are not well planned and carried out based on
observations.
1. Develop a rangeland and riparian zone production goal which includes water
quality and seasonality of flow. You will need to get baseline information on sites
and their current vegetation and soil conditions and trends in order to do this.
2. Next, study the current livestock management with an eye toward developing
grazing programs which have potential to better the situation in the long run.
Review all the management tools available to you and select those which will
allow the desirable plant species to best express themselves. Pay attention to
management tools which allow you to have optimum livestock distribution during
the times of the season or year when animals will be present (water availability,
To BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
-------
fencing, salt locations, trails, if in very rough country, herding). Utilize grazing
and rest periods suitable for the improvement of the vegetation. Change the kind
or class of livestock if that enterprise would be profitable. If big game animals are
overabundant, try to develop hunting strategies or recreation opportunities in order
to bring populations in line with carrying capacity.
3. Assess opportunities for direct vegetation manipulation. Undesirable vegetation
may be present on some sites. In many situations, grazing as a management tool
is not sufficient to enhance the desirables and reduce the undesirables, e.g.,
noxious weeds, excessive brush or trees.
4. On the basis of the situation, put together one or a few objectives which would
tend to show that the watershed function should get better. Will water quality
and timing of release improve? Maybe it will, but maybe that can't be well
measured.
If a project area contains 99%+ of uplands, it may be pretty difficult to pin-point
non-point source effects on water quality in the stream. Generally, areas with
exposed soils would be high priority candidates for changed management.
The emphasis in this primer is on monitoring range watersheds for improved water
quality. However, as the function of any watershed is restored or improved upon,
there are much more than just water quality considerations. Generally, the peaks and
valleys of water flows will be moderated, i.e.,. summer flows may be higher and
spring runoff events may be less severe. If water can be retained on the land longer
before it gets into water courses, there will be more likelihood it will become
groundwater or subsurface flow later in the year.
MONITORING FOR WHAT?
You should attempt to tie measurements to objectives in ways that can lead to
their accomplishment. Your goal probably will have something to do with improving
the watershed condition so that it will meet management objectives for some desired
future condition. Generally speaking, that can't be measured directly. Therefore,
develop objectives that directly relate to the biophysical situation occurring on the
area planned. By this, we mean the kind of vegetation and soil conditions that occur
on specific sites.
Example(s): As earlier mentioned, developing a goal and some objectives to meet
it can become frustrating. Yet, if this part of the overall effort does not occur
satisfactorily, project sponsors may not be able to tell whether or not a project meets
their expectations. Thus, the following is suggested as one example for a range
watershed project effort. This example assumes that baseline information exists for
the proposed project area, or at least for key sites of the area.
BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS 1 1
-------
Goal: The land, people and monetary resources on this watershed will be
managed for optimum watershed function on all upland, riparian and aquatic
components (how this goal is developed is a separate process and is addressed in
Section 6).
Objectives:
1. Infiltration rates on site-specific areas will change from (X) amount per time unit
to (Y) amount per time unit or improve (Z)% over a given period of time.
2. Sedimentation rates on site-specific areas will decline (X) amount per time unit
to (Y) amount per time unit or (Z)% over a given period of time.
3. Streambanks on specified sections of creeks will change from one configuration
to a better configuration to result in a (Z)% improvement in base flow.
4. Riparian areas of specified sections of creeks will contain (Z)% more species
and be reproducing themselves within a given period of time.
Each one of these four objectives can be monitored using one or more methods so
that over a several year period project sponsors could answer the question: to what
extent are objectives being met? The procedure you develop should have some
repeatable reporting aspect.
Direct measures for water quality may not be practical, possible, feasible, and cost
effective. (See Part 3 on Components of Rangeland Water Quality. You will need to
know what these are in context of any planned area). You may want to review the
Bauer and Burton protocols on monitoring water quality.
Think seriously of the sites and site conditions in your watershed. Ask yourself
what could/should I be looking at which might have the most direct relationship to an
objective that bears on capture of moisture, allowing it to percolate, storing it in the
soil, and then having it release through the profile, OR overland, but as clean as
possible in as controlled a way given the conditions you can manage? This is a long
question, but in thinking through that process, you should be able to come up with
the most direct indicators to monitor outside of the water itself.
Here are some examples of attributes which could be measured (get a number
for), irrespective of the difficulty of doing it.
1. Infiltration rate into the soil. These numbers would let you characterize the
amount of water in relation to the capture function. This would be important to
know because infiltration rates can be strongly influenced by the nature of the
vegetation.
12 BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
-------
2. Moisture use rates. These might be direct via some instrumentation on plant
water use or less direct through measuring soil moisture at various depths on
selected sites and site conditions. This needs to be done over time within a
season and should be correlated to precipitation (when, how much, over what
time period). Moisture use rates are a function of the kinds and abundance of
species.
3. Soil surface characteristics. Look at these in selected locations and repeat the
observations over time (perhaps every 2-3 years on some and every year on
others). Table 3 in Section 7 covers this in more detail.
Example: On an upland site with average of 12" ppt. per year, observations may
be at 3 year intervals. But, on a riparian area, an annual observation may be more
appropriate.
4. Vegetation characteristics. Since all watersheds have vegetation, this will be a
primary group of measurements. But, which ones? There are many measures and
one needs to focus on particular sites and site conditions, not look at the overall
picture, at least at first.
Trained people may be necessary to do this. If so, ask for assistance early
because the nature of the vegetation and the measurements you will use need to be
very clearly understood. Why? Because, in order to beneficially affect watershed
function, one must clearly understand the vegetation factors which affect it (see Part
4 for more detail). We can measure virtually anything if we want to. Therefore, what
we measure and what it really means are critically important.
One example wouldn't you think that the proportion of the soil surface covered
by vegetation (either canopy cover or ground cover) would be a significant measure?
You're right; it is. Normally, one would think that the greater the vegetation ground
cover, the more water will infiltrate. That might be true more often than not, but it is
not universal. The character of the vegetation (species) turns out to be more
important than the amount of ground cover. So, the more critical question is what
is the appropriate level of ground cover of which species as it relates to a site's ability
to function correctly as a watershed? Or, what is the best mix of species to meet
your management goal(s)? When a site contains the "correct" species for it, then a
cover measurement in and of itself could have relevance. One example: Baseline
vegetation information suggests some site treatment in order to establish or re-
establish more appropriate vegetation. That done, a measure of the "new" desired
species composition might be made at, perhaps, 3-5 year intervals, but a gross
measure of vegetation cover could be made annually with supplemental observations
in order to reduce the total time and effort spent monitoring, yet provide an adequate
information base for evaluating one's accomplishments.
BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS 13
-------
One needs to recognize that such vegetation measurements are indirect as related
to water quality or pollution prevention but can be very good indicators that the
watershed function is being affected by whatever the management might be.
STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DESIGNS
In order for a monitoring program of any sort to be effective, you must be able to
detect changes which may be occurring with some level of assurance. We believe
that the concepts fall into the following categories.
Survey: A survey is a broad brush monitoring exercise where one samples over
time or space to develop a background level or to determine if there are areas or
times when unusual potential problems exist. For example, you might sample streams
across a county to determine if bacteria numbers are higher in any given location than
might be expected. Equally as valid may be a survey of a given stream over time to
see if bacteria exhibit any sort of seasonal fluctuation.
If you were to conduct a survey it makes sense to sample by natural divisions. By
this, we mean above and below stream confluences, land usage changes, or plant
community types, perhaps even paired watersheds. If you were sampling changes
over time then climatic events like runoff events, frozen soil conditions, and/or
vegetation physiological stages make sense.
Project Monitoring: In project monitoring we are concerned about a specific
project or land use change. Monitoring is done to detect change in some attribute of
the system. For example, you may set up a series of temperature stations to
determine if a change in water temperature occurs following a logging operation.
Some form of statistical test must be able to be performed on this data to ascertain
its reliability. A test called an N test can be used to determine whether or not a
certain number of samples will be adequate. Then, a test such as an F test could be
made to determine whether or not statistically significant changes have occurred.
Once completed, you must be careful about interpretations, however. Data of this
sort may indeed indicate that a change has taken place, but it will not assign cause
and effect. In the temperature/logging example, it doesn't indicate that this is
necessarily the effect of logging since the study was set up only to detect change,
not to evaluate treatments. Consequently, you cannot say if the change was due to
logging, an unusual climatic regime, or other activities such as road construction.
— BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
-------
Research: A full-blown research study involving precise treatments, controls, and
replication may be in order. Such an undertaking is costly and time consuming, but is
necessary if you wish to fully determine, understand, and document cause and effect.
The point of this discussion is to illustrate that some level of statistical
manipulation of data is appropriate. Depending upon your objectives, a survey,
project monitoring, or research studies may be appropriate. Be warned, however,
without an understanding of where you are and what conclusions can be drawn, the
validity of your effort(s) are at risk.
BASIS AND RATIONALE FOR MONITORING IN RANGELAND WATERSHEDS 15
-------
3. WATER QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT
OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
What does enhancing water quality mean? How good is good? How bad is bad?
Who determines whether or not water quality is sufficient in relation to the situation?
Many other questions could be posed but which ones are important when a
watershed project is being developed and put into effect?
You as a planner or as a monitor may have little to say about actual water quality.
But, you need to know something of what it is. To address that, let's follow the path
of water as it reaches the surface of rangeland. In this context, let's assume the
liquid phase although much precipitation in the West falls as snow. It goes into the
soil as water. As it arrives at the surface of the ground cover, whether trees, shrubs
or herbs, let's assume it is "pure". Another way we might look at it what could
happen to reduce its quality?
Since this is a primer, let's look only at the basic attributes of rangeland
watersheds and the water that falls. Three primary components will be physical,
chemical, and biological pollution. They generally can't be separated and, in fact, are
interconnected.
Physical pollution refers to what makes the water "dirty". Really pretty easy
answer dislodged soil and vegetation detritus, primarily. Sedimentation is a primary
effect when water picks up soil particles or particles on the site that act like soil
particles. Sedimentation in and of itself is simply a physical phenomenon influenced
by many factors. It may be and often is a desirable characteristic when transport of
soil from one place to another might be a good thing. Example: If the objective is to
build up the level of the riparian zone, the sediment has to come from somewhere.
Where it does come from could be critically important (an upstream streambank) or
less important (as small amounts above what well managed vegetation can catch in
overland flow).
Sediment is carried when water moves and dropped when it slows down or pools.
The same sediment caught by streamside vegetation and deposited to build riparian
zone soil depth and help build a water table can have poor effects in the stream itself
when it settles out and degrades a fishery by changing the spawning, habitat or feed
supplying characteristics. It all depends on magnitude of activity and whether or not
management objectives are all addressed equally. Water temperature effects are a
form of physical pollution. Such effects as related to canopy cover provided by
riparian zone vegetation are discussed in Bauer and Burton (1993), pages 66-76.
Chemical pollution refers primarily to chemical substances contained in water
regardless of whether or not the water picked them up in the sediment as it moved
over the surface or infiltrated and got them in the percolation process. One concern,
of course, is whether or not chemical substance additions to water were from
16 WATER QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
-------
artificial or natural sources and could be prevented or minimized through better
management. Certain soil types contain more of some elements (e.g., selenium,
magnesium salts, or phosphates) than others. Water running off or through those
formations will no doubt have greater levels, irrespective of the type of land
management.
The upland component of instream chemical pollution will be a function of the
characteristics of the situation. For example, sediment control will have less benefit
to control of soluble salts and more benefits for reducing phosphates which adhere to
soil particles. This will be especially important when sediment is trapped before
entering the aquatic zone.
Generally, rangelands receive very few to no artificial inputs which will reduce
water quality from a chemical or toxicity standpoint. We are speaking in the normal
course of management of livestock or even direct vegetation manipulation.
Specialized situations, e.g., road building, mining, oil/gas exploration, are outside the
purview of this primer. Unless management activities are beyond recommended
levels (e.g., too much fertilizer, if used at all, or herbicides beyond labeled uses, or
improperly applied), chemical water pollution should be minimal and not of significant
concern. Furthermore, it would be very difficult to monitor for and pinpoint a cause.
Biological pollution refers to organic sources -- plant and animal material, dead or
alive, which can negatively impact water. On rangelands, these would primarily be
those factors of the nutrient cycle which may be "off balance" with the place on the
landscape or with the management and use. An enhanced nutrient cycle which
includes the grazing animal is recognized as being critically important to a well
functioning system. Plant materials which have undergone partial digestion, whether
from a cow, horse, sheep, elk, deer, moose, mouse, kangaroo rat, or other warm-
blooded animal, are recognized as more easily, directly and efficiently returned into
the soil nutrient pool as contrasted to standing plant material. This phenomenon is
quite natural and desirable.
The questions become: What levels and kinds of biological materials on the land
are detrimental to water quality and for what uses? Often, the crux of the issues
comes down to biologically degraded or potentially degraded water quality in relation
to a space and time function associated with use. One example may be the
juxtaposition of manure and urine from livestock as it relates to a particular riparian
zone and time. If management objectives for an area include some relating to fishery
enhancement or recreation, especially water-based recreation, the obvious solution
would be to remove the causes to the extent possible and at the most sensitive or
effective times.
Increasingly, we are seeing fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus bacterial
analysis being used to determine public health status of wildland waters. The
concept of indicator bacteria and their relevance to public health and safety was
developed for municipal drinking water. Wildland systems may respond far differently
WATER QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS 1 7
-------
(Bohn and Buckhouse 1985). In wildland systems it is not obvious that pathogenic
organisms will behave on a parallel track to the indicator bacteria. Consequently, you
need to recognize that such measurements may be useful primarily as indices rather
than absolutes.
One concept that bears consideration, for example, is how you collect the water
sample. If the public health protocol of collecting water from the water column
without disturbing the sediments is followed, you will get a much lower bacterial
count than if water is collected following disturbance of the sediments. Yet, in terms
of livestock or wildlife impacts on wildland streams, it may be appropriate to disturb
the sediments since that may illustrate the extent of and time since impact more
realistically than the undisturbed water column might. This is based upon the
observations of Moore et al. (1990) as they observed fate of organisms in streams.
The bacteria were observed to settle into sediments fairly quickly and to remain there
for a matter of weeks prior to die-off. During that period prior to die-off, the bacteria
could be resuspended by disturbance.
CONCLUSION
Project planners and land managers need to recognize that physical, chemical, and
biological water quality effects can be both man-influenced and naturally-influenced.
The difficulty often will come if a water quality authority will, for whatever reason,
establish a standard of water quality which is not possible to meet because of
existing natural or less man-influenced phenomena or is set by narrative criteria such
as "free from" requirements. Standards and guidelines that include water quality
need to include, to the extent practicable, recognition of causal factors on a
management unit basis. Management objectives which include direct water quality
parameters must be developed on a realistic and rational basis relative to the existing
conditions and situations.
?8 WATER QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS^
-------
4. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
Soils, plant and animal life on ecological sites evolve or change over time. Primary
influences or factors, in addition to time, are topography or relief, climate, organisms
or biota, and the basic parent material which provides the mineral base for soil. The
ability of any site to capture, store, and beneficially release moisture from
precipitation is governed by these environmental factors. Management has no direct
control over these factors, except organisms, but needs to recognize the limitations
they may place on watershed function.
Brief examples:
1. Soil texture is the proportion of clay, silt, and sand. Capture is accelerated as the
proportion of sand and silt would increase but storage would increase as the
proportion of clay and silt increase for soil of the same depth.
2. Organic matter (OM) in the soil generally, the higher the OM, the greater the
capture and storage and the slower the release.
3. Vegetation structure The more diverse the structure (3 dimensional) the more
likely falling precipitation will be safely entering the soil surface. When the form
of the precipitation is snow that can be trapped in branches, twigs and
aboveground foliage, however, a significant proportion may be lost to sublimation.
Also, in hot climates too much structure will cause moisture to evaporate before it
can reach the soil surface.
4. Topography Slope and aspect has a great bearing on watershed function. On a
north slope, which will be a different ecological site than on a south slope, soil will
be deeper, there will be more vegetation, and the inherent watershed function will
be more stable. The converse is true (generally) for a south slope. This simply
means that we should expect to find the capture, storage, and safe release
functions to act differently. Topography, specifically surface geology, is also
important in their influence on watershed features. Stream gradient, valley floor
and wall makeup, and bed material all are influenced by this and are important in
watershed and riparian classification.
5. Climate The forces of temperature, precipitation, wind, and sun all affect the rate
of weathering, rate of organic buildup, and extent of hospitable sites for plant
growth and organic accumulation.
When we look over an ecological landscape, we can find many different situations
where topography, soil or parent material, organisms, climate, and time all interact
differently, in turn affecting watershed function differently. It would be impossible to
consider all these factors and interactions when designing the monitoring program for
a project.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND RANGELAND WATERSHEDS 19
-------
5. SOME NEW CONCEPTS TO GO WITH THE CURRENT ONES
In the context of monitoring rangeland watersheds in the future, one needs to be
cognizant of some recently derived concepts. These new concepts will be used in
modern range management but the rate with which they will be adopted is not
currently known. This section is designed primarily to make you aware of the
concepts and to be prepared to use them or adapt your approach to them when the
time comes.
If it were possible for you to have a complete inventory of the rangeland
watersheds for a proposed project, all measurements or observations (baseline
through any point in the future) would be organized on an ecological site basis. The
term, "ecological site", may be new to some, but the concept has been used for
many years. The Society for Range Management Task Group on Unity and Concepts
in Terms defines an ecological site as "a kind of land with specific physical
characteristics which differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce
distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its response to management." On
rangelands, an ecological site is the same as a range site.
On many rangeland areas, ecological/range sites have already been mapped. If
not mapped, they likely have been described. Ecological sites are repeated over the
landscape within fairly broad boundaries. They vary in size because they are a
distinct kind of land (soil, vegetation, weather, topography). So, ideally, you would
like to have the watersheds in a project mapped into ecological sites.
Will the current vegetation within any ecological site be similar? Probably not.
Think of the idea of range condition, or ecological condition (not defined and not to
be used but mentioned here because people do use the term), or ecological status.
All these ideas relate to the extent to which the vegetation, in terms of species
amount, kind, and proportion, are similar/dissimilar to the climax plant community or
the potential natural community, or the potential plant community for that site. The
terms with formal or accepted definitions appear in Appendix I. It gets confusing;
even range management professionals don't all agree. But, the facts are that the
current vegetation on a single ecological site probably varies within that site. The
important question often needing an answer is, simply is the vegetation, over time,
trending toward, away, or staying the same as the climax or potential vegetation for
the site? Ideally, you as a monitor would like to know that, even for water quality
determinations. But, that information may not be necessary in order to have a
successful project.
Now, for the new concepts. They are being developed by two professional
groups one a task group of the Society for Range Management and the other a
committee of the National Academy of Sciences. Their tasks were different but some
of the ideas/concepts brought forth are similar. The basic question each looked at
boiled down to: do existing inventory methods for rangelands really measure how
healthy that rangeland is? The answers were, no, not in the sense of site protection
20 SOME NEW CONCEPTS TO GO WITH THE CURRENT ONES
-------
and site integrity. Neither site protection nor site integrity are formally defined terms.
Site protection refers to the nature and character of the vegetation on the site in
terms of its ability to withstand erosive forces on soil imposed both naturally and by
management. Site integrity relates to the site's ability (vegetation and soils) to
sustain itself or even to positively respond to management over time.
Consequently, some new recommendations were made. The National Academy of
Sciences Committee developed recommendations on looking at rangeland as healthy,
at-risk, or unhealthy. They determined that our current approach using vegetation
attributes to characterize range condition just wouldn't work to characterize health
since a combination of vegetation and soils attributes are necessary to do this.
Appendix II contains two tables relating to this subject. The committee appeared to
be influenced by ecological chaos theory as discussed by Westoby et al. (1989) and
Laycock (1991). Laycock's article is included in Appendix III.
The Unity in Concepts and Terms Task Group, whose report has been adopted by
the Society for Range Management, made some specific recommendations along the
lines that each ecological site, in order to retain its integrity (vegetation, soils, and
associated animals) had to have a certain level of health. They called this a Site
Conservation Rating (SCR). Furthermore, if the vegetation on a site unravels too
much, regardless of cause, the SCR will be lower and it may be below the threshold
of recovery to attain the potential for that site. The point along the scale of site
conservation ratings for any ecological site where this occurs is referred to as Site
Conservation Threshold (SCT). Both of these terms are defined in Appendix I.
A further new concept was proposed. This was to characterize the desired
vegetation for the site when it is in acceptable health and will meet management
objectives designed for it. This is termed "desirable plant community" (DPC). The
suggested definition by the SRM Task Group is "of the several plant communities
which may occupy an ecological site, the one that has been identified through a
management plan to best meet the plan's objectives for the site." This addressed
both adapted plant species and objectives which are expected to be diverse and
holistic in character.
The idea, when integrated, might be summarized as follows: Ecological site #1 is
delineated on a map and it can be seen on the land. It may be several thousand acres
in size but probably is several dozen to several hundred acres. Based upon objectives
developed which relate to the good for the planned area, a DPC is deemed
appropriate. It may or may not be the potential natural community or potential plant
community but it will be a recognizable, sustainable mix of vegetation for the site.
Your baseline inventory will allow characterizing the current vegetation into Site
Conservation Ratings (SCR). Perhaps some of the vegetation will be in a SCR which
approaches or is at or below the Site Conservation Threshold (SCT). This would tell a
manager where the "sore spots" were. It's quite possible decisions for management
or improvement would be focused on the areas with the lowest SCRs.
SOME NEW CONCEPTS TO GO WITH THE CURRENT ONES 21
-------
Now after all this explanation in a very simplified manner, you need to know that
these approaches may not be used yet. However, the basic site integrity needs to be
protected. If it is not protected, site deterioration may occur to the extent that the
site potential cannot be restored because of soil productivity losses. In essence,
another ecological site exists on those parts of the ecological site with an SCR(s)
below the SCT. Refer to the definition of ecological site on page 16 and in the
glossary (Appendix I). It is possible for the soils of an ecological site to be degraded
enough that no kind of treatment can restore its ability to produce the kind and
amount of vegetation that it formerly could produce. In a riparian zone setting, a
channel may be so seriously vertically incised that management changes cannot be
expected to bring back the site's integrity except over extremely long (decades or
more) time periods. Protecting basic site integrity is another phrase meaning to
manage such that site potential is not jeopardized.
So be aware of these new approaches. They are land health based. They likely
have great relevance for monitoring range watersheds. If you have an opportunity to
design a monitoring approach to incorporate these ideas, they should be considered.
22 SOME NEW CONCEPTS TO GO WITH THE CURRENT ONES
-------
6. MANAGEMENT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS
WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS WATER QUALITY
We now look at how range watersheds are influenced by management and how
management actions may have different kinds or levels of impacts on the intended
results. At the conclusion of this part, we recommend that you read an excellent
article reprinted in Appendix IV (Prescription Grazing to Enhance Range Watersheds).
Although all rangeland watersheds will not be grazed by domestic livestock, a high
probability exists that most will be grazed. Therefore, we will assume that livestock
grazing is the primary use which must be managed. We will further assume that
vegetation on the watershed(s) is the primary component which has the potential to
affect capture, storage, and beneficial release of moisture. A project would not
(probably) even be considered unless the sponsors thought that the watershed
function was not operating satisfactorily and that something "wrong" could be righted
through a change in management.
Books have been written, based upon research, which examine in great detail how
grazing and other range disturbances influence site conditions. Users of this
document are encouraged to read and understand that material if they need to know
more. The purpose of this part of the primer is only to look at the characteristics of
grazing and other disturbances in relation to the effects on vegetation and thus on
watershed function.
Any project sponsor, when it comes down to it, must ask what desired changes
do we want in relation to the goal of improving watershed function? The changes
may be couched in any number of different forms, e.g. desired future condition,
potential plant community, or simply, a certain level of vegetation change which more
adequately utilizes the site's resources. Riparian zones are an important component
and even though they make up only .5 to 2% of western watersheds, their
importance lies in the storage and safe release component much more than in the
capture part of the function. Aside from watershed function, riparian zones can
provide 80% or more of the habitat for many species of wildlife.
For water to be stored, and then beneficially released, there must be soil depth
and therefore volume. Many low gradient stream channels and their associated
riparian areas can be improved by managing for sediment deposition. Taller
vegetation of diverse structure (a mix of herbs, shrubs, and trees) will allow this to
develop. If one's objective were to manage for a higher population of those types of
species, the monitoring approach would need somehow to be able to discern that.
Desirable vegetation needs the opportunity to grow and reproduce itself.
Invariably, desirable vegetation is perennial, not annual or biennial. A possible
exception to this would be the California annual type where virtually all the
herbaceous species on upland have been annuals for much of the past 1 1/2 to 2
centuries. New plants may not be necessary each year but the opportunity for the
plant to reproduce itself needs to be provided whether or not that is the result. The
MANAGEMENT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS WATER QUALITY 23
-------
age-class structure of healthy vegetation needs to be understood. As an example,
there are innumerable places in the western U.S. along water courses, or in snowdrift
accumulation areas, where species such as aspen, cottonwood, and willow are
present primarily as mature and old specimens, or may even be absent since they
were removed by past management practices. Where are the young and middle-aged
plants, which by definition are necessary to sustain those kinds of plant communities?
Managers need to develop actions which will accomplish that, if that is possible. For
example, water diversions or impoundments to accommodate irrigation or other
beneficial uses may have altered the stream flow so that new ecological potentials
exist.
A significant proportion of western U.S. vegetation developed with fire as part of
its environment. That influence has all but disappeared although much academic and
some management attention is being given to prescribed burning. Some species on
uplands, especially woody shrubs and trees (e.g., species of sagebrush and juniper)
have greatly increased their area in the absence of fire. Plants such as these two
categories, when in overabundance, strongly influence the capture and storage
functions. Research shows that moisture is lost to the site by overabundance of
these species through their competitive effect on desirable plants rendering many
interspaces bare or nearly bare. The moisture that does enter the soil tends to be
entirely used by the abundant woody plants leaving none for deep percolation
(storage) and release to streams.
Often, management actions cannot use prescribed fire in the first phase because
too much fuel exists or there is not enough fuel or because it is standing (trees or tall
shrubs) and not prone to burn. Some other form of vegetation manipulation would be
in order since research and experience shows that managed grazing in those
circumstances can't be successful in beneficially changing the vegetation in a
reasonable time frame. There are exceptions to that statement (e.g., goats do
consume small junipers; feeding cows in winter physically breaks sagebrush).
However, managed grazing is more effective when animals will consume undesirable
as well as desirable plants or plant material, or, in some cases, when undesirable
plant changes have not progressed too far and a combination of managed grazing and
some direct intervention will be successful in tipping the balance in favor of desirable
species.
What about the grazing activity itself as a manipulative tool for vegetation?
Vegetation often is perceived only as forage for animals and not critically important to
the adequate functioning of the watershed. We need to realize vegetation's role for
all of its properties. Sometimes a concerted educational program and coordinated
resource management planning, where we can come to common understanding of the
problems and develop acceptable and workable solutions, is the first part of a
successful watershed project.
How understanding comes about is outside the scope of the primer. But, for
grazing livestock to be managed in accordance to a watershed goal, some change in
"24 MANAGEMENT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS WATER QUALITY
-------
relation to current procedures probably is necessary. Much research has gone into
trying to understand how animals graze and their effects on plants. A whole body of
knowledge has developed on grazing management to show how livestock and plant
species interact. It is a complicated subject with endless combinations of
management factors. Managers with a clear land objective(s) in mind can often
accomplish desired vegetation objectives through using animals in some of the
following ways:
• How many livestock, of which kind or class, should be grazed at any particular
time during the year?
• How long should the livestock graze? How long should plants be rested? How do
rest and graze periods affect the vegetation at different times of the growing
season?
• How much vegetation should not be grazed (left as residual) in relation to time of
a season? Grazing a pasture in the dormant season to (X) pounds per acre
residual may be fine because it will all grow back when the growing season
comes. Grazing it to (XXX) pounds per acre residual may be necessary in the mid-
growing season in order for the desirable plants to have the opportunity to regain
vigor and to complete their growth cycle.
• Where does one graze in relation to ecological sites available to graze?
• How does one get effective distribution of the grazing over the land (both stock
and wildlife)? How does it change during the year? Do wildlife numbers need
some control?
• Should one graze more than one kind or class of stock in order to meet certain
objectives?
These are only some of the considerations. Commonly, grazing approaches will
change over time as conditions change. Strongly consider the safety valve of not
utilizing any area too heavily at any time until provisions can be made to closely
manage and monitor all aspects of the program and to plan far in advance of actual
livestock moves.
Be realistic in your expectations of change both in terms of how much and how
fast. Vegetation in riparian areas will change more rapidly and to a greater extent
than that on uplands. Drought, or below normal moisture, will make change
especially slow on uplands, even when the management is correct for the site
conditions.
Always keep the vegetative objectives in mind. The vegetation objective for each
ecological site should have been constructed to achieve something to do with
capturing, storing, and safely releasing water in the watershed. As stated earlier,
MANAGEMENT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS WATER QUALITY 25
-------
unless there is something unusual in the soils, geology, or other uses, the physical,
chemical, and biological effects on water quality will be benefited when the
watershed is in proper functioning condition.
Because there are so many real possibilities, examples are considered of little
importance. This is not a cop-out; we simply do not want readers to grasp an
example as something they can directly apply to their own situation. Because we
have assumed that most range watersheds will be grazed by livestock and probably
wildlife as well, we strongly recommend that watershed project sponsors gain
technical assistance on vegetation and grazing management from qualified
professionals. We must remember that domestic stock are owned and managed on a
private enterprise basis. Each ranch operator has objectives, not all of which may fit
the watershed objectives at the outset. Ways need to be found which dovetail
various objectives, including those that relate to wildlife and fish and other kinds of
uses.
The approach of coordinating the resource management through a recognized
process called Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) would serve
project sponsors and managers well. The Society for Range Management recently
(1993) published a comprehensive set of guidelines on Coordinated Resource
Management. Specific articles on how to conduct coordinated resource management
planning are included in Appendix V.
~26 MANAGEMENT OF RANGELAND WATERSHEDS WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS WATER QUALITY
-------
7. MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
Most, if not all, measurements to make on a rangeland watershed will be indirectly
related to the ability of the watershed to capture precipitation, store it in the soil, and
beneficially release it to the water table, surface water bodies, or run off in as clear or pure
a state as possible. Changes in seasonality of flow probably also will be determined
indirectly. Trying to track flow changed back to land treatment may be difficult unless
carefully controlled conditions exist. Essentially, we are looking for indicators which are
repeatable across time and done by different people.
Several textbooks and manuals exist which go into great detail on methodology.
When desirable, we make reference to these with the expectation readers will be able to
gain access to the materials. We do have some direct recommendations, however, and
have included the supporting materials in the appendix.
We discuss a number of methods with their relative uses, advantages and
disadvantages. You will need to determine your own needs and which methods you
believe will be most useful under your conditions. Don't pick a method because you like it
or are familiar with it and then try to use it inappropriately. Remember that monitoring's
greatest use will be to show an indication toward or away from an objective. Even if you
are making discrete quantitative measurements, the interpretation is equally important as
the measure itself.
Let's visualize ourselves out on the land. We ask ourselves what attributes of the
ecological site we are on have the greatest relevance to watershed function and its
contribution to enhanced water quality? For uplands, a primary one is the proportion of the
site not covered by protective plant (live or dead) or rock material and thus subject to water
or wind erosion. Another measure would be the proportion of the site covered by desirable
plants, both above and below the soil surface. We can only infer the below ground part.
This measure plant cover - can be different from one season to another and, of course,
as a response to defoliation by livestock or wild animal grazing. An important measure, as
we evaluate a site over time, is the proportion of plant species there, especially the relative
desirability of some over others.
Current vegetation on virtually any ecological site will vary across it, e.g.,. some
parts will be in different condition. Consequently, where one makes measurements or
observations is as important as the kind of method selected. Because most monitoring will
occur over time, the consistency of method used is very important. For example, plant
cover can be estimated using a variety of techniques, but there are limitations to each
method and you need to be familiar with these. Consistency of methods is especially
critical if a mix of private and public lands is in the project. The same methods should be
used on opposite sides offence lines.
A very important attribute of the site at the various times it will be monitored is the
infiltration rate of water. That can be measured and we do recommend it. The sampling
procedure both within and across sites needs to be clearly worked out in order to account
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS 27
-------
for variability due to management effects. There are characteristics of the soil and soil
surface such as erosion effects that can be monitored such that, when done at either a
periodic or regular basis, can be interpreted in a trend to better or worse soil health.
Special concerns exist about riparian areas, especially about the condition of the
streambanks. Riparian areas make up less than two percent of western watersheds but
they are very important to the water storage and beneficial release components of
watershed functioning. Managing for complex vegetation is often a goal in riparian areas.
One needs to know the relative proportion of plant species, especially woody plants, which
will come to occupy sites as management changes occur. Methods that might be used
need to detect these changes. As an example, if Kentucky bluegrass were a primary
component and a shift to sedges, rushes and more mesic grasses such as tufted hairgrass
would indicate an increase in site health, the methods would have to discern that.
KINDS OF METHODOLOGY
We discuss three basic approaches: those dealing with the soil:water relationship,
those on vegetation, and those on the soil situation itself.
SoihWater Relationship
Infiltration Plots And Simulators
A primary objective of watershed management is to have watersheds capable of
producing well functioning quantity, quality, and timing of water flows. To accomplish this,
one must recognize that it is imperative to have properly vegetated watersheds which
CAPTURE precipitation where it falls; STORE precipitation in the soil profile, and
BENEFICIALLY RELEASE it as subsurface flows at springs and seeps, or into ground
water.
Capture of precipitation translates to infiltration of water across the air/soil interface.
While a number of factors influence infiltration, vegetation (aboveground litter and below
ground organics) is critical and within the management purview of the land steward. Since
high rates of infiltration are desired, how might one measure it?
Watershed Studies
These large area studies integrate the infiltration rates across the watershed and
deliver an output (streamflow) at the bottom. The advantages and disadvantages are as
follows:
Advantages: integrative response.
Disadvantages: costly; difficult to separate individual land treatment responses since it
produces an integrated response.
28 MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
-------
Small Plot Studies
Artificial Rainfall
Various simulated rainfall (sprinkler) techniques have been developed allowing one
to rapidly accumulate data from any number of land treatment scenarios.
Lysimeters
Permanent bordered plots enabling one to measure input and output, generally from
natural precipitation events.
Ponded Water
Ring and bucket infiltrometers can be driven into the soil surface and water poured
into them. One measures the length of time necessary for infiltration of that water volume
to occur. This method is not sophisticated but does take judgment in its use since the
existing soil moisture must be taken into account.
Advantages: Plot studies are more manageable than watershed level studies in terms of
time and money. One can test a given best management practice (BMP) since the size of
the plots is small.
Disadvantages: The data is generated from a specific point and may not be reflective of
the watershed as a whole. It may be difficult to simulate rainfall, creating a systematic
error in the data. Lysimeters are often very costly and labor intensive. Ring or bucket
infiltrometers may produce indices, but since ponded water doesn't naturally occur in
upland sites, it is an artificial (and high) value.
Models
Ever since the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was developed, computer
models of infiltration have been attempted. They produce rapid simulations and may
trigger fascinating thought processes.
Advantages: An ability to create "what if situations and to rapidly evaluate tedious
volumes of data.
Disadvantages: Dangerous if used as a substitute for thinking and for field data.
Computer simulations offer dramatic help in watershed level planning, but can give no
better results than the data which is programmed into them.
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS 29
-------
Runoff Plots
The degree or amount of sedimentation reduction resulting from management
actions can be estimated through runoff plots. The scheme need not be elaborate. One
approach which has merit and can be tailored to particular conditions was developed and
used in Utah on pinyon-juniper watersheds. Most runoff plots are used in a research
context but this method has practical aspects. A reprint on a similar approach but in a
research mode appears as Appendix VI (Williams and Buckhouse 1991). The method can
be used to contrast different conditions on the same sites at the same time or to track what
happens on the same sites with the same management over a period of time.
The procedure works like this. A portable rain gauge is necessary at each location
in order to record storm events. A 6 foot by 18 foot (3-6 foot boards) rectangle is
constructed on site using 1 by 6 cedar (to reduce decomposition). The long side is parallel
to the slope. The boards can be carried to the site and then fit together with inner tube
hinges and staples or roofing nails. About 50% of the depth of the 1 by 6 is buried in soil
such that any moisture that falls within the plot will either infiltrate or flow down slope. The
slight trench built for the boards should be dug such that all work is done on the outside of
the plot (no extraneous soil for the runoff to pick up).
On the lower side, a covered 5 gallon plastic pail is partially buried with a plastic
pipe from a hole in the down hill board leading into the pail. Silicone caulking keeps
moisture from leaking out around the pipe. Knotholes also should be caulked.
After storm events or at regular intervals the rain gauge is read and the moisture in
the pails measured. Sediment can be weighed and any analyses conducted on it that may
be desired. The amount of moisture running off the 6 by 18 plot is subtracted from the
moisture falling on the plot and the difference was what penetrated the soil surface.
Several locations should be monitored concurrently in order to get an idea of the variation
existing in the watershed.
This approach will graphically display how management affects soil-water
interrelations. One should build a photographic record of the procedure. This, coupled
with calculated infiltration and sediment loss, should more clearly illustrate how
management would affect water quality. If the area were grazed, the plot could still be
used but the rain gauge, sediment collection pails and 1 by 6 borders could be at risk.
Vegetation Measures
All life has beginning and end. Noting the age class structure of vegetation is
critically important. For example, riparian area recovery often is associated with a
succession to more mesic woody species and the success of this phenomenon hinges on
their ability to grow and reproduce themselves. In other words, there needs to be new
individuals, young ones, middle-age/sized ones, and old ones.
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
-------
On an upland range watershed, noting the age class structure of plants like several
of the species of juniper can suggest whether or not the trend regarding site health is
improving or not.
Professional knowledge on the ecology of the sites and on the various
vegetation methods will be necessary in order for an effective monitoring program to
be developed and put into effect. People with range management expertise should
be sought out and asked to cooperate. Knowledgeable professionals are especially
important for interpreting raw monitoring information.
Tables 1 and 2 contain detail on ecological and vegetation methods. However, we
believe one needs to understand the several vegetation and site parameters as shown
here.
Site Parameters
1. Bare soil-
2. Plant canopy cover -
3. Plant basal cover
4. Plant density
5. Plant weight -
6. Plant frequency -
The proportion of an area which is bare soil, (not vegetated or
covered by litter, or not covered by protective rock or stones).
The proportion of an area covered by the vertical projection to
the soil surface of all plants on a species by species basis.
The proportion of the area covered by the bases or crowns of
herbaceous plants. Not well suited to other than discrete plants
or plant clumps.
The number of individuals, by species, on a unit area basis.
Best for shrub or tree species and useful as a measure of a
plant's distribution by age class over time.
The amount of biomass expressed in weight per unit area by
species as produced on an annual basis. Often expressed as
current annual growth on a dry weight basis. Will not be
needed, generally, as an indirect water quality indicator. But, it
is an extremely important attribute when managing for various
uses, especially grazing.
Relative presence of species. Not to be recommended in the
context of indicating watershed health. Could be an adjunct
measurement.
7 Species composition - This is a calculated vegetation characteristic. Can be
misleading information if not understood clearly. It really
means the proportion of the present vegetation by species as
measured by cover (area) or weight.
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
-------
8. Utilization -
9. Residual vegetation -
This is a measure of the vegetation removed by grazing
animals. It is an indirect measure. When used correctly with
development of use maps by sites, and especially noting
degrees of use by species, the information is quite useful in
helping describe site protection characteristics of a grazed
watershed. Measuring forage utilization needs to be done in
the context of when grazing occurs in relation to when plants
grow. If the grazing prescription calls for a single grazing
event, then assessing the amount and patterns of utilization at
the conclusion of the grazing may be sufficient if no regrowth
occurred. If regrowth occurred, measurements after regrowth
would be desirable. The same can be said about multiple
(repeated) grazings. Rules of thumb such as take half, leave
half should be used with care because of variations in site and
growing conditions.
This is the reciprocal of utilization and is important to measure
because the amount and configuration (structure) left after
grazing will need to protect the site. Measures can be of cover
or of weight.
Growing season weather data are especially helpful in
evaluating site attributes. The kinds of conditions, especially
precipitation and temperature, have a great bearing on what
takes place with the vegetation and the water coming from the
watershed.
You need to recognize that when using the canopy cover parameter, the character
of the vegetation can strongly influence the results. The percent of the ground covered by
vegetation can exceed 100, especially on riparian areas and/or areas with multiple
vegetation layers. When the intent is to measure all plant material occurring on a site, the
method to be used would need to discern multiple layers. You must realize that the stage
of growth and whether or not grazing has been or is occurring will affect the results.
Canopy cover measurements should be made on a species basis whenever possible.
Example: Canopy cover in year 5 may be no higher than year 1, but if it is of a more
desirable species in terms of watershed function, e.g. protecting and stabilizing
streambanks, this could indicate a significant improvement. This short discussion on plant
canopy cover should indicate to you the critical importance of having trained professionals
responsible for both the collection and interpretation of data.
10. Weather-
32
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
-------
Tables 1 and 2 summarize characteristics of several ecological attributes,
ecological concepts, and measurable parameters along with specific references.
Table 1. General Characteristics of Ecological Attributes.
Attribute Characteristics
Ecological Site
Habitat Type
Ecological Status
(Range Condition)
Range Trend
Mapable, describable, based on soils and
vegetation. May be hard to find examples in
advanced ecological status or high health.
The Soil Conservation Service site guides
should contain location of sites in climax or
potential natural community status. Once
mapped is permanent, unless poor
management changes site potential, or site
descriptions are refined.
A discernible plant community unit based
upon climax or potential natural community
which will occupy the area as succession
proceeds. Examples do occur in space but
generally are not mapped as such.
Degree to which current vegetation resembles
the climax or potential plant community or
potential natural vegetation for the site.
Measurements generally result in placing
status into status classes called range
condition by the Soil Conservation Service.
May be characterized on an annual herbage
production or an areal (cover) basis.
Change in ecological status or range
condition overtime.
References
Society for Range Management (1991)
USDA-Soil Conservation Service (1976)
USDI-Bureau of Land Management
(1988, 1992, 1993)
Daubenmire and Daubenmire (1968)
Society for Range Management (1991)
USDA-Soil Conservation Service (1976)
USDI-Bureau of Land Management
(1992, 1993)
Society for Range Management (1991)
USDA-Soil Conservation Service (1976)
The following information is being provided in order that readers will know of new concepts which are or
potentially may be useful in the near future.
Attribute
Desired Plant
Community (DPC)
Vegetation
Management Status
Characteristics
Of the several plant communities which may
occupy an ecological site, it will be the one
that has been identified through a
management plan that best meets the plan's
objectives for the site. This concept of
"desirable" carries with it meeting the two
basic objectives of management.
1. To conserve to the extent practicable
the long-term potential of the site to
produce vegetation.
2. To produce in the shorter term those
combinations of goods and services
desired in the management of the
land.
Degree to which the current vegetation
resembles that of the desired plant
community (DPC) selected on the basis of
management objectives.
References
Society for Range Management (1991)
Society for Range Management (1991)
USDI-Bureau of Land Management
(1993)
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
33
-------
Table 1 (Conf d.)
Site Conservation
Rating (SCR)
Site Conservation
Threshold (SCT)
Rangeland Health
A rating given to the current capability of the
vegetation on an ecological site which will
provide a comparable degree of site
protection. The fundamental goal of
renewable resource management is to
conserve the ability of a site to produce
vegetation which will sustain the site in
acceptable health.
The point at which the rate of deterioration
(erosion) accelerates due to management
influences. SCRs above the SCT for a site
may be assumed to be sustainable whereas
an SCR below SCT would be unsustainable
as regards the health of the site. A site
degraded below SCT may not be recoverable
to its former condition.
Healthy rangelands on which the integrity of
the soil and ecological processes are being
conserved. At-risk - Rangelands that are
changing in ways that signal increasing
potential for a shift across the threshold of
rangeland health. Unhealthy - Rangelands
that have crossed the threshold of rangeland
health. Once a threshold has been crossed,
former ecological status cannot be regained
without significant passage of time and/or
input of resources.
Society for Range Management (1991)
Society for Range Management (1991)
National Academy of Science (1993)
Table 2. Characteristics of Parameters Useful in Describing Range Watershed Conditions
Parameter Method Characteristics
Cover Line Direct measure. Precise. Reasonably
intercept repeatable among observers. Time
consuming. Tedious.
Point Simple and straightforward. Requires
transect many observations. Easy to calculate
cover and composition. Faster than line
intercept. Reasonably repeatable. Have
to judge "hits" and air movement restricts
accuracy.
Point frame Tedious and time consuming. Well
suited to dense vegetation. Have to
References
Cook and Stubbendieck (1986), p.
61-62
Pieper(1978), p. 104-105
Cook and Stubbendieck (1986), p.
58-59
Pieper(1978), p. 80
Cook and Stubbendieck (1986), p.
58-60
judge "hits" Subject to error under windy Pieper (1978), p. 75-80
conditions.
Pace Easy, quick. Not very accurate and
transect subject to human bias.
Cook and Stubbendieck (1986), p.
59
34
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
-------
Table 2 (Conf d.)
Parameter Method
Canopy
class
Estimated
cover
Characteristics
Needs judgment but well suited to
layered vegetation. Fairly rapid and
repeatable. Better suited to less dense
and diverse vegetation.
Fast. Need several observations. Is an
estimate, not a true measurement.
Repeatable when training is sound.
References
Daubenmire (1959)
Anderson (1986)
Aerial Good for use on riparian areas,
photos especially for trees and shrubs. Color
film is adequate for overall cover
determinations, but color infra-red film is
desirable for a breakdown between trees,
shrubs, and herbs. Large-scale (1:2,400-
1:3,000) best for narrow riparian strips.
Needs some ground truthing Cannot
sense differences among some species
nor discern layered vegetation well.
Relatively costly. TR 1737-2 contains
specific criteria.
Density Generally rapid. Not useful in dense
vegetation. Unless mapped, does not
give distribution. Best when individual
plants can be discerned. Cannot use to
compute composition.
Frequency Fast, easy. Can't determine distribution
or soil coverage. Can't compute
composition. Best when species not too
abundant. Good to use to spot early
changes in presence or absence.
Annual Weight estimates are useful for
Production assessing volume changes, but do not
show areal extent or relative distribution.
Of limited use as an indirect water quality
indicator.
Soil Status An integrative approach evaluating soil
stability. Is a qualitative approach so is
subjective. Best to use soil status
information as indicator of watershed
health.
USDI (1987) TR 1737-2
Cook and Stubbendieck (1986), p.
61-62
Pieper(1978), p. 104-105
Cook and Stubbendieck (1986), p.
63
Pieper(1978), p. 112-116
Soil Conservation Service (1976)
Cook and Stubbendieck (1986), p.
51-56
Pieper(1978), p. 32-36
USDI-Bureau of Land Management
(1973)
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
35
-------
Soil Situation
The soil characteristics existing on an ecological site directly bear upon that site's
ability to handle water. In Table 3, we present descriptive criteria which can prove to be
very useful, especially when taken at periodic time intervals. One does need to have
familiarity with soil but not extensive training. A recording form would be necessary; an
example is shown in Appendix MB. A photo record also would be desirable (see next
section).
Table 3. Bureau of Land Management Surface Criteria
NUMERICAL RATINGS*
Soil Movement
Surface Rock
and/or Litter
Pedestalling
Flow Patterns
Rills and
Gullies
Subsoil exposed much
of areas, may have
embryonic dunes and
wind scoured
depressions.
Very little remaining
(use care on low
productive sites). If
present, surface rock
or fragments exhibit
some movement and
accumulation of
smaller fragments
behind obstacles.
Most rocks and plants
pedestalled and roots
exposed.
Flow patterns are
numerous and readily
noticeable. May have
large barren fan
deposits.
May be present at 3"
to 6" deep at intervals
less than 5'. Sharply
incised gullies cover
most of the area and
50% are actively
eroding.
Occurs with soil and
debris deposited
against minor
obstructions.
Extreme movement
apparent, large and
numerous deposits
against obstance. If
present, surface rock
or fragments exhibit
some movement and
accumulation of
smaller fragments
behind obstacles.
Rocks and plants on
pedestals generally
evident, plant roots
exposed.
Flow patterns contain
silt and sand deposits
and alluvial fans.
Rills 1/2" to 6" deep
occur in exposed area
at intervals of 5 to 10'.
Gullies are numerous
and well developed
with active erosion
along 10 to 50% of
their lengths or a few
well developed gullies
with active erosion
along more than 50%
of their length.
Moderate movement of
soil is visible and
recent. Slight
terracing generally.
Moderate movement is
apparent, deposited
against obstacles. If
present, fragments
have a poorly
developed distribution
pattern caused by
wind or water.
Small rock and plant
pedestals occurring in
flow patterns.
Well defined, small,
and few with
intermittent deposits.
Rills 1/2" to 6" deep
occur in exposed
place at approximately
10'intervals. Gullies
are well developed
with active erosion
along less than 10% of
their length. Some
vegetation may be
presented.
Some movement of
soil particles.
May show slight
movement. If present,
coarse fragments have
a truncated
appearance or spotty
distribution caused by
wind or water.
Slight pedestalling, in
flow patterns.
Deposition of particles
may be in evidence.
Some rills in evidence
at infrequent intervals
over 10'. A few gullies
in evidence which
show little bed or slope
erosion. Some
vegetation is present
on slopes.
No visual evidence of
movement.
Accumulating in place,
If present, the
distribution of
fragments show no
movement caused by
wind or water.
No visual evidence of
pedestalling.
No visual evidence of
low patterns.
No visual evidence of
rills. May be present
in stable condition.
Vegetation on channel
bed and side slopes.
Adapted from USDI/BLM Determination of Erosion Condition Class Form 7310-12 (May 1973).
* Numerical ratings increase as sustainability increases from 1 in poor condition to 5 in excellent condition.
36
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
-------
USE OF PHOTOGRAPHY
Although not explicitly stated, most projects are not likely to be monitored through
intensive methodology. Most methods developed had both a science/research and
resource administration application. Experience shows that much more attention is given
to research methods/applications than to resource management applications. Although
not necessarily desirable, that is an accepted fact. Lack of time and monitoring knowledge
are given as the reasons for this.
However, documenting what happens on the ground through repeated photographs
taken at the same photo stations using modern techniques and consistent methods yields
very good information for monitoring. Photographs should also be taken as supplements
to quantitative methods. Photographs can monitor the visual extent of change but not the
cause of the change. That information needs to be gathered at the site and should be
appended to the photo as a descriptive caption.
Both color prints and slides will be useful. They have different uses. A pictorial
record can be built better with prints than slides but slides are necessary for visual
presentation to larger audiences. With the advent of modern color copiers, slides can be
transformed into high quality prints. Some good approaches have been developed using
video cameras. This would especially be good to use during storm events to document
effectiveness of vegetation for site protection. Being consistent and building a useful
record over time is highly recommended. If nothing else but repeated photos (close-up
and long view) exist, it may be quite possible to show that changes are positive toward
meeting certain objectives. This will especially be so when baseline photos exist.
Photographing changes that occur within riparian areas may pose special
challenges. Surface photos to document the changes in amount of vegetation and
especially proportion of species will be especially useful. Vegetation changes may be
quite significant over relatively short time periods. Care needs to be taken that vegetation
structure changes, e.g. tree growth, can be referenced to repeatable fixed points. Large
scale aerial photography has proven to be very useful, but can be costly in relation to
surface-taken efforts.
Appendix VII contains a photographic procedure developed by David Franzen, Soil
Conservation Service State Range Conservationist in Oregon. It is included here with his
permission. Users may also wish to obtain copies of two BLM manuals which discuss
photography. They are TR 1737-2, The Use of Aerial Photography to Inventory and
Monitor Riparian Areas, 1987, and TR 4400-4, Trend Studies, 1985, p.3-4 and 63-65.
They may be obtained form the BLM Service Center, D-558B, PO Box 25047, Denver, CO
80225-0047.
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS 37
-------
SUGGESTED STEPS FOR A WORKABLE MONITORING PROCEDURE
Thus far, we have discussed some of the general definitions of vegetation and soils
attributes and suggested how photos could be used. We have recommended that
measurable objectives be developed based upon specific situations existing in the riparian
zones and upland areas of the proposed project. Let's assume that you need to know how
plant and soil cover change on an upland area. What would you want to do to find that
out?
1. Select key areas to sample. One per ecological site may be adequate. Probably
only the main ecological sites will be sampled. Criteria for selecting a location
should be premised on expected management responses. If a different response,
or a different management treatment or practice will occur, select places to monitor
accordingly.
2. If baseline information has been developed, then you need to find out which
methods were used, and, if feasible and practical, use the same methods. If
baseline information does not exist, then you will need to develop it. For our
example, let's say we have three different ecological sites with two different
ecological status in each, perhaps early-serai and mid-serai. That gives a minimum
of six places to sample or study. Let us assume no prior data exist.
a. Complete information using the approach developed by E. W. Anderson is
suggested. It essentially is determining cover, all species, and an estimate of
biomass coupled with photos. His articles occur in Appendix VIM and IX.
When repeated at several year intervals, an assessment of change can be
made. You should recognize this approach has statistical limitations but is of
highly practical value.
b. If the Anderson approach were not used and only plant and soil cover were to
be evaluated, that can be done. But, it does need to be ecologically based.
By this, we mean any one of the cover methods in Table 2 which is suited to
the vegetation you are dealing with.
c. It may well be desirable to rate soil status.
3. At periodic times, usually at the same time yearly, return to the locations for a
minimum of good photographs and basic cover determinations.
4. At 1-5 year intervals, monitor the locations intensively enough so that both a
qualitative and quantitative interpretation can be made in the context of the
objectives related to pollution prevention and water quality implications.
Another example How might you go about assessing changes on riparian areas?
1. Select areas to sample.
38 MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
-------
2. Develop baseline information, especially on plant species abundance and diversity.
Record age class distribution for woody plants. Cover determinations may need to
be made using different methods than used on uplands. Vegetation will, no doubt,
be more dense and abundant. For example, herbaceous vegetation cover may
need to be assessed using a point frame or point transect. Composition by species
or species groups may need to be determined on a biomass basis as well as on a
cover basis. On the other hand, because plant and soil changes on riparian sites
have the potential to change more rapidly and to a greater extent than changes on
uplands, only more gross qualitative descriptions plus photographs may be
satisfactory.
3. Return to the site locations each year in relation to the objectives and the times of
proposed and actual use. Make appropriate observations. One might be the
degree of residual vegetation as it relates to the vegetation's ability to recover from
grazing. In this situation, observations would probably need to be made more often
than once per year or season. Obviously, this could take a significant time
commitment so selecting sites and times to monitor are critically important.
4. Pick some reasonable time interval to make more detailed or intensive observations
or measurements so you can determine the trend in management accomplishments.
Monitoring on a regular basis can help project managers assess whether or not
some treatment or management changes are really being effective. For example, if a
particular grazing management system or program of activities looks like it isn't doing what
you expected based on monitoring, change what is being done with the livestock, and
continue monitoring. Management must be dynamic and subject to change based upon
what you find through monitoring The monitoring probably does not have to be too
sophisticated for a manager to determine whether or not management activities are
working or not.
MONITORING METHODOLOGY REFERENCES
Mention has been made of methods. We have recommended the E. W. Anderson
canopy coverage approach, especially as it relates to shrub steppe and grassland areas.
It will give good point-in-time assessments so trends can be discussed.
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS 39
-------
Here are several references project managers and others may find useful. Some
are referred to Tables 1 and 2. All have some useful information.
Anderson, E. W. 1986. A guide for estimating cover. Rangelands 8:236-238. Society for
Range Management, Denver, CO.
Anderson, E. W. 1988. Canopy cover as a method of measuring trend in ecological and
soil status. Rangelands 10:27-31. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO.
Anderson, E. W. 1993. Prescription grazing to enhance range watersheds. Rangelands
15(1):31-35. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO.
Anderson, E. W. and R. C. Baum. 1988. How to do coordinated resource management
planning. J. Soil and Water Cons. 43:216-220. Soil and Water Conservation
Society, Ankeny, IA.
Anderson, E. W. and R. C. Baum. 1992. Innovations in coordinated resource
management planning. J. Soil and Water Cons. 46:411-414. Soil and Water
Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA.
Bauer, S. B. and T. A. Burton. 1993. Monitoring protocols to evaluate water quality effects
of grazing management on western rangeland streams. EPA 910/R-93-017.
Blaisdell, J. P. (ed.). 1963. Range research methods. USDA Misc. Pub. 940. 172 p.
Bohn, C. C. and J. C. Buckhouse. Coliforms as an indicator of water quality in wildland
streams. J. Soil and Water Cons. 40:95-97. Soil and Water Conservation Society,
Ankeny, IA.
Brown, D. 1954. Methods of surveying and measuring vegetation. Bull 42. Comm. Bur.
Pastures and Field Crops. Hurley, Berks. Gr. Brit.
Cleary, C. and D. Phillippi. 1993. Coordinated Resource Management Guidelines.
Society for Range Management, Denver, CO.
Cook, C. W. and J. Stubbendieck (ed.) 1986. Range Research: Basic Problems and
Techniques. Society for Range Management. Denver, CO. 317 p.
Daubenmire, R. F. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest
Sci. 33:43-64.
Daubenmire, R. F. and J. B. Daubenmire. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington
and northern Idaho. Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 60. Pullman, WA.
Laycock, W. A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American
rangelands: a viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 44:427-433. Society for Range
Management, Denver, CO.
40 MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS
-------
Moore, J. A., J. C. Buckhouse and J. R. Miner. 1990. Demonstration of the effectiveness
of an off-stream water source to reduce the water quality impact of winter fed range
cattle in central Oregon. Completion Report to Governor's Watershed
Enhancement Board. Salem, OR. 15 p.
National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland health: New methods to classify, inventory
and monitor rangelands. Report of the Committee on Rangeland Classification and
Inventory. Washington, D. C.
Pieper, R. D. 1978. Measurement Techniques for Herbaceous and Shrubby Vegetation.
New Mexico State University Press. Las Cruces, NM. 148 p.
Platts, W. S. (ed.) 1987 Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with application to
management. USDA-For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-221. 177 p.
Platts, W. S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by livestock.
Nevada Dept. of Wildlife. 433 p. (Limited availability but very comprehensive).
Society for Range Management. 1991. New directions in range condition assessment.
Report of the Task Group on Unity in Concepts and Terminology to the Board of
Directors. 32 p. (Report was accepted).
USDA-Soil Conservation Service. 1976. National Range Handbook. Washington, D. C.
USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1973. Erosion condition class form 7310-12.
USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1988. Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. Oregon
State Office H-1734-2. Portland, Oregon 50 p.
USDI-Bureau of Land Management:
1985. TR 4400-4. Trend Studies.
1985. TR 4400-7. Analysis, interpretation and evaluation.
1992. TR 4400-5. Rangeland inventory and monitoring-supplemental studies
1987. TR 1737-2. The use of aerial photography to inventory and monitor riparian
areas.
1989. TR 1737-3. Inventory and monitoring of riparian areas.
1992. TR 1737-7. Procedures for ecological site inventory.
1993. TR 1737-9. Process for assessing proper functioning condition.
Westoby, M., B. Walker and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands
not at equilibrium. J. Range Manage. 42:266-274. Society for Range Management,
Denver, CO.
Williams, J. and J. C. Buckhouse. 1991. Surface runoff plot design for use in watershed
research. J. Range Manage. 44:411-413. Society for Range Management, Denver,
CO.
MONITORING METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS 41
-------
8. APPENDICES
I. Glossary of selected ecological terms.
II. Soil surface criteria for determining rangeland health including soil trend.
A. Rangeland Health Evaluation Matrix (Table)
B. Excerpt from Rangeland Monitoring Handbook
III. Stable states and thresholds of range condition in North America.
IV. Prescription grazing to enhance range watersheds.
V. Coordinated Resource Management Planning.
A. How to do coordinated resource management planning.
B. Innovations in coordinated resource management planning.
VI. Surface runoff plot design for use in watershed research.
VII. Photo plots description and guidelines.
VIII. A guide for estimating cover.
IX. Canopy cover as a method of monitoring trend in ecological and soil status.
42 APPENDIX
-------
APPENDIX I
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED ECOLOGICAL TERMS
Age-Class. (1) A descriptive term to indicate the relative age of plants. (2) Refers to
age and class of animal. (SRM)1
Class of Animal. Description of age and/or sex-group for a particular kind of animal.
Example, cow, calf, yearling, ewe, doe, fawn, etc. (SRM)
Climax. (1) The final or stable biotic community in a successional series which is self-
perpetuating and in dynamic equilibrium with the physical habitat; (2) the assumed end
point in succession, cf. potential natural community. (SRM)
Desired Plant Community. Of the several plant communities that may occupy a site,
the one that has been identified through a management plan to best meet the plan's
objectives for the site. It must protect the site as a minimum. (Task Group)
Ecological Site. A kind of land with specific physical characteristics which differs from
other kinds of land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation
and in its response to management. Apparently synonymous with ecological type used
by USFS. (Task Group)
Ecological Status. The present state of vegetation and soil protection of an ecological
site in relation to the potential natural community for the site. Vegetation status is the
expression of the relative degree of which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants
in a community resemble that of the potential natural community. If classes or ratings
are used, they should be described in ecological rather than utilization terms. For
example, some agencies are utilizing four classes of ecological status ratings (early
serai, mid-serai, late serai, potential natural community) of vegetation corresponding to
0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75% and 76-100% of the potential natural community standard.
Soil status is a measure of present vegetation and litter cover relative to the amount of
cover needed on the site to prevent accelerated erosion. This term is not used by all
agencies, cf. range condition. (SRM)
Key Species. (1) Forage species of sufficient abundance and palatability to justify its
use as an indicator to the degree of use of associated species. (2) Those species
which must, because of their importance, be considered in the management program.
(SRM)
Kind of Animal. An animal species or species group such as sheep, cattle, goats,
deer, horses, elk, antelope, etc. cf. class of animal. (SRM)
Potential Natural Community. See Potential Natural Vegetation. (Task Group)
1-1
-------
Potential Natural Vegetation. An historical term originally defined by A. W. Kuchler
as the stable vegetation community which could occupy a site under current climatic
conditions without further influence by man. Often used interchangeably with Potential
Natural Community. (Task Group)
Potential Plant Community. One of usually several plant communities that may
become established on an ecological site under the present environmental conditions,
either with or without interference by man. (Task Group)
Range Condition, (a) A generic term relating to present status of a unit of range in
terms of specific values or potentials. Specific values or potentials must be stated, (b)
Some agencies define range condition as follows: The present state of vegetation of a
range site in relation to the climax (natural potential) plant community for that site. It is
an expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of
plants in a plant community resemble that of the climax plant community for the site. cf.
ecological status. (SRM)
Range Site. Synonymous with ecological site when referring to rangeland. An area of
rangeland which has the potential to produce and sustain distinctive kinds and amounts
of vegetation to result in a characteristic plant community under its particular
combination of environmental factors, particularly climate, soils, and associated native
biota. Some agencies use range site based on the climax concept, not potential
natural community, cf. vegetation type. (SRM)
Riparian Species. Plant species occurring within the riparian zone. Obligate species
require the environmental conditions within the riparian zone; facultative species
tolerate the environmental conditions, and may occur away from the riparian zone.
(SRM)
Riparian Vegetation. Plant communities dependent upon the presence of free water
near the ground surface (high water table). (SRM)
Riparian Zone. The banks and adjacent areas of water bodies, water courses, seeps
and springs whose waters provide soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise
available locally so as to provide a more moist habitat than that of contiguous flood
plains and uplands. (SRM)
Serai. Refers to species or communities that are eventually replaced by other species
or communities within a sere. (SRM)
Serai Stages. The developmental stages of an ecological succession. (SRM)
1-2
-------
Site Conservation Rating. An assessment of the protection afforded a site by the
current vegetation against loss of potential. SCR greater than Site conservation
threshold is considered a "sustainable" SCR and below SCT is considered an
"unsustainable" SCR. (Task Group)
Site Conservation Threshold. The kind, amount and/or pattern of vegetation needed
as a minimum on a given site to prevent accelerated erosion. (Task Group)
Trend. The direction of change in an attribute as observed over time. (Task Group)
Vegetation Type. A kind of existing plant community with distinguishable
characteristics described in terms of the present vegetation that dominates the aspect
or physiognomy of the area. (Task Group)
(SRM) refers to Glossary of Terms used in Range Management. 1989. Society for Range Management, 1839
York St., Denver, CO 80206.
2
(Task Group) refers to the Society for Range Management Task Group on Unity in Concepts and Terms Report,
July 1991.
I-3
-------
APPENDIX II
SOIL SURFACE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING RANGELAND HEALTH
INCLUDING SOIL TREND
A. This table, Rangeland Health Evaluation Matrix, is comprised of three phases. It
is Table 4-8 of the 1994 Board on Agriculture, National Research Council
Committee on Rangeland Classification Report "Rangeland Health: New
Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands".
B. Description of a subjective method to determine apparent trend in soil health.
Excerpted from: 1988. Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. BLM. Oregon State
Office. H-1734-2.
-1
-------
APPENDIX HA
Table 4-8. Rangeland Health Evaluation Matrix
Indicator
Healthy
At Risk
Unhealthy
Phase 1: Soil Stability and Watershed Function
A horizon
Pedestaling
Rills and gullies
Scouring or sheet erosion
Distribution of plants
Litter distribution and
incorporation
Root distribution
Distribution of
photosynthesis
Age class distribution
Plant vigor
Germination microsite
Present and distribution
unfragmented
No pedestaling of plants or
rocks
No visible scouring or sheet
erosion
No visible soil deposition
Present but fragmented
distribution developing
Pedestals present, but on
mature plants only; no roots
exposed
Patches of bare soil or scours
developing
Soil accumulating around
plants or small obstructions
Phase 2: Distribution of nutrient cycling and energy flow
Plants well distributed across
site
Uniform across site
Plant distribution becoming
fragmented
Becoming associated with
prominent plants or other
obstructions
Community structure results in Community structure results in
rooting throughout the available absence of roots from portions
soil profile of the available soil profile
Photosynthetic activity occurs
throughout the period suitable
for plant growth
Most photosynthetic activity
occurs during one portion of
the period suitable for plant
growth
Phase 3: Recovery mechanisms
Distribution reflects all species
Plants display normal growth
form
Microsites present and
distributed across the site
Seedlings and young plants
missing
Plants developing abnormal
growth form
Developing crusts, soil
movement, or other factors
degrading microsites;
developing crusts are fragile
Absent, or present only in
association prominent plants or
with other obstructions
Most plants and rocks
pedestaled; roots exposed
Bare areas and scours well
developed and contiguous
Soil accumulating in large
barren deposits or dunes or
behind large obstructions
Plants clumped, often in
association with prominent
individuals; large bare areas
between clumps
Litter Largely absent
Community structure results in
rooting in only one portion of
the available soil profile
Little or no photosynthetic
activity on location during most
of the period suitable for plant
growth
Primarily old or deteriorating
plants present
Most plants in abnormal
growth form
Soil movement or crusting
sufficient to inhibit most
germination and seedling
establishment
I-2
-------
APPENDIX MB
H-1734-2 - RANGELAND MONITORING HANDBOOK
(BLM Manual Supplement - Oregon State Office - Pel. 1-274 - 6/03/88)
Appendix 1
OBSERVED APPARENT TREND*
Indicators of observed apparent trend have been divided into two groups, one indicating
downward trend and the other indicating upward trend. The indicators are further classified
into indicators of soil trend and indicators of trend in vegetation. It is not safe to base
conclusions with reference to trend on one or two indicators unless they are especially strong.
If a majority of indicators point to improvement, the
apparent trend should be judged as being up; if a majority point to deterioration, the apparent
trend should be judged as being down. If a apparent trend cannot be determined, the situation
should be judged as not apparent.
SOIL INDICATORS OF DOWNWARD TREND
Rill Marks. Rill marks are small active gullies, frequently of the shoestring type. They often
appear during storms but may be obliterated later, depending on depth of cutting.
Active Gullies. These are established gullies that are raw and actively cutting. This type of
gully may vary from a few inches to several feet in depth.
Alluvial Deposits. These are soil material transported and laid down by running water. Soil
deposits may be found in depressions, behind piles of litter or debris, or at the termination of
rills and gullies. Recent deposits may partially cover the basal portions of established plants.
They may be distinguished from old ones by the absence of perennial vegetation on the
deposit.
Soil Remnants. Soil remnants are portions of the original topsoil held in place by vegetation or
plant roots. They may form the base of pedestaled plants. Soil pedestals carved by rocks or
pebbles are usually of recent origin following storms. Steep-sided soil remnants indicate soil
instability and a downward trend. Almost vertical sides are characteristic, often with exposed
roots of the plants holding remnants of the soil.
* Adapted from Forest Service Region Four "Range Analysis Handbook" July 1964.
-3
-------
H-1734-2 - RANGELAND MONITORING HANDBOOK
Active Terraces. Active terraces are "stairstep-like" in appearance on slopes. They are
produced by an accumulation of soil above clumps of vegetation and by the removal of soil
from the clumps below. Terraces are usually caused by the hooves of animals. Active
terraces have steep sides, show evidence of sliding soil, exposed live roots, and are not
stabilized by vegetation.
Exposed Plant Crowns or Roots. This is soil loss taking place currently as shown by exposed
crowns or roots appearing on young, deep-rooted perennial plants.
Wind-Scoured Depressions Between Plants. Wind removal of soil particles causes
depressions in the surface of the soil. In extreme cases, the soil surface is merely a series of
shallow depressions separated by low ridges of vegetation. If the surface of the depression is
scoured or etched, rapid downward trend is indicated.
Wind Deposits. Wind deposits are formed by fine soil particles that have drifted onto the lee
side of vegetation or into the vegetation itself. Recent wind deposits show little, if any,
discoloration of the surface material by organic matter and no decomposition of buried parts.
SOIL INDICATORS OF UPWARD TREND
Gullies Healed. These are gullies which originate on the area and are stabilized by the growth
or perennial vegetation on both sides and bottom. The sidewalls will be rounded in
appearance. The presence of vegetation in gully bottoms is not in itself a reliable indicator of
improved condition. It may be highly misleading if used without a careful appraisal of
conditions on the area drained.
Sloping-Sided Soil Remnants. These are soil remnants with sloping sides, or sided clothed
with mosses, lichens, or higher plants. Plant roots are covered by soil. Space between soil
remnants are being occupied by perennial plants.
Healed Terraces. Stabilized terraces are characterized by sloping sides clothed with
vegetation and no exposed live roots. Tops of terraces are invaded and occupied by perennial
plants.
PLANT INDICATORS OF DOWNWARD TREND
Better Forage Plants Unavailable to Livestock. Dead and dying hedged plants present. Dead
branches generally indicate that shrub is dying.
Hedged and Highlined Shrubs. Dead and dying hedged plants present. Dead branches
generally indicate that shrub is dying.
II-4
-------
H-1734-2 - RANGELAND MONITORING HANDBOOK
Lack of Reproduction and Young Plants of Better Species. Absence of seedlings or young
plants of both palatable plant species may indicate that the microclimate is unfavorable for
germination or seedling survival. If seedlings and young age classes of palatable plants are
present and those of palatable plants are absent, it may be assumed that grazing is too severe
for palatable plants to become established. Down trend is indicated.
Invasion by Unpalatable Plants. Invasion by unpalatable or poor forage plants is an indicator
of downward trend in forage value.
Palatable Plants Lacking in Vigor. Low vigor in plants is shown by the pale, sickly color of
foliage, few seed stalks produced by grasses, shallow or scant root systems of normally deep-
rooted plants, and absence of seedlings.
Scarcity of Litter of Palatable Plants. Litter scarce and poorly dispersed.
PLANT INDICATORS OF UPWARD TREND
Better Forage Plants Invading and Readily Available to Livestock. Better forage plants
growing in the openings between shrubs.
Invasion of Bare spots by Better Forage Plants. Invasion must be positive, that is, a variety of
age classes must be represented in addition to seedling reproduction. Better forage plants
should be invading in stands of unpalatable plants or on bare ground lacking vegetation.
Invasion by perennials into openings between shrubs is a good indicator of upward trend.
Invasion on Erosion Pavement. Invasion and establishment of perennial plants on erosion
pavement is a good indicator of upward trend. The basal parts of invading plants will be flush
with the ground surface if soil erosion has stopped.
Several Years' Growth from Hedged Browse. At least two or more years' regrowth is readily
established by a count of annual growth rings.
Palatable Plants Vigorous. Grasses robust with many leaves, seed stalks tall and numerous,
leaves a healthy green color. Forage plants reproducing vigorously with a variety of age
classes present.
A Well-Dispersed Accumulation of Litter from Past years' Growth. Generally, a well-dispersed
layer of litter accompanies a well-dispersed vegetal cover.
II-5
-------
H-1734-2 - RANGELAND MONITORING HANDBOOK
USDA Forest Service
FOREST
APPARENT TREND RATING
(FSH 2209.21, 2.23f)
DISTRICT
ALLOTMENT
Study Type:
Site Analysis
Trend Study
1.
2.
3.
4.
Study Name/Number,
By
By
Date_
Date
VEGETATION
Up or Stable
Favorable frequency grouping and
age classes of desirables,
intermediates, and least desirables.
Forage plants not being pulled up or
trampled out by grazing.
Vigor of key species high as
indicated by leaf length, seed stock
production, and normal color.
Browse species showing little or no
hedging.
SOIL
Up or Stable
1. Ground cover disperation - uniform.
2. No detectable soil movement.
3. Soil cover continuous and intact.
4. No exposure of plant roots.
5. Stones and rock fragments where
present, normal, and in place - no
movement of rock fragments.
6. Lichen lines on stones and rock
fragments extend to soil level.
7. No active gullies.
8. No recent soil deposits either
alluvial or aeolian.
9. No wind-scoured depressions.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
Down
A disproportionate amount of
intermediates and least desirables.
Seedlings of better plants having
difficulty in becoming established.
Forage species being pulled up and
trampled out by grazing.
Low vigor of key species as indicated
by reduced size of plant, reduced
leaf length, lack of seed stalks, and
off color (sickly yellow).
Browse species showing heavy
hedging.
Down
Ground cover disperation - variable
to highly variable.
Soil movement detectable.
Soil cover broken and soil exposed.
Plant roots exposed. *
Stones and rock fragments, where
present, concentrating on surface as
erosion pavement. Fragments loose
and often moving downslope.
Lichen lines on stones considerably
above soil surface - no lichens on
rock fragments.
Active gullies - indicated by recent
cutting and sloughing.
Recent soil deposits - alluvial or
aeolian.
Wind-scoured depressions.
1 At high elevationa.and on heavy soils some
of this may be natural due to frost heaving.
R4-2200-25 (8/81)
II-6
-------
APPENDIX
Laycock, W. A. September 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range
condition on North American rangelands. Journal of Range Management
44(5): 427-433.
1-1
-------
Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North
American rangelands: A viewpoint
W.A. LAVCOCK
Abstract
The concepts of relatively stable multiple states and thresholds
or transitions between these states has received little attention in
range management until recently. On North American rangelands
lower successional stable states occur in sagebrush and other
shrub-dominated vegetation types in the Great Basin, the short-
grass steppe, the Southwestern desert grasslands, and communities
dominated by annual grasses in California and southern Idaho.
Recognition of these stable states and models describing them are
needed to develop new concepts about range condition. The model
presently used assumes a single stable state (climax) and that the
stages of secondary succession on improving rangelands are the
reverse of the stages of retrogession. Alternative models presented
include the "cup in ball" analogy, the state-and-transition model,
and others. While much theoretical work needs to be done before
any of these models can be incorporated into range condition
standards, it is important for range managers to recognize that
multiple steady states exist for many vegetation types. One
assumption of the current range condition model is that a reduc-
tion in grazing pressure and an improvement in grazing manage-
ment will result in range improvement. If a vegetation type is in a
stable lower successional state, it normally will not respond to
change in grazing or even removal of grazing. Managers must
recognize this situation when it occurs so that false expectations of
improvement are not fostered.
Key Words: transition, climate, succession, grazing, site potential
The concept of thresholds of environmental change between
relatively stable domains or states is not new and has been dis-
cussed widely in the ecological literature (Holling 1973, May 1977,
Wissel 1984). If stability is resistance to change imposed by exter-
nal forces (Margalef 1969), then a system is stable if it returns to the
original steady-state after being disturbed or deflected (Verhoff
and Smith 1971, May 1977). An unstable state does not return to
the original level after disturbance but rather crosses a "threshold"
and continues to be deflected toward some new state (Hurd and
Wolf 1974).
Various models of stable states from the ecological literature will
be presented later. The concept of stable states or domains has not
received much attention in the range management literature until
recently. Friedel (1988, 1991) used the concept of thresholds of
environmental change to help describe and explain anomalies in
condition assessments of central Australia's arid rangelands and
stated that "the concept of thresholds offers a useful framework for
identifying important environmental changes." Friedel (1991)
pointed out that once a threshold is crossed to a more degraded
state, improvement cannot be attained on a practical time scale
without a much greater intervention or management effort than
simple grazing control. Archer (1989) discussed mechanisms to
explain how grazing might cause a shift from a grassland or
savanna domain across a threshold to a shrubland or woodland
domain. This new domz.in cannot then be altered by reduction or
removal of grazing, i.e., the threshold back to a grassland domain
is very difficult to cross. Schlatterer (1989) discussed alternate
pathways of vegetation change with each pathway represented by a
Author is professor of range management. University of Wyoming, Laramie 82071.
page of a book radiating out from the book's backing. Range
retrogession or succession differs for each case or "page" depend-
ing upon the kind of disturbance and its duration and intensity.
"Succession may be halted. . .indefinitely at some point on the
successional scale."
Westoby et al. (1989) proposed that dynamics observed on range-
lands be described by a "State-and-Transition" model. The "states"
are recognizable and relatively stable assemblages of species
occupying a site and the "transitions" between states are triggered
either by natural events (e.g., weather, fire) or by management
actions (e.g. grazing, destruction or introduction of plants) or a
combination of the two.
Laycock (1989) used the term "suspended stages of succession"
to describe plant communities that remain almost unchanged in
species composition for relatively long periods of time. Allen
(1988) discussed the influence of rate and pattern of succession and
also that some different trajectories of succession may not allow a
disturbed ecosystem to return to its original state. The reasons for
suspended stages or different trajectories of succession may include
dominance by a highly competitive species or life form, long gener-
ation times of the dominant species, lack of seed or seed source,
specific physiological requirements that limit seedling establish-
ment except at infrequent intervals, climatic changes, restrictions
of natural fires or others.
The concepts of state, domain, basin of attraction, stability,
different trajectories of succession, and suspended stages of succes-
sion are closely related. These, coupled with the concept of thresh-
olds of change that must be crossed for a system to mo ve from one
state to another, offer promise for improved concepts, descrip-
tions, and measurements of range condition.
The efforts to find a new conceptual framework to recognize and
describe changes in range condition have resulted, at least in part,
from discontent with the current concepts about range condition.
Most range condition standards in the U.S. are based on what has
been called an "ecological or climax" (Friedel 1988, 1991) or a
"successional" (Westoby et al. 1989) model. The concepts behind
this model can be traced directly to the climax and plant succession
concepts of Clements (1916) and the application of these concepts
to range management by Sampson (1919). The model currently
used was first proposed by Dyksterhuis (1949) and was, at that
time, a relevant tie between the current ecological thought and the
concept of range condition.
According to Westoby et al. (1989) the range condition model
currently used assumes that: (1) a given vegetation type or range
site has only 1 stable state ("climax" or "potential natural commun-
ity"); (2) retrogressive changes caused by improper grazing result in
unstable states which can be reversed by manipulation, reduction,
or elimination of grazing; and (3) the pathway of vegetation change
as rangelands improve (secondary succession) is identical to but
the reverse of that followed in retrogession. In this model, (1) all
possible states of vegetation can be arrayed on a single near-linear
continuum from heavily grazed or early-successional communities
in poor condition to ungrazed, climax communities in excellent
condition, and (2) all changes (degradation or improvement) occur
continuously and reversibly along this continuum (Westoby et al.
1-2
-------
1989). Smith (1978, 1988, 1989), Hart and Norton (1988), Wilson
(1989), Laycock (1989), Westoby et al. (1989), and Friedel (1988,
1991) have discussed the inadequacy of this model and the need for
new ways to describe and interpret condition of rangelands. Many
new ecological ideas and concepts have been proposed, discussed,
and accepted since those of Clements (1916), Sampson (1919) and
Dyksterhuis (1949) were in vogue. In order to effectively manage
our rangeland resources, we need to go beyond the "conventional
wisdom" of these ideas that are so deeply ingrained in the range
management profession.
Attempts have been made to modify the presently used model to
make it more realistic. Foran et al. (1978) expanded the model for
use on a grassveld type in South Africa. In this model, condition
declines because of under-utilization as well as over-utilization
(Hart and Norton 1988). Schlatterer (1989) presented a similar
model, one-half of which represented the typical succession-based
concepts. The other half "illustrated a succession to a new and
different potential as a result of various disturbances and pressures
on the site that break the chain and preclude succession according
to what theory would suggest."
The purposes of this paper are to: (1) present examples of
relatively stable states or domains of vegetation condition on
North American rangelands; and (2) discuss the models and other
information needed by the range science community to clarify and
implement these new (to range management) concepts of states and
thresholds.
Some North American rangelands, such as the grasslands of the
Great Plains, apparently evolved under rather heavy grazing by
native herbivores. Heavy ungulate use on other North American
rangelands began only a little more than 100 years ago, after the
introduction of domestic livestock, and we have a relatively good
understanding of the most common stages of retrogression for
many of these rangeland types. This is not necessarily true for some
range types in the southwestern U.S., California, or in other parts
of the world that have a much longer history of livestock grazing.
In applying succession-based methods of determining range condi-
tion, it is assumed that the stages of secondary succession on
improving rangelands not only are the reverse of stages of retro-
gression, but that these successional stages will be the same for all
sites at all times for a given range type. Gleason (1926) and Egler
(1954) indicated that the initial composition of vegetation in a
disturbed community and the subsequent stages of dominance by
various plant species are regulated by chance and conditions at the
time of the disturbance. These ideas can easily be incorporated in
models describing stable states and thresholds of range condition.
States and Thresholds on North American Rangelands
Friedel (1991) indicated that 2 transitions across thresholds can
be readily recognized in arid and semiarid rangelands: (1) a change
from grass (or herbaceous) to woody plant dominance; and (2)
changes occurring when soil erosion outstrips soil formation and
soil physical and chemical properties are altered irreversibly. The
Soil Conservation Service provides a method to address the latter
situation. A new site with a different potential can be described.
Most of the examples of thresholds from Australia presented by
Friedel (1988, 1991) represent stable states of vegetation or vegeta-
tion/ soil reached in a situation of declining range condition. Many
of the examples of the recognizable stable states of range condition
on North American rangelands represent conditions from which
substantial improvement is difficult, i.e., thresholds are present
that are difficult to cross in order to obtain range improvement.
Some of these states probably represent conditions that were
reached as the rangeland areas were deteriorated by heavy grazing
or other factors. Others may represent stable states that were
reached after some range improvement took place when grazing
pressure was substantially reduced, but further change is now
difficult to obtain.
Sagebrush-Grass Vegetation:
Lower successional steady states are common in the sagebrush-
grass type which covers almost 50 million hectares in the Great
Basin and surrounding areas. The original sagebrush communities
probably consisted of a fairly open stand of sagebrush with a
productive understory of grasses and forbs (Laycock 1978). Perio-
dic natural fires would have temporarily reduced the amount of
sagebrush in local areas. The sagebrush type apparently had not
been subjected to heavy herbivore grazing pressure since the Pleis-
tocene (Young et al. 1976). When large numbers of domestic
livestock were introduced in the late 19th century, the palatable
herbaceous plants were not able to withstand the grazing pressure
(Young etal. 1979). Heavy grazing during the short growing season
caused rapid deterioration of the understory species and sagebrush
increased. Thus, a threshold was crossed into a steady state domi-
nated by sagebrush.
Numerous examples, on the ground and in the literature, indi-
cate that once a stand of sagebrush (especially the various subspe-
cies of big sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) becomes dense
with a reduced understory, the sagebrush can dominate a site for
very long periods. West et al. (1984) found no significant changes in
a big sagebrush type in Utah after 14 years of livestock exclusion.
Robertson (1971) found that 30 years of protection from grazing
on an eroded sagebrush-grass site in northern Nevada resulted in
increased vegetal cover of all life forms, including the sagebrush.
Sagebrush made up 68% of the total plant cover at the end com-
pared to 64% at the beginning of the period. Sanders and Voth
(1983) found no improvement over a 45-year period in 3 exclosures
dominated by big sagebrush in southwestern Idaho. In southeast-
ern Idaho, Anderson and Holte (1981) found that both big sage-
brush and grasses increased dramatically when protected from
grazing for 25 years, but that there were no apparent differences in
trend between the plots open to grazing and those protected from
grazing. The concluded that "no evidence of serai replacement, as
predicted by classical succession, was found."
The dominance of sagebrush represents a stable state which
resists changes in livestock grazing management to move it across
the threshold, possibly toward a grass/sagebrush state. The man-
agement implications of such states and thresholds in sagebrush
and other communities will be discussed below.
Other Shrub-Dominated Vegetation Types in the Great Basin
In the Great Basin area, a number of other shrub-dominated
vegetation types react in a manner similar to that of the sagebrush-
grass communities. In northern Utah, Rice and Westoby (1978)
examined vegetation inside and outside 12 exclosures in a number
of semidesert shrub communities dominated by winterfat (Cera-
toides lanata [Pursh] Moq.), Nuttall saltbush (AtriplexnuttalliiS.
Wats.), shadscale (Atriplexconfertifolia[Torr. & Frm.]S. Wats.),
big sagebrush, and black sage (Artemisia nova Nels.). The exclo-
sures had been protected from grazing by sheep, jackrabbits
(Lepus californicus), or both for 6 to 15 years. In general, the
changes caused by protection from grazing did not move the
communities to a different vegetation condition or stage. Annuals
were abundant at the time the exclosures were built and did not
decrease under protection except for the alien halogeton (Halo-
geton glomeratus [Bieb] C.A. Mey.). Perennial grasses did not
increase in the exclosures, either in cover, density, or number of
seedlings. Winterfat increased in vigor but not in density under
protection. One conclusion was that the concept of grazing succes-
sion in these semiarid shrublands is not meaningful.
Turner (1971) found that exclusion of livestock grazing for 10
years had little effect on shrub communities dominated by big
1-3
-------
sagebrush, shadscale, and Nuttall saltbush in western Colorado.
Inherently low site capability and subnormal precipitation during
the study were believed to be responsible for the lack of response of
the vegetation to exclusion of grazing. However, it seems possible
that the lack of response is because the vegetation was in a stable
state. Some force or energy, in addition to or instead of lack of
grazing, might be necessary to move the vegetation past the thresh-
old which prevents change.
On a salt desert shrub rangeland in Utah, vegetation changes
over a 40-year period were the same under heavy sheep grazing and
protection from grazing (Norton 1978). Shadscale, the least palat-
able shrub, exhibited a short-term rise in cover followed by a
steady decline. The more palatable winterfat consistently increased
in cover. One conclusion from the study was that, contrary to
accepted range management theory, the vegetation changes in
dominant palatable and unpalatable species were not a function of
grazing pressure. Sharp et al. (1990) documented cyclic changes in
a shadscale community in Idaho over 40 years. These changes
occurred in all areas and were caused by weather insect infestations
and other factors not related to grazing.
Shortgrass Steppe Vegetation:
On shortgrass steppe areas in the Central Great Plains, blue
grama (Boutelouagracilis[HBK.] Lab.) is the major species. With
continued heavy grazing, many of the species associated with blue
grama, especially the cool-season grasses, tend to decrease and
blue grama increases in composition by weight and cover. Once
this state dominated by blue grama is reached, it takes extremely
heavy or abusive grazing over a period of years, heavy grazing
combined with a prolonged drought (Costello and Turner 1944), or
some more drastic disturbance such as plowing to remove the blue
grama or make any substantial changes in the species composition.
In the drier portions of the shortgrass steppe, this state dominated
by blue grama appears to be quite resistant to change caused either
by heavier grazing, decreased, or removal of grazing.
A second stable state occurs on shortgrass steppe areas that have
been cultivated but then allowed to revegetate naturally through
secondary succession. At least some abandoned fields pass through
fairly well described stages of early succession (Costello 1944) but,
in some areas with less than approximately 38 cm of precipitation,
succession may stop a with a community that includes most of the
native species but without any blue grama. Some fields abandoned
in the 1930s or earlier in northeastern Colorado (Wilson and Briske
1979), southeastern Wyoming (Samuel 1985, Samuel and Hart
1990), and other areas on the drier part of the Central Plains still
have little or no blue grama. An area in New Mexico, farmed by
Indians and abandoned approximately 800 years ago, still has no
blue grama even though it is the dominant species on surrounding
areas (Sandor 1983). One of the reasons for the long delay in the
return of blue grama to the community may be that blue grama
reproduces primarily by vegetative means (tillering) and rather
restrictive moisture and temperature conditions are needed for
germination and adventitious root development of blue grama
seedlings (Wilson and Briske 1979). Blue grama does return on
many areas (Coffin et al. 1991) and the reasons for either the return
or lack of return of blue grama are not known. Where it occurs, the
community without blue grama is quite stable and resistant to
change.
Southwestern Desert Grasslands:
It has long been recognized that shrubby invaders of desert
grasslands are slow to relinquish dominance once they become
established because of fire suppression, heavy grazing or other
factors (Ellison 1960). According to Paulsen and Ares (1962),
creosote bush (Larrea tridentaia [DC] Covilte) and tarbush (Flou-
rensia cernua DC) are the primary woody invaders on tobosa
(Hilaria mutica [Buckl.] grasslands and velvet mesquite ( Pnnopis
/Wi/7oro[Swartz] DC) or honey mesquite( P g/andulo^alorr. \ar
glandulosa) are the main invaders on black grama (Bouieloua
eriopoda Torr.) grasslands in New Mexico. On areas dominated b>
creosotebush in New Mexico, Beck and Tober (1985) found that
exclusion of cattle or rabbits for 22 years did not have any consist-
ent effect on herbaceous species. Likewise, removal of shrubs did
not always result in an increase in herbaceous species. The conclu-
sion was that "the concept that removal of these factors will result
in range improvement was not consistently shown by the study"
On Rothrock grama (Bouie/oua rothrockii Vasey) and black
grama grasslands in southern Arizona, velvet mesquite density
more than doubled from 1932 to 1949 on all grazing treatments as
well as on areas protected from grazing (Glendening 1952). The
increase was greatest on the protected plots. He concluded that
"mesquite, once seed trees are present, may rapidly increase regard-
less of grazing treatment"
On degraded desert grasslands in Arizona, Smith and Schmutz
(1975) reported that velvet mesquite continued to increase in areas
protected from grazing from 1941 through 1969. Perennial grasses
increased in cover and frequency during the period but the continu-
ing increase of mesquite was considered to represent a threat to
continued range improvement.
Changes of desert grasslands to shrublands in southern New
Mexico have taken place during a period of change to a warmer,
drier climate (Neilson 1986). In southern New Mexico, black
grama seedlings were found in only 7 years between 1915 and 1968
during this warming period (Herbel et al. 1970). Heavy livestock
grazing led to spatial and temporal heterogeneity of water, nitro-
gen, and other soil resources, which, in turn, led to the invasion of
the desert shrubs that otherwise might have taken place over a
much longer time because of "biological inertia" (Neilson 1986,
Schlesinger et al. 1990).
Archer (1989) studied the history of conversion of mesquite
savannas to woodlands in southern Texas and also concluded that
the change has been recent and coincident with both heavy grazing
by livestock and shifts in precipitation. He presented a conceptual
diagram (Fig. 1) to attempt to explain the mechanisms of the
A - Toll/Uid-Crosses
Mid — /Short Crosses
C - Short Gross/Annuals
" Transition Threshold
• Fire Frequency
- Probability and
'lonl Es
of Woody Plant Establishment
Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of threshold changes in community structure
from a grassland or savannah to a mesquite woodland as a function of
grazing pressure. From Archer (1989). Copyright & 1989 by the Univer-
sity of Chicago. Reproduced by permission of the University of Chicago.
change. Graminoid driven succession predominates within the
original grassland domain. Heavy grazing alters the composition
and productivity of herbaceous species while decreasing fire fre-
quency and intensity, thereby increasing the probability of woody-
Ill - 4
-------
plant establishment. When sufficient numbers of woody plants
become established, the community crosses a threshold (C-Fig. 1),
shrub-driven successional processes begin to predominate and the
site moves toward a new woodland steady-state configuration.
Once in the woodland domain, the site does not revert to grassland
even if grazing is stopped. Manipulations (fire, herbicides, root
plowing, etc.) will temporarily alter the grass-shrub mixture, but
subsequent shrub driven succession usually results in a rapid return
of woody plants. The present condition of the rangeland is a steady
state and this must be recognized for effective management to take
place.
Annual Grass Communities:
There are 2 areas in the U.S. where perennial communities have
been converted to annual grasslands. One is the California annual
grassland which originally was a perennial bunch-grass dominated
community (Biswell 1956). After settlement by the Spanish with
their livestock in the late 18th century, and the accidental or
intentional introduction of a number of well-adapted annuals from
the Mediterranean and other regions of the world, the perennial
vegetation was almost completely replaced by annual grass com-
munities (Heady 1958). Only remnants of the original vegetation
remain and there is little or no potential for the annual communi-
ties to return to their original condition. The annual communities
represent recognizable, stable vegetation states with thresholds
that are difficult to cross.
The other area dominated by annuals is in southern Idaho and
surrounding areas. Cheatgrass brome (Bromus tectorum L.) and,
in some areas, medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae [L.]
Nevski) now dominate more than 2.5 million hectares of former
sagebrush-grass rangelands in southern Idaho and cheatgrass is an
important species on another 8 million hectares (Murray et al.
1978). This condition was caused by cultivation and abandonment
of land, heavy livestock grazing around the turn of the century,
repeated fires which removed sagebrush plants and seed sources
over large areas, and the presence of annuals highly adapted to the
climate (Hull and Pechanec 1947). In areas where enough peren-
nial herbaceous species remain, conservative grazing management
may return the area to a perennial grassland over a long period of
time. Large areas have few perennial grasses and no sagebrush
close enough to provide seed for the return of the perennial species.
In addition, because the cheatgrass is so flammable, fire-return
frequency in cheatgrass-dominated areas is now less than 5 years in
contrast to the pre-settlement frequency of 60-110 years (Whisen-
ant 1990). These frequent fires do not allow perennial grasses,
sagebrush, or other shrubs to establish and set seed.
Melgoza et al. (1990) determined that cheatgrass competes with
native species for soil water and negatively affects their water status
and productivity for at least 12 years after a fire. Allen (1988)
discussed the possible combined effects of introduced weeds and
mycorrhizae on slowing the rate and influencing the trajectory and
end point of succession on areas dominated by annuals such as
cheatgrass.
Other Vegetation Types
Jameson (1987) suggested the possibility of multiple stable states
in pinyon-juniper woodlands. Baker (in press) found that, after a
fire in a forest dominated by Englemann spruce (Picea englemani
Parry) in the subalpine zone in Colorado, bristlecone pine (Finns
aristata Engelm.) became established on an area grazed by live-
stock. Englemann spruce has again become established on an
adjacent ungrazed area inside a city watershed. The bristlecone
pine is firmly established and probably would not be affected by
removal of grazing, at least during the rather long lifetime of the
existing trees.
Implications of the Steady State/Threshold Model
The range condition model currently used in the U.S. assumes
that any rangeland area which is lower on the successional scale
than "climax" can be moved toward a higher successional state by
reducing or removing grazing (Laycock 1989, Westobyetal. 1989).
This assumption often is incorrect; reduction or removal of grazing
may have little effect on range condition in the intermediate or even
long term for many ecosystems in relatively stable lower succes-
sional states. Using our present system, a fair or poor (mid to
low-serai) range condition rating for these communities usually
leads the manager to reduce grazing to improve range condition.
For the stable states described previously, reduction or removal of
grazing has little effect on range condition, thus invalidating our
current concepts of range condition for these situations.
The present range condition concepts seem to work well in the
more humid mixed grass and tall grass prairies of the Great Plains.
No examples were found of lower successional steady states in
these vegetation types and they may not exist under more humid
conditions or they may be harder to recognize than in shrubland
communities. However, invasion of juniper or other woody species
into the tall grass prairie in the absence of grazing or fire could
possibly eventually lead to lower successional states. In this case,
removal of herbage by fire or grazing is the "normal" situation and
removal of these factors represents a disturbance to the system.
A steady state/ threshold concept can provide the framework for
a new approach to understand how rangeland communities
behave. We need to: (1) determine which vegetation types have
relatively stable successional states; (2) develop criteria and methods
to identify these states; (3) identify the thresholds which prevent the
system from moving out of these states; (4) identify the fluctuations
in composition which may occur in these stable states caused by
weather or other factors; (5) develop a better understanding of
what forces or perturbations, either natural or man-caused, cause a
system to cross a threshold and move toward another state; and (6)
adopt or develop conceptual models to organize and put this
information into perspective. Connell and Sousa (1983) discussed
the evidence needed to judge ecological stability but their criteria
remain untested.
Identification of Stable States and Thresholds
Friedel (1988, 1991) examined data from extensive monitoring
programs on Australian rangelands and used multivariate analysis
and ordination to determine thresholds of environmental change
and recognizable states or domains. She also analyzed trends in
forage composition over time and found that composition on areas
with poor grazing management fluctuated more than on well-
managed areas, and that the 2 areas occupied different parts of the
ordination space. These and similar techniques to identify similar
plant communities are described in the literature and no further
discussion will be presented here.
In addition to identifying stable states, conceptual models are
needed to put them into perspective and organize information. One
potentially useful concept depicts a community as a ball or marble
in a cup or trough.
Lewontin (1969) presented mathematical models of stability and
discussed the forces required to move an ecosystem out of a "basin
of attraction" or stable state. Krebs (1985) elaborated on this
model and Hurd and Wolf (1974) presented a "cup and ball"
analogy to convey the concepts of stability and the force necessary
to disturb that stability. Godron and Forman (1983) and Forman
and Godron (1986) described a "Russian hills" model using
troughs and a marble to describe stability of a physical system. The
depth of the trough represents the range of environmental condi-
tions under which that community is stable. A marble can be
1-5
-------
forced from one trough to another only by intense energy level or
environmental change.
Figure 2-a represents a community that is both locally and
globally stable (Lewontin 1969, Hurd and Wolf 1974 and Krebs
1985) because after all disturbances or perturbations, it will return
to the original configuration. This model adequately represents the
"climax" or ''successional" range condition concept commonly
used in the U.S., i.e., a given disturbed community will always
return to the "climax" after the disturbance is stopped and no other
steady state is possible. However, even in this "global" model, the
Range of environmental conditions
A B
m
Range of environmental conditions
(b)
Fig. 2. Diagrams Illustrating the ball and cup or trough analogy to Illus-
trate global and local stability concepts. The community is represented as
a black ball on a topographic surface (cup or trough) which represents
the range of environmental conditions under which the community is
stable. In (a) the community is both locally and globally stable because,
after all disturbances or perturbations, It will return to configuration I. In
(b) the community Is locally stable, but if perturbed beyond a certain
critical range, it will cross threshold A and move to a new locally stable
configuration II. From Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribu-
tion and Abundance, Third Edition by Charles J. Krebs. Copyright ©
1985 by Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. Reproduced by permission of
Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
assumptions of linearity of change and the lack of hysteresis for
pathways followed during retrogression and succession may not be
valid.
Figure 2-b represents a community that has multiple stable
points, only 3 of which are shown. It is locally stable at configura-
tion I. If this configuration represents "excellent" rangeland condi-
tion, minor perturbations such as grazing may change the compo-
sition of the community but once these disturbances are lessened or
stopped, the community returns to its original state (climax or
excellent condition). While the community is within the bounds of
configuration I, current concepts about range condition and rever-
sibility of change may fit quite well. However, if the community is
perturbed beyond a certain critical range, it will cross threshold A
and move to a new locally stable configuration II. For a rangeland
in this new stable state, conventional range condition concepts no
longer apply either to describe the state or identify the forces
required to move the community out of this state. If stressed
beyond the limits of this new stable state, the community can then
be forced across threshold B to configuration HI or to some other
possible configuration not shown. The depth of a trough represents
the strength of the local stability or the energy or strength of
disturbance required to force the community across a threshold
and into another trough (stable state). For a given vegetation type,
the troughs represent the numerous stable states that are possible
at various stages of disturbance or recovery.
Lauenroth et al. (1978) used the "basin of attraction" concept to
describe the response of shortgrass prairie vegetation to the stress
of added nitrogen and water. Either water or nitrogen, when
administered separately, induced some change in the vegetation
composition, but both induced communities were still recogniza-
ble as a shortgrass type. When both water and nitrogen was added,
biomass production was greatly stimulated and the conclusions
were that "we judge its location (i.e., the community's) to be
outside of the shortgrass basin (of attraction)."
Figure 3 is a diagram of the sagebrush-grass ecosystem described
previously using the state-and-transition concept of Westoby et al.
(1989). West (1979, 1988) diagrammed similar changes in sage-
STATE-AND-TRANSITION MODEL FOR A SAGEBRUSH
GRASS ECOSYSTEM
(After Westoby, Walker and Noy-Meir, 1989)
1 Open stand of
productive
herbaceous
perennial
under story
II Dense sage-
T 1 ] brush ro^er
T '
<
/
Depleted peren-
nial herbareous
unrjerstnry win
dT=-bruch seed-
lings present
TR
,
T -
IVDense sage-
b' ush cover Ab-
undant annuals.
lew herbaceous
perennials and
•*~~ ' saqebrush seed-
lings present
"I I
18
III Recently
burned Peren-
nial herbaceous
species and
sagebrush
seedlings
/
VI Repeated
burns Only
annuals with no
4
perennial her b- i
aceous spocie; i 11
Or sagebrush
present
__»
V Recently
burned Domin-
ated by annuals
v. iih sagebrush
seedlings
| T12
T12
Fig. 3. State-and-transition diagram for sagebrush-grass vegetation.
Catalogue of Transitions
Transition 1—Heavy continued grazing. Rainfall conducive for sagebrush
seedlings.
Transition 2—Difficult threshold to cross. Transitions usually will go
through T3 and T5.
Transition 3—Fire kills sagebrush. Biological agents such as insects,
disease or continued heavy browsing of the sagebrush by
ungulates could have the same effect over a longer period of
time. Perennial herbaceous species regain vigor.
Transition 4—Uncontrolled heavy grazing favors sagebrush and reduces
perennial herbaceous vigor.
Transition 5—Light grazing allows herbaceous perennials to compete
with sagebrush and to increase.
If climate is favorable for annuals such as cheatgrass, the following transi-
tions may occur:
Transition 6—Continued heavy grazing favors annual grasses which
replace perennials.
Transition 7—Difficult threshold to cross. Highly unlikely if annuals are
adapted to area.
Transition 8—Burning removes adult sagebrush plants. Sagebrush in seed
bank.
Transition 9—In absence of repeated fires, sagebrush seedlings mature
and again dominate community.
Transition 10—Repeated burns kill sagebrush seedlings and remove seed
source.
Transition 11 —Difficult threshold to cross if large areas affected. Requires
sagebrush seed source.
Transition 12—Intervention by man in form of seeding of adapted
perennials.
brush vegetation. The boxes are stable states and the arrows
represent transitions between states. States 1,11, and III represent 3
recognizable stable states which may occur in areas without annu-
als. State II represents the degraded state resulting from prolonged
heavy grazing, which remains dominated by sagebrush for long
periods of time. Fire (transition 3), or some other force (insects,
disease, rodents) that kills adult sagebrush plants, will release the
perennial understory from competition. Heavy consumption of the
sagebrush by a browsing animal might achieve the same effect over
III-6
-------
a longer period of time. State IV represents a situation that might
occur in heavily grazed areas where a well-adapted annual, such as
cheatgrass, replaces the native perennial species in the understory.
Fire (transition 8) and repeated fire (transition 10) can then convert
this community into a stable state dominated by annuals (state VI).
Fire-return frequencies in cheatgrass-dominated areas may be less
than 5 years (Whisenant 1990). Transition 12 represents interven-
tion by man in the form of seeding to adapted perennial species
such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desenorum [Fisch.] Schult
and A. cristatum L. Gaerth.). The Bureau of Land Management is
experimenting with crested wheatgrass and other grasses, forbs
and shrubs to provide less flammable vegetative fuelbreaks in
extensive cheatgrass areas in southern Idaho (Pellant 1990).
One possible erroneous impression conveyed by the state-and-
transition diagram is that the double transition arrows between
adjacent states may imply that the various stable states which occur
during improvement or succession are the same as those that
occurred in retrogression. This is one major shortcoming of the
curent 'succession" range condition model. The narrative by Wes-
toby et al. (1989) makes it clear that this implication is not
intended. Instead, the boxes or states in the diagram include only a
few of the possible states and thus represent the same concept as the
cups or troughs shown in Figure 2-b in the previous example. To
use either model, the number of possible steady states and the
strengths of the stability of each state need to be identified for both
deteriorating and improving situations on each vegetation type or
range site.
Factors Which Cause an Ecosystem to Cross a Threshold
In order to develop new concepts and models about range condi-
tion, we not only need to identify possible stable states, we also
need to identify and understand the factors which can force a stable
community across a threshold into a transitional phase moving
toward another stable state. Tueller (1973) discussed many such
disturbance factors for shrub-dominated ecosystems. Some drastic
events are effective in short-term (1 year or less): floods, plowing,
seeding of perennials, and selective plant control. A major change
in fire frequency may be one of the factors preventing a community
from re-crossing a threshold. The cheatgrass communities dis-
cussed previously are a good example of increased fire frequency
maintaining a stable state. Most other factors, including selective
grazing or lack of grazing, operate only if continued for a much
longer period. Most of the stable state communities in North
America appear to involve either a change in fire frequency or
introduction of an alien species in addition to other factors such a
grazing.
Conclusions
Multiple stable states do appear to be present for many arid and
semi-arid rangeland vegetation types. The examples presented
were not subjected to the. criteria Connell and Sousa (1983) indi-
cated to be needed to judge stability but their criteria may not be
appropriate. Also, steady state concept on rangelands may only be
pertinent in a time frame which is meaningful to management,
usually up to several decades but somewhat longer in some situa-
tions. In a longer time frame (centuries or millennia), climatic
changes or cycles or other changes may make the concept some-
what meaningless. However, it is the need for changes in manage-
ment concepts that have prompted the search for new concepts and
models.
While much theoretical work needs to be done before most of the
models presented can be incorporated into range condition stand-
ards, it is important for managers to recognize that multiple steady
states do exist on many rangelands. For example, many allotment
management plans on sagebrush-grass rangelands have something
similar to the following as an objective: Change the condition of
the site from fair (mid-serai) to good (upper serai) in 2 (or 3) cycles
of a grazing system. The reason for the low range condition almost
always is too much sagebrush and, usually, the only way to
improve range condition is to reduce the amount of sagebrush. On
ranges grazed only by cattle, no known cattle grazing system will
accomplish that. The most practical way to reduce the sagebrush
and increase range condition is to burn, spray, or otherwise kill all
or part of the sagebrush in conjunction with proper grazing man-
agement. However, on deer winter ranges, fairly dramatic reduc-
tions in sagebrush can occur over a number of years because of
heavy browsing of the sagebrush by deer (Urness 1990). Under
some conditions, spring deferment and heavy fall or winter grazing
by sheep can also achieve some reductions in amount of sagebrush
(Laycock 1967, Frischknecht and Harris 1973).
Similar examples could be cited for other range vegetation types.
If the manager does not recognize that multiple stable states exist,
he/she generally assumes that a change in grazing management
(stocking rate, system, etc.) is all that is required to achieve an
improvement in range condition. If the current stable state of the
vegetation is highly resistant to changes due to grazing manage-
ment, both the manager and the livestock owner have been misled
by our current concepts and they will be disappointed by the lack of
response. This is why it is highly important that a dialogue be
started among scientists and managers alike concerning multiple
stable states and thresholds.
Literature Cited
Allen, E.B. 1988. Some trajectories of succession in Wyoming sagebrush
grassland: implications for restoration, p. 89-112 In: E.B. Allen (ed). The
reconstruction of disturbed arid lands: an ecological approach. Westview
Press, Boulder, Colo.
Anderson, J.E., and K.E. Holt. 1981. Vegetation development over 25
years without grazing on sagebrush dominated rangeland in southeast-
ern Idaho. J. Range Manage. 34:25-29.
Archer, S. 1989. Have southern Texas savannas been converted to wood-
lands in recent history? Amer. Natur. 134:545-561.
Baker, W.L. In Press. Livestock grazing alters succession after fire in a
Colorado subalpine forest, p. In: S. Nodvin and T. Waldrop (eds).
Proc. Fire and the Environment Symp. (Knoxville, Tenn, Mar. 20-24,
1990). USDA Forest Serv./USDI Nat. Park Serv.
Beck, R.F., and D.A. Tobei. 1985. Vegetational changes on creosotebush
sites after removal of shrubs, cattle and rabbits. New Mexico State Univ.,
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 717.
Biswell, H.H. 1956. Ecology of California grasslands. J. Range Manage.
9:19-24.
Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant succession. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pub. 242.
Coffin, D.P., W.K. Lauenroth, and I.C. Burke. 1991. Recovery of short-
grass steppe plant communities in northeastern Colorado. Abstracts of
Papers. No. 82. 44th Annual Meeting, Society for Range Management,
Washington, D.C.
Connell, J.H., and W.P. Sousa. 1983. On the evidence needed to judge
ecological stability or persistence. Amer. Natur. 121:789-824.
Costello, D.F., and G.T. Turner. 1944. Judging condition and utilization of
short-grass ranges on the central Great Plains. USDA Farmers Bull.
1949.
Costello, D.F. 1944. Natural revegetation of abandoned plowed land in the
mixed prairie association of northeastern Colorado. Ecol. 25:312-326.
Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1949. Condition and management of rangeland based on
quantitative ecology. J. Range Manage. 2:104-115.
Egler, F.E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts: 1. initial floristic composi-
tion, a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetatio 4:412-417.
Ellison, L. 1960. Influence of grazing on plant succession of rangelands.
Bot. Rev. 26:1-78.
Foran, B.D., N.M. Tainton, P. de Va. Booysen. 1978. The development of
a method for assessing veld condition in three grassland types in Natal.
Proc. Grassl. Soc. So. Africa 13:27-33.
Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Friedel, M.H. 1988. Range condition and the concept of thresholds, p. 1-3.
In: Vol. I, Abstracts, 3rd Intern. Rangeland Congr. Range Manage. Soc.
India.
-7
-------
Friedel, M.H. 1991. Range condition assessment and the concept of thresh-
olds. A Viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 44:422-426.
FriMhknecht, N.C., »nd L.E. Hurls. 1973. Sheep can control sagebrush on
seeded range if... Utah Sci. 34:27-30.
Gleuon, H.S. 1926. The individualistic concept of plant association. Bull.
Torrey Bot. Club. 53:7-26.
Glendening, G.E. 1952. Some quantitative data on the increase of mesquite
and cactus on a desert range in southern Arizona. Ecol. 33:319-328.
Godron, M., end R.T.T. Forman. 1983. Landscape modification and
changing ecological characteristics, p. 12-18. In: H.A. Mooney and M.
Godron (eds). Disturbance and ecosystems: components of response.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Hut, R.H., tnd B.E. Norton. 1988. Grazing management and vegetation
response, p. 494-525. In: P.T. Tueller (ed). Vegetation science applica-
tions for rangeland analysis and management. Kluwer Academic Publ.,
Boston, Mass.
Herbel, C.H. , P.L. Dittberner, and T.S. Blckle. 1970. A quantitative
ecology of the Jornada Experimental Range. p.I-133-1-178. In: R.G.
Wright and G.M. Van Dyne (eds). Colorado State Univ. Range Sci.
Dept. Rep. 6. Ft. Collins.
Heady, H.F. 1958. Vegetation changes in the California annual type.
Ecology 39:402-415.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu.
Rev. Ecol. Systematics 4:1-23.
Hull, A.C., Jr., »nd J.F. Pechanec. 1947. Cheatgrass-a challenge to range
research. J. Forest. 45:555-564.
Hurd, L.E., and L.L. Wolf. 1974. Stability in relation to nutrient enrich-
ment in arthropod consumers of old-field successional ecosystems. Ecol.
Monogr. 44:465-482.
Jameson, D.A. 1987. Climax or alternative steady states in woodland
ecology, p. 9-13. In: Everett, R.L., compiler. Proc. Pinyon-juniper
conference (Reno, Nev., Jan. 13-16, 1986). USDA, Forest Serv., Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-215, Intermount. Res. Sta., Ogden, Utah.
Krebs, C.J. 1985. Ecology: The experimental analysis of distribution and
abundance. 3rd Ed. Harper and Row, New York.
Lauenroth, W.K., J.L. Dodd, and P.L. Sims. 1978. The effects of water and
nitrogen-induced stresses on plant community structure in a semiarid
grassland. Oecologia 36:211-222.
Laycock, W.A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush
grass range. J. Range Manage. 20:206-213.
Laycock, W.A. 1978. Factors affecting choice of management strategies
within the sagebrush ecosystem, p. 230-236. In: The sagebrush ecosys-
tem: A symposium. College of Natur. Resour., Utah State Univ., Logan.
Laycock, W.A. 1989. Secondary succession and range condition criteria:
Introduction to the problem, p. 1-15. In: W.K. Lauenroth and W.A.
Laycock, (eds). Secondary succession and the evaluation of rangeland
condition. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.
Lewontin, R.C. 1969. The meaning of stability, p. 13-24. In: Diversity and
stability in ecological systems. Brookhaven Symp. in Biology 22. Spring-
field, Va.
Margalef, R. 1969. On certain unifying principles in ecology. Amer. Natur,
97:357-374.
May, R.M. 1977. Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multi-
plicity of stable states. Nature 269:471-477.
Melgoza, G., R.S. Nowak, and R.J. Tausch. 1990. Soil water exploitation
after fire: Competition between Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and two
native species. Oecologia 83:7-13.
Murray, R.B., H.F. Mayland, and P.J. Van Soest. 1978. Growth and
nutritional value to cattle of grasses on cheatgrass range in southern
Idaho. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap. INT-199, Interim. Forest and
Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah.
Ntilsen, R.P. 1986. High-resolution climatic analysis and southwestern
biogeography. Science 232:27-34.
Norton, B.E. 1978. The impact of sheep grazing on long-term successional
trends in salt desert shrub vegetation of southwestern Utah. p. 610-612.
In: D.N. Hyder (ed). Proc. First Internal. Range Cong., Soc. Range
Manage., Denver, Colo.
Paulsen, H.A. Jr., and F.N. Ares. 1962. Grazing values and management of
black grama and tobosa grasslands and associated shrub ranges of the
Southwest. USDA, For. Serv. Tech. Bull. 1270.
Pellant, M. 1990. The cheatgrass-wildfire cycle—are there any solutions? p.
11-18. In: E.D. McArthur, E.M. Romney, S.D. Smith and P.T. Tueller
(eds). Proceedings—a symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off,
and other aspects of shrub biology and management. U.S. Forest. Serv.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Intermountain Res. Sta., Ogden, Utah.
Rice, B., and M. Westoby. 1978. Vegetative responses of some Great Basin
shrub communities protected against jackrabbits or domestic stock. J.
Range Manage. 31:28-34.
Robertson, J.H. 1971. Changes on a grass-shrub range in Nevada ungrazed
for 30 years. J. Range Manage. 24:397-400.
Sampson, A.W. 1919. Plant succession in relation to range management.
USDA Bull. 791.
Samuel, M.J. 1985. Growth parameter differences between populations of
blue grama. J. Range Manage. 38.339-342
Samuel, M.J., and R.H. Hart. 1990. Sixty years of successon on the
Wyoming High Plains. No. 217. Abstr. of papers, 43rd Annu Meeting.
Soc. Range Manage., Reno, Nev.
Sanders, K.D., and A.A. Voth. 1983. Ecological changes of grazed and
ungrazed plant communities, p. 176-179. In: Managing Intermounlam
rangelands—improvement of range and wildlife habitats. USDA, Forest
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157.
Sandor, J.A. 1983. Soils at prehistoric agricultural terracing sites in New
Mexico. PhD Diss., Univ. California, Berkeley.
Schlatterer, E.F. 1989. Toward a user-fnendly ecosystem myth or mirth''
p. 223-227. In: D.E. Ferguson, P. Morgan, and F D. Johnson (eds).
Proc.: Land Classifications Based on Vegetation Applications for
Resource Management. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech Rep INT-257,
Intermt. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, L'tah.
Schlesinger, W.G., J.F. Reynolds, G.L. Cunningham, L.F. Huenneke,
W.W. Jarrcll, R.A. Virginia, and W.G. Whrtford. 1990. Biological feed-
backs in global desertification. Science 247.1043-1048.
Sharp, L.A., K. Sanders, and N. Rimbey. 1990. Forty years of change in a
shadscale stand in Idaho. Rangelands 12:313-328.
Smith, D.A., and E.M. Scnmutz. 1975. Vegetative changes on protected
versus grazed desert grassland ranges in Arizona. J. Range Manage.
28:453^58.
Smith, E.L. 1978. A critical evaluation of the range condition concept, p.
226-267. /n:D.N. Hyder (ed). Proc. First Internal. Rangel. Congr., Soc.
Range Manage., Denver, Colo.
Smith, E.L. 1988. Successional concepts in relation to range condition
assessment, p. 113-133. In: P. Tueller (ed). Vegetation science applica-
tions for rangeland analysis and management Dr. W. Junk. The Hague.
Smith, E.L. 1989. Range condition and secondary succession: a critique, p.
103-141. In: W.K. Lauenrolh and W.A. Laycock (eds). Secondary suc-
cession and the evaluation of rangeland condition Westview Press.
Boulder, Colo.
Tueller, P.T. 1973. Secondary succession, disclimax, and range condition
standards in desert shrub vegetation, p. 57-65. /n.-D.N. Hyder (cd). And
shrublands. Soc. Range Manage., Denver, Colo.
Turner, G.T. 1971. Soil and grazing influences on a salt-desert shrub range
in western Colorado. J. Range Manage. 24:31-37.
Urness, PJ. 1990. Livestock as manipulalors of mule deer winler habilals
in northern Utah. p. 25-40. In: K.E. Severson (ed). Can livestock be used
asatooltoenhancewildIifehabitat?U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-194. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft.
Collins, Colo.
Verhoff, F.H., and F.E. Smith. 1971. Theoretical analysis of a conserved
nutrienl ecosystem. J. Theor. Biol. 33:131-147.
West, N.E. 1979. Basic synecological relationship of sagebrush-dominated
lands in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau, p. 33-41. In: The sage-
brush ecosystem: A symposium. College of Natur. Resour., Utah State
Univ., Logan.
West, N.E. 1988. Intermountain deserts, shrub steppes, and woodlands, p.
210-230. In: M.G. Barbourand W.D. Billings (eds). North Amer. Terres-
trial Vegetalion. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
West, N.E., F.D. Provenza, P.S. Johnson, and M.K. Owens. 1984. Vegeta-
tion change after 13 years of livestock grazing exclusion on sagebrush
semidesert in central Utah. J. Range Manage. 37:262-264.
Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic manage-
menl tor rangelands nol al equilibrium. J. Range Manage. 42:266-274.
Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River
Plains: ecological and management implications, p. 4-10. In: E.D.
McArthur, E.M. Romney, S.D. Smith and P.T. Tueller (eds). Pro-
ceedings—a symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other
aspects of shrub biology and management. U.S. Forest Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-276. Inlermounlain Research Stalion, Ogden, Ulah.
Wissel, C. 1984. A universal law of Ihe characterislic return time near
thresholds. Oecologia 65:101-107.
Wilson, A.M., and D.D. Briske. 1979. Seminal and adventilious rool
growlh of blue grama seedlings on Ihe Cenlral Plains. J. Range Manage.
32:209-213.
Wilson, A.D. 1989. The developmenl of syslems of assessing Ihe condilion
of rangeland in Auslralia. p. 77-102. In: W.K. Lauenroth and W.A.
Laycock (eds). Secondary succession and the evalualion of rangeland
condition. Westview Press Boulder, Colo.
Young, J.A., R.E. Eckert, and R.A. Evans. 1979. Historical perspectives
regarding the sagebrush ecosystem, p. 1-13. In: The sagebrush ecosystem-
A symposium. Ulah State Univ., Logan.
Young, J.A., R.A. Evans, and P.T. Tueller. 1976. Great Basin plant
communities-pristine and grazed, p. 187-215. /n.R. Elson(ed). Holocene
environmental change in the Great Basin. Nevada Archaeological Sur-
vey Research Paper 6. Reno, Nev.
Ill-8
-------
APPENDIX IV
Anderson, E. W. February 1993. Prescription Grazing to Enhance Rangeland
Watersheds. Rangelands 15(1): 31-35.
IV-1
-------
Prescription Grazing to Enhance Rangeland
Watersheds
E. William Anderson
Water is the most precious commodity derived from our
rangelands and forests. All these lands should be man-
aged primarily as watersheds and secondarily for their
food, forage, wood, wildlife, social, and other products.
Watersheds vary greatly in their natural erosion and
flood behavior. In some places plant cover and soil mantle
have not developed sufficiently to exert much influence
on the way water is yielded from the land. In these places,
erosion, sedimentation and flooding is usually high. On
more extensive areas, plant cover and soil mantle have
developed to exert a high degree of control on the recep-
tion and disposition of precipitation. Low rates of erosion,
normally moderate peak stream discharges, normally
small sediment loads, and optimum infiltration are the
result. The key lies in controlling the water that falls on
each acre (Bailey 1950).
Depleted watersheds, for whatever reason, cause serious
widespread and long-lasting second- and third-order
consequences on-site and downstream, economically,
and socially. These adversities are intensified under
drought conditions.
Formulating prescribed grazing to enhance watershed
dynamics requires diagnosis of elements involved.
General
Unpredictable cyclic droughts of varying intensity and
longevity are normal occurrences. The old adage "an
ounce of preventation is worth a pound of cure" applies to
the timeliness of applying a grazing prescription. How
grazing is done prior to drought is more important than
what can be done effectively after drought has commenced.
The key to grazing that will enhance watershed dynam-
ics is encompassed in the basic ingredients of watershed
management, i.e., managing for water efficiency. These
ingredients, which have been stated by Barrett (1990), are
to CAPTURE, STORE, and SAFELY RELEASE water on
watersheds.
Barrett's ingredients do not represent a new concept.
Several relatively old studies are cited herein to emphas-
ize that both early and more recent studies related to
watershed management are prevalent. There is an urgent
need to apply already available watershed management
knowledge to the land as a basic ingredient of all renewa-
ble resource management.
The author is Certified Range Management Consultant. 1509 Hemlock, Lake
Oswego. Oregon 97034 (503) 636-8017
Vegetation is only one factor of watershed dynamics.
Others include:
— Surface geology
— Soils
— Climate
Runoff
Topography
Land use
Upland erosion
Channel erosion
Soft to hard materials
Texture, structure, depth, gravel/
stone content
Frequency, intensity, kind and
duration of precipitation, frosts
and thaws
High to low peak flows
Steep to gentle slopes
Intensive to extensive
Rills and gullies
Banks, bottoms, sediment load
Factors that are responsive to resource management
measures are primarily vegetation and surface-soil struc-
ture. Depleted organic content, animal trampling and
vehicular traffic are causes of soil-structure changes that
can be improved over time by resource management.
Other factors listed impose restrictions on the degree of
feasible improvement that can be achieved through
resource management.
The dynamics of woodland and forest watersheds
involve vegetational features that are in addition to those
related to rangeland watersheds, such as interception of
precipitation and insulation from solar radiation caused
by trees. The following discussion is focused on range-
land watersheds.
Capture
The role of vegetation in the capture of water on range-
land watersheds is influenced by certain factors which
include vegetational type, stand density, size, degree of
utilization, and uniformity of total vegetational cover,
including residues.
The way kind of vegetation influences the capture of
water is illustrated by a study that measured the effects of
artificial moderate- and high-intensity rainfall on four
vegetational types growing on coarse-grained granitic
soils in Idaho (Craddock and Pearse, 1938). They reported
that based on the general means of each vegetational
type, a 35% density wheatgrass-type cover with its fibrous
root system absorbed nearly all the water applied. A 25%
density cheatgrass-type cover, which is quite dense for
that type of vegetation, was moderately effective—75%—
for capturing water. A 30% density lupine/needle-grass-
IV-2
-------
m
f."#'
• t • ' •.:.&*
Side-by-side examples—separated by ownership fence and each grazed
annually but under different systems—illustrating how a vigorous lull stand of
librous-rootedbunchgrasses provides superior cover, roots, and organic mat-
type cover, which represents early stages of range deteri-
oration at high elevations in the locality of the study, was
of little value—50%—for capturing water. The annual
weed-type cover with its single-stem tap rooted annuals
was regarded only as an erosion hazard with 39% water
capture.
One management objective of a prescribed grazing
strategy to enhance rangeland watershed dynamics is to
improve the proportion of perennial, fibrous-rooted bunch-
grasses in the vegetation on the watershed.
Stand density of perennial grass species influences
capture of water by physically impeding movement of the
water. The greater the stand density of perennial grasses,
the slower the water movement over the surface, giving it
time to penetrate the soil. The reduced rate of over-the-
surface flow also reduces loss of soil and fertility through
erosion. This promotes increased vigor, seed production,
seedling establishment and, subsequently, stand density.
On a watershed basis, the greater the stand density of
perennial grasses, the greater the total amount of water
funneled into the below-plant zone and captured.
One management objective of a prescribed grazing
strategy to enhance rangeland watershed dynamics is to
increase plant vigor. This, in turn, increases the probabil-
ity and amount of viable seed production. It increases
residue cover to benefit micro-environmental conditions
necessary for seedling survival which will eventually
thicken the stand of perennial grasses.
The way size of perennial grasses influences capture of
water is illustrated by a study of how individual bunch-
grass plants intercept precipitation and funnel water into
the soil directly beneath the plant (Ndawula-Senyimba,
ter in the soil to capture, store and safely release water and create a sponge
effect on the watershed.
Brink, and McLean, 1971).
They found that, with 1 inch of precipitation, penetra-
tion into bare soil was 4.7 inches. Under a bunchgrass
closely clipped to simulate severe utilization, penetration
also was 4.7 inches. Under bunchgrasses 12 inches, 16
inches, and 21 inches tall, penetration was 6.0 inches, 6.7
inches, and 7.8 inches, respectively.
This illustrates that water penetration is deeper, or at
least more rapid, beneath bunches of grass than under
bare soil or severe utilization. From a watershed stand-
point, there is a direct relationship between size of grass
cover—height and diameter—and depth of water penetra-
tion, e.g., volume of water intercepted.
The way degree of forage utilization influences capture
of water is related to the amount of standing topgrowth
left after grazing ceases and, on some soils, to soil com-
paction due to trampling.
A study of water infiltration as related to degree of
utilization was conducted by Rauzi and Hansen (1966).
They showed water intake on lightly grazed rangeland to
be 2.5 tmes that on heavily grazed and 1.8 times that on
moderately grazed rangeland.
A study of soil compaction by animals (Alderfer and
Robinson 1947) showed that, in the top 0-1 inch layer,
volume weights (bulk densities) were 1.09-1.51 under
light grazing and were 1.54-1.92 under heavy grazing. As
a soil is compacted, bulk density increases with a corres-
ponding decrease in pore space. This reduces the capac-
ity for storage of water that can percolate through the soil
profile to feed plants, springs and streams.
This same study reported that, in the top 0-1 inch layer,
non-capillary porosity—the pore space normally occu-
IV-3
-------
pied by air—was 15% to 33% under light grazing and only
3%-10% under heavy grazing. Such disruption of the
normal balance between air, water, organic, and mineral
soil composition can be detrimental to biological activi-
ties, including plant growth.
One management objective of a prescribed grazing
strategy to enhance rangeland watershed dynamics is to
practice moderate utilization to maintain a stubble and
residue cover. Rotating deferred grazing or rests among
management units, as appropriate, avoids grazing the
same management unit during the same season in con-
secutive years, especially during normal wet-soil seasons
when soil compaction occurs most readily. Keeping live-
stock distributed and rotated as frequently as practical
avoids localized trampling damage.
Uniformity of vegetational cover, including residues,
influences capture of water on rangeland watersheds by
minimizing the adverse effects of soil splash caused by
impact of raindrops. Raindrops cause soil detachment,
which is the first of two stages in the process of water
erosion. Transportation of detached soil particles by flow-
ing water is the second stage. Raindrop impact and the
resulting soil splash seals the soil surface thereby reduc-
ing rate of water infiltration.
Osborn (1950) studied the effects of vegetational cover
on reducing effects of soil splash. He reported:
—Uniformity of vegetational cover over the entire water-
shed is the most important requirement for preventing
soil splash and sealing the soil surface. Water lost from
certain spots, unless intercepted, is lost from the water-
shed.
—Effectiveness of the vegetational cover to reduce soil
splash is related to the degree of coverage or density and
its mass weight or height.
—Best water infiltration occurs on rangeland in top eco-
logical status and progressively declines as status declines.
Soil conditions also influence water intake and loss, and
these soil conditions are often related to the status of
ecological development or deterioration of vegetational
cover.
—Soil splash can be controlled on low ecological status
rangelands provided surface residues are sufficient to
intercept raindrops.
One management objective of a prescribed grazing
strategy to enhance rangeland watershed dynamics is to
improve the uniformity of vegetational cover and residues
over the entire watershed so as to reduce soil splash and
minimize spots from which water is lost.
From the standpoint of watershed dynamics, it should
be quite apparent that degree of use of the range needs to
be judged by the amount of soil-protecting cover remain-
ing, rather than by the percentage of the current season's
growth removed, as is too often the customary procedure
(Anderson 1960; Anderson and Currier 1973).
Storage
Water is stored in soil in three forms: hygroscopic,
capillary, and gravitational. Hygroscopic water is that
portion of soil water that is held tightly adhered to indi-
vidual soil grains. It has no movement as a liquid and is
not available for biological functions, including plant
growth. It is depleted by heat and, once lost, must be fully
replaced before water enters other portions of the soil
structure.
Capillary water is soil water in excess of the maximum
held as hygroscopic water. It lies in the interstices
between soil grains. It is in liquid condition but does not
respond appreciably to gravity yet it is available for bio-
logical functions. When the maximum of both hygro-
scopic and capillary soil water is reached, this condition
is called maximum field capacity.
Gravitational water is that soil water in excess of maxi-
mum field capacity. It is available for biological functions
and is free to move through the soil air spaces to form
seeps, springs and creeks. This movement is called per-
colation and it takes place only after the hygroscopic and
capillary water storage capacity is attained.
There are many factors which affect storage of water in
soil. Those related to soils include surface features such
as a sandy mulch or pebble/stone pavement, which affect
infiltration and evaporation: textureand stoniness, which
affect water holding capacity; structure, which affects
infiltration and percolation; and depth, which affects
water holding capacity of the soil.
Of these soil factors, only surface characteristics can
be influenced by resource management. For example,
livestock trampling and vehicular traffic can cause sur-
face compaction on some types of soil, thereby restrict-
ing infiltration. Erosion of soils with stony upper layers
creates a stone pavement. As soil particles are removed,
stones in the upper soil layers are exposed and added to
those already on the surface thereby restricting infiltra-
tion. Surface stones also occupy space needed for re-
establishing a vegetational cover.
One management objective of a prescribed grazing
strategy to enhance rangeland watershed dynamics is to
minimize impact on the soil surface by livestock and vehi-
cles and to provide adequate vegetational cover to minim-
ize soil splash and subsequent water erosion.
Once water has entered the soil profile, several vegeta-
tional factors affect its storage:
—The more height and cover of vegetation, the less water
is lost by evaporation due to sun and wind.
—Conversely, the more the vegetational cover, the greater
the soil-water loss through transpiration.
—Vegetational residues on the surface reduce water loss
caused by evaporation.
—Organic content of the soil increases the amount of
water stored in the soil, which enhances the sponge effect
of the watershed.
How organic matter increases water storage in soils is
illustrated in a study cited by Lyon and Buckman (1934)
which compared the water holding capacity of two silt
loam textured soils, one containing 1.6% organic matter,
the other 4.9%. These soils had maximum field capacities
of 39% and 48%, respectively. This represents an increase
of 23% in water storage due to increased organic matter in
the soil.
One management objective of a prescribed grazing
IV-4
-------
strategy to enhance rangeland watershed dynamics is to
increase the volume of roots in the soil profile as well as
residues on the surface by improving plant vigor and
stand density (Anderson 1951). This, in turn, will eventu-
ally optimize soil organic matter and humus in thetopsoil.
Safe Release
Safe release of water from rangeland watersheds is
needed to benefit on-site vegetation as well as streamf low
via percolation.
Prolonging storage of water in the watershed—es-
sentially creating a sponge effect—by reducing rate of
deep percolation is an important factor. An optimum
stand of vegetational cover utilizes a considerable portion
of available soil water rather than allowing it to drain away
from the site. For example, a study cited by Lyon and
Buckman (1934) compared water loss through percola-
tion from a bare plot versus a vegetated plot on the same
soil series under 32 inches precipitation. The bare-soil
plot lost 77% of the precipitation through percolation,
whereas, the vegetated plot lost 58%.
Excessive percolation or drainage may be much more
serious in robbing the soil of plant nutrients than deple-
tion from use of nutrients by vegetation growing on the
land. Table 1 illustrates how vegetational cover markedly
reduces annual loss of nitrogen, calcium, and potassium
by percolation.
Table 1. Average annual loss of nutrients by percolation from bare
and cropped soils (from Lyon and Buckman 1934).
Annual Loss
Soil
Nitrogen Calcium Potassium
Dunkirk — bare
rotation crops
grass continuously
(pounds per acre)
69.0 398 72.0
7.8 230 57.7
2.5 260 61.8
Improving seeps, springs, and streamflow involves ap-
plying measures that will increase the volume of water
captured in the total watershed. Uniformity of treatment
over the total watershed is paramount if total volume of
water is to be optimized. Water lost from certain spots,
unless intercepted, is lost from the watershed.
Prescribed Grazing Strategy
Based on this diagnosis of major ingredients in the
CAPTURE, STORE and SAFE RELEASE of water, a graz-
ing strategy designed to enhance watershed dynamics
should be based primarily on achieving improved effi-
ciency in the ecosystem involved. Benefits to livestock
production, wildlife, aesthetics, and others in the mix of
desirable products will follow automatically.
The strategy should include:
—Moderate utilization of forage to build and retain an
adequate cover of fibrous-rooted herbaceous species,
residues, and soil organic matter.
—Rotation of deferred grazing and/or rests to build root
systems and plant vigor to optimize vegetational cover,
production and reproduction.
—Pre-conditioning, where appropriate, to benefit plant
vigor and improve quality of mature forage for the benefit
of wild and domestic grazing animals (Anderson et al.
1990).
—Management practices that will achieve grazing distri-
bution for uniformity in vegetational cover on the water-
shed.
I ntensity of applying this strategy must necessarily vary
with the situation involved. In any case however, intensity
of application must not exceed the capability of the
resources northe managerial ability of the manager. Oth-
erwise, failure will be inevitable.
No-grazing Option
A logical question to ask regarding a grazing prescrip-
tion designed to enhance watershed dynamics is whether
no grazing at all might be the best prescription. In some
instances, theoretically and for a relative short period of
years, this may be the preferred option.
However, watershed management should be a long-
term endeavor—actually unending—and be based on
producing a mix of beneficial products, in addition to
water, in perpetuity. Therefore, it is essential to consider
other consequences that likely will be involved if the no-
grazing option is chosen.
After a period of time, ungrazed herbaceous fibrous-
rooted plant species become decadent or stagnant.
Annual above-ground growth is markedly reduced in
volume and height. Root systems likely respond the
same. The result is reduction in essential features of vege-
tational cover, including the replacement of soil organic
matter and surface residues, and optimum capture of
precipitation. For example, an unpublished study by
Anderson showed the green-leaf weight of a decadent
bluebunch wheatgrass plant, which had been ungrazed
for a number of years, to be 53% that of a nearby plant
having equal basal area and being moderately grazed
annually under a rotation of deferred grazing. Both plants
at one time were in the same grazing unit until relocation
of a highway right-of-way fence isolated one area. Each
of the plants measured was typical of the stand of plants
on its side of the fence.
Other consequences include (1) loss of quality her-
baceous forage for wild herbivores, causing them to move
to areas where regrowth following livestock grazing pro-
vides succulent forage (Anderson 1989), and (2) increased
hazard from wildfires that can be devastating from a ran-
geland watershed standpoint.
Therefore, it is more realistic, from both a practical and
technical standpoint, to employ a livestock grazing stra-
tegy that achieves and maintains a healthy, productive
and biologically active vegetational cover on the water-
shed. This is essential for enhanced rangeland watershed
dynamics.
References Cited
Alderfer, R.B., and R.R. Robinson. 1947. Runoff from pastures in
relation to grazing intensity and soil compaction J Amer Soc
Agron. 39:948^958.
IV-5
-------
Anderson, E. William. 1951. Range condition underground. J. Range Barrett, Hugh. 1990. Direction: A range management need. Unpub-
Manage. 4:323-326. lished paper presented at North American Wildlife and Natural
Anderson, E. William. 1969. Why proper grazing use? J. Range Resources Conference, Denver, Colo. March 20, 1990. 6 pages.
Manage. 22:361 -363. Craddock, George and Kenneth Pearse. 1938. Surface run-off and
Anderson, E. William. 1989. Cattle-free by '93—A viewpoint. Range- erosion on granitic mountain soils of Idaho as influenced by range
lands. 11:189-190. cover, soil disturbance, slope, and precipitation intensity. USDA
Anderson, E. William and Wilbur F. Currier. 1973. Evaluating zones Circular No. 482. 24 pages.
of utilization. J. Range Manage. 26:87-91. Lyon, T. Lyttleton and Harry O. Buckman. 1934. The nature and
Anderson, E. William, David L. Franzen, and Jack E. Melland. 1990. property of soils: A college text on edaphology. The Macmillan
Forage quality as influenced by prescribed grazing. In: Can Live- Co. 428 pages.
stock be Used as a Tool to Enhance Wildlife Habitat? A sympo- Ndawula-Senylmba, M.S., V.C. Brink, and A. McLean. 1971. Mois-
sium at the 43rd annual meeting Society for Range Management, ture interception as a factor in the competitive ability of bluebunch
Reno, Nev. February 13, 1990. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mt. wheatgrass. J. Range Manage. 24:198-200.
Forest & Range Expt. Sta. General Technical Report RM-194.123 Osborn, Ben. 1950. Range cover tames the raindrop. A summary of
pages. range cover evaluations, 1949. USDA Soil Conservation Service,
Bailey, Reed W. 1950. Watershed management: Key to resource Fort Worth, Tex. November 92 pages.
conservation. J. Forestry. 393-396. September. Rauzl, Frank and Clayton L. Hansen. 1966. Water intake and runoff
as affected by intensity of grazing. J. Range Manage. 19:351 -356.
IV-6
-------
APPENDIX V
A. Anderson, E. W. and Baum, R. C. 1988. How to do coordinated
resource management planning. J. Soil and Water Cons. 43: 216-220.
B. Anderson, E. W. 1992. Innovations in coordinated resource management
planning. J. Soil and Water Cons. 46: 411 -414.
v-1
-------
APPENDIX VA
COORDINATED resource manage-
ment planning—CRMP— is a pro-
cess by which natural resource own-
ers, managers, and users, working together
as a team, formulate and implement plans
for the management of all major resources
and ownerships within a specific area and/or
resolve specific conflicts.
Seldom are natural resource problems
confined to single ownerships, single re-
sources, or single resource uses (3). More-
over, almost never does a single agency or
group have all the answers and expertise
needed to deal with resource management
issues or conflicts.
Especially helpful in these situations is an
approach that involves various resource dis-
ciplines, agencies, and users, working to-
gether from beginning to end, to develop the
rationale upon which management deci-
sions are based. In such a process, resource
owners and managers do not abrogate their
authority and responsibility to make final
decisions. But they make those decisions
after listening to the viewpoints, exper-
iences, and options of others. Consensus, not
voting, is a fundamental element of CRMP.
The CRMP process has been used success-
fully to plan management for a variety of
areas and uses: subwatersheds, including
riparian areas; federal wildlife refuges and
state wildlife management areas; stream
corridors; farm and ranch operating units
or groups of units; federal, state, and private
forest and range units; recreational areas;
and combinations of such areas and uses
where coordination between an area's uses
and/or between intermingled or interde-
pendent land ownership is desireable. The
process also has been used successfully to
resolve specific resource-use conflicts, such
as depredation of agricultural crops by
wintering geese near waterfowl refuges and
water contamination from dairy farm
lagoons and livestock feedlots. In fact, there
are many resource problems for which the
CRMP process is the best solution and, in
some cases, the only chance for a reasonable
solution.
Participants in CRMP efforts to date have
included a variety of interests, from private
landowners to a whole host of federal and
state agencies, city and county governments,
universities, Indian tribes, sportsmens' clubs
and outfitters, environmental organizations,
lumber companies, conservation districts,
and other local districts. Regardless of the
resource management issue involved, how-
£. William Anderson is a certified range con-
sultant. 1509 Hemlock Street. Lake Oswego.
Oregon 97034; Robert C. Bourn is the Pacific
Regional representative jor tlu' National Associa-
tion of Conservation Districts. $31 Lancaster
Drirr, \ £.. Suite '207. Salem. Oregon 97301.
HOW
TO DO
COORDINATED
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
PLANNING
By E. William Anderson
and Robert C. Baum
ever, or the interest groups, the main objec-
tive of the CRMP process is to put coor-
dinated resource management on the land.
How to achieve coordinated resource man-
agement is the question. The CRMP process
described herein has proved successful in
achieving this goal (3).
What applicability CRMP?
The CRMP process fits practically every
natural resource management situation. For
example, all resource management, whether
on public or private land, has important
wildlife habitat and watershed quality im-
plications. Moreover, there is always the
probability of second- and third-order con-
sequences resulting from any activity on the
land; these can be far-reaching and have
significant impacts. Authority for wildlife
management usually is invested in a state
agency, which suggests that this agency's
representative should always participate in
formulating a resource management plan.
Managing for improved watershed quality
and reduced adverse off-site consequences
also suggests the desirability of providing
that land of special assistance to the resource
owner or manager who makes the final
decisions.
With large blocks of public land, such as
wildlife refuges, national forests, or range-
lands, the CRMP process offers manage-
ment agencies the benefit of advice from
knowledgeable resource users who have be-
come thoroughly familiar with the planned
area over a span of years, sometimes a life-
time, which compensates for ever-changing
agency personnel.
Where there are two or more ownerships,
resources, uses of resources, and/or resource
users involved or affected by an existing or
potential problem or conflict, the CRMP
process may be the only effective way to
resolve or forestall that problem or conflict.
CRMP is just as applicable to a single
ownership involving multiple resources and
their uses as it is to several ownerships hav-
ing multiple uses in common. For example,
CRMP's applicability in implementing the
federal Conservation Reserve Program and
in helping farmers and ranchers to plan
their future land use and resource manage-
ment might be given some consideration (4).
Initiating a CRMP effort
Coordinated planning is usually initiated
because of a resource problem or conflict
that those involved want resolved. However,
good coordinated plans also exist where
those involved had no immediate problem
but resorted to CRMP to formulate a plan
that would keep problems from developing.
Preferably, a coordinated plan is initiated
at the local level by a request from a per-
son, group, organization, or agency that
perceives the need for a group-action
approach to resolving or averting a local
resource problem. A conservation district,
for example, might process a request for a
coordinated plan because these districts are
legal subdivisions of state government with
responsibility for land and water conserva-
tion. Processing should include assignment
of priorities and creation of timetables and
schedules with the other agencies, organi-
zations, and interests involved. Because con-
servation districts are public bodies, most in-
dividuals, agencies, and organizations are
more likely to respond to a request that they
participate in a coordinated plan than if the
request came from elsewhere. If the local
conservation district does not process such
requests for some reason, the requests can
be presented and discussed with the land-
owers involved and local representatives of
the agencies and groups that should be in-
volved.
It is important to review briefly with
these interests how the CRMP process
works. This will help them decide whether
V-2
-------
or not to proceed. If the decision is to pro-
ceed using the CRMP process, it is best to
list immediately those who should be invited
to participate. Also, a chairman must be
selected who is responsible for guiding the
organization of the planning group, for
assembling available inventory data, for
scheduling meetings, and for otherwise
motivating the individuals involved in the
planning process.
A moderator is also needed. This indivi-
dual conducts the planning sessions, which
requires some special talents. A moderator
in the CRMP process requires competence,
both from a professional point of view and
from the standpoint of working with peo-
ple. The process is not a fixed routine. Some
individuals have the ability to moderate
group discussions and achieve consensus;
others will never be able to do so. In highly
controversial or complicated situations, an
"outside" moderator will likely be more
effective than a local moderator because of
perceived bias. If the group is in reasonable
agreement on both the issues and the need
for a coordinated planning approach, a local
moderator is usually acceptable.
Collecting relevant data
Prior to the first group planning session,
such items as maps, available resource in-
ventory data, and other relevant informa-
tion, should be assembled for use, as needed,
by the group. There is no substitute for a
sound, ecologically based resource inventory
as the foundation for decisions aimed at
meshing the mangement of all major re-
sources in the planned area. It is also impor-
tant to recognize, however, that it is not
necessary to have on hand, or to gather prior
to the first meeting, all of the inventory data
that might conceivably be desirable. Good
planning decisions can be made with min-
imal data if those data are reasonably accu-
rate. Those data must be augmented, how-
ever, by that special kind of information that
is stored in the brains of those participants
who have an intimate knowledge of the
planned area and the issues involved.
If it is determined during the planning
process that additional data are needed to
make a decision on a particular issue or
item, those data can be obtained during the
planning process. Meanwhile, many other
decisions can be made on the basis of the
data available, and the remainder of the
plan need not wait for such one-issue data
to become available. It is important that the
planning process begin and proceed while
group interest is high.
A coordinated plan must be open-
ended—flexible—so it can be amended
when necessary. This reduces the necessity
of having thorough data at the inception of
planning. In fact, it' is best to move ahead
and plan on the basis of available know-
ledge, with the intention of amending the
plan at least annually. No matter how much
data is available at the beginning of the ex-
ercise, experience proves that amendments
to the original plan are inevitable.
Some coordinated plans stagnate because
of an overemphasis on inventories, which
also inflate costs. This is likely a result of the
tendancy to consider the plan itself as the
end product. In reality the plan is merely
a starting point for action on the land,
which is the real objective of planning.
The planning group's make-up
Agency representatives in the local plan-
ning group should be qualified and gener-
ally have the authority to make decisions for
their agencies. Otherwise, an intolerable sys-
tem of approval is established; individuals
who did not participate in developing the
rationale upon which decisions were based
might veto parts or all of a plan. This brings
about a repeated reconvening of the local
planning group, which blocks progress and
creates dissention and futility.
In principle, the CRMP process eliminates
unilateral decision-making, which often is
the cause of unacceptable conflicts in re-
source management. However, there will
always be some decisions that must be re-
ferred to or approved by a higher authority
prior to making a final commitment.
The planning group should be kept as
small as practical, yet include representa-
tives from significant user groups as well as
the owners and managers of resources with-
in the planned area. It is difficult and risky
to not invite someone deliberately. But doing
so will probably have less adverse effect on
the final plan than having the planning ses-
sion degenerate into a public meeting. If an
owner decides his or her land will not be in-
cluded in the planned area, merely redefine
the area to be planned to exclude that area,
if feasible.
To reduce costs and facilitate training,
each CRMP session can also be used as a
training experience for a few people who are
invited merely to observe the process in ac-
tion and how such groups interact and form-
ulate decisions collectively.
It is not unusual to find an extremist
representing a particular faction within the
planning group, nor are such participants
common to any one segment of the group.
As irritating and obnoxious as some extrem-
ists are, it helps the moderator and the plan-
ning group if they will recognize that it is
the extremist who gives power to the
moderator. Between the outer limits of near-
ly ever conflict is a middle ground. This
creates a situation ripe for compromise,
which brings the moderator into power.
Without extremes in conflicting viewpoints,
needed changes might not occur.
Extremism, of course, incurs obligation.
It is not enough to be against something
without recognizing alternative solutions
and legitimate needs. Searching for and ac-
cepting these solutions and needs is required
of the extremists themselves. Few causes are
so noble that compromise can be ignored (1).
As competence is acquired from exper-
ience, a CRMP moderator can effectively
cope with more diversified, complicated,
and polarized situations and groups. It is a
good idea, therefore, to begin the CRMP
process in a locality by selecting a reasonably
uncomplicated situation that has a high
probability of success for the first coor-
dinated planning experience.
Scheduling is essential
Scheduling planning sessions, field
reviews, and plan updating can be difficult,
especially with large planning groups. There
must be a genuine desire among user groups
to have input to the plan. There must also
be a genuine desire among agencies to im-
prove their effectiveness by making use of
user-group input. Nevertheless, scheduling
for coordinated planning is essential. Each
agency, group, and individual has its own
activities for which priorities are estab-
lished; this must be understood by all par-
ticipants. The development of each coor-
dinated plan must dovetail with the activ-
ity schedule of each participant if at all
possible. This requires a reasonable amount
of give and take among participants.
During the planning process, the plan-
ning group should function intact from
beginning to end as much as possible This
allows each member to listen and contribute
to the development of the rationale upon
which each decision is based, thereby mo-
tivating social change through personal voli-
tion. Assigning portions of the plan to com-
mittees, which briefly work independently
on a particular question, is effective, but
should be used sparingly because it disrupts
the continuity of the entire group.
The time required to complete a plan
using the CRMP process depends upon the
size of the planning group and the complex-
ity of the situation or issue. Because of the
difficulty in scheduling planning sessions, it
is advantageous to complete as much of the
plan as possible during the first assembly of
the group. Ideally, an entire plan might be
completed during this first session while
previous discussions are fresh in the minds
of participants and the group's interest is
V-3
-------
high. This will also save time by eliminating
reviews of preceding actions.
Two to four days of group planning, in
addition to a field trip, is sufficient to com-
plete the ordinary coordinated plan. One
complex case history—576,000 acres in size,
with some planning sessions attended by
more than 40 representatives from 15 dif-
ferent interests—required two and a half
days of concentrated attention in March,
two days in April, and two days in July to
formulate the plan.
Following the assembly of maps and other
pertinent data, time should be devoted to
a field-trip review of the area or conflict in-
volved by the planning group. This review
should provide group members with an
opportunity (a) to become familiar with the
planned area or conflict, (b) to review in-
ventory data, and (c) to observe major prob-
lems from the viewpoint of those who know
the situation intimately. The experience will
prove useful later during indoor planning
sessions, where maps and other abstract
data are used in developing the rationale
upon which decisions are based.
When the planning group cannot travel
in a single vehicle, a special effort by the
group leader is needed to summarize and to
motivate group discussion during each stop
while the group is assembled so that every-
one has the opportunity to listen, partici-
pate, and learn from the discussions. This
field trip is where the planning group begins
to work together as a team, asking questions;
offering knowledge, experiences, and sug-
gestions; and listening. At this stage of plan-
ning also, the moderator must begin to mo-
tivate participation by members of the
group. Additional field trips may be neces-
sary during the planning process to review
specific situations before decisions can be
made on certain issues.
The first indoor planning session should
be scheduled as soon after the field trip as
possible, while the subject matter is fresh in
participants' minds. The setting of each in-
door planning session is important to the
task of facilitating group action, and the
larger the group, the more important this
becomes. The room and lighting must be
adequate to accommodate the planning
group as well as others who have been in-
vited to attend. Equipment for displaying
visual aids should be placed near the head
of the table, within clear view of the plan-
ning group. An effective way of seating the
primary planning group—the decision-
makers—is around a table so participants
face one another. Avoid a classroom arrange-
ment. Observers or trainee-group members
can be seated away from the table
The moderator should sit at the head of
the table, where each planning group mem-
ber can readily be seen. Eye-to-eye contact
is important because facial expressions dur-
ing discussion often signify agreement or
disagreement, Also, the moderator, noting
a desire on the part of a participant to con-
tribute to the discussion, can ask, for exam-
ple, "What is your thinking on this point,
Jane?", thereby motivating participation
and revealing viewpoints that are essential
to the CRMP process.
Formats for discussion
At the onset of the first indoor planning
session, the moderator's primary task is to
build upon the rapport achieved within the
planning group during the field trip. This
is done by continuing to motivate discussion
among group members. Once discussion
begins, however, the moderator's primary
task is to keep the group discussion focused
on a single issue until consensus is reached.
This is essential strategy. Otherwise, certain
individuals may try to manipulate the group
to discuss the issue they perceive to be most
important. All issues must be discussed in
logical sequence.
A set of formats has been developed to
help the moderator motivate yet maintain
control over group discussions. These for-
mats are designed to result in a thorough
group discussion, item by item, while sys-
tematically formulating the coordinated
plan. As the topic represented by a format
is being discussed, the format should be
displayed on a screen, using an overhead
projector and transparency. This permits the
moderator to pinpoint the particular item
before the group for discussion. It also
clarifies the relationship of one item to other
items that have been or will be discussed.
If visual display of the formats is not pos-
sible, copies of the format being discussed
should be in the hands of participants.
At the beginning of the first planning ses-
sion, the moderator must clarify that the
group apparently has decided to work to-
gether to resolve issues. That is why par-
ticipants are there and "now is the time to
get down to business." Consequently, it is
especially important that the group not
begin by discussing a controversial issue The
group must learn to communicate, to com-
promise, and to reach consensus. The first
issues considered should be ones that can be
discussed and resolved easily.
Group discussion can start by asking,
"What do you want to name your coor-
dinated plan?" When a decision is made on
the plan's name, it is recorded, along with
the other items on the cover-sheet format.
Simplistic as this approach may appear, it
is important that members of the planning
group develop a sense of involvement in the
process. It is their plan. Starting with sim-
ple issues helps them to prepare for the give
and take required to reach consensus on
more difficult issues. Furthermore, realiza-
tion that it is their plan increases the
likelihood that they will genuinely contrib-
ute to its development and subsequently
support its implementation.
Once the cover sheet is completed, the
moderator promotes further participation
by asking, "What objectives do you hope to
achieve by the plan?" Stated objectives may
at first appear contradictory if they repre-
sent polarized factions within the planning
group. Nevertheless, each faction is privi-
leged to states its objectives. Subsequent
discussion helps to amend the stated objec-
tives and to produce a consensus objective,
which is recorded. These objectives are re-
corded in the order presented, with no in-
ference as to order of importance or any
assurance they they will be achieved.
Objectives may require considerable
discussion and rewording before they are
clearly stated and recorded in the plan. One
technique that helps group members think
through their objectives and state them
clearly with help from the entire group is
to have a blackboard on which each objec-
tive can be written, scrutinized, discussed,
and revised as the group goes through the
process of reaching consensus. Not all items
discussed during the planning process war-
rant this thorough examination, but the
more controversial or complicated the issue,
the more important this technqiue becomes.
A consensus on objectives does not neces-
sarily mean that each individual agrees
completely with every objective developed
or that every objective will be fulfilled by
the plan. The group merely agrees that each
objective represents a base to start from.
Some final objectives may be worded so they
combine objectives offered by several fac-
tions, if the subjects are closely related,
which reduces polarization.
Once the group has listed its objectives,
which is an affirmative, forward-looking ex-
ercise with little real controversy involved,
it is ready to tackle the potentially more con-
troversial problems. It is important to note
that, had the group's initial discussion been
focused on perceived problems instead of
objectives, a controversial, heated discussion
could have developed because problems are
the main basis of controversy. This could
further polarize factions within the group,
and the negative effects of intensified con-
troversy might be difficult to overcome, all
of which is contrary to the intent of the
CRMP process.
As with the list of objectives, major prob-
lems are listed without ascribing any degree
of importance or priority. Before being
V-4
-------
COORDINATED RESOURCE PLAN
A Guide to Development, Rehabilitation, & Management
Name of P1 an:
Desert urE-'a state:
Key Participant^:
Onflow OepV F^V. !
Acreage (ApproxJ:
Private Public
dLWfii HeT\ Va
&. (Su.^ C-lub
I\l ov
i^Ji- CovcWo
Si.gyy_j3at- vie
Date of Plan:
Subtotals: -^ I8O 11,473
Total Planning Unit: Ik3 63 ITS ;
Conservation^istrict: 'gVveovta.n cL. (AJoi'bCf? — Q retxovu_
Location: Loioe-v £*/ "vviieTi ^f DescWu^ei lvW»v t>\ t\oH^ge>\'ti
Kind of Planning Unit: A Putolig - private aujL Ae^otc/Q. 4o
Resource Management Emphasis in This Plan:
Name of Plan: L-OWER, O£5CHUT£b -
Resource Management System for RECREATION (Page 1 of 1)
DECISIONS OR NEEOS
1 Vacation Cabins, Homesites: ^° ^^-^ oog; wll be jalloxvg.^.
i. Camping Grounds and Facilities: Rapid.; } j=g.ll Ccm^em. & acfP-ts f-rom tAft^Y'6 Q
3. Picnic Areas: ~
*. Fishing Haters: Ripa-v.^w V\aV»Ub «*AU tie. ivAproVc^-- -5<=g ^VreaYvyn^Keyves
j
5. Hunting flreas: re^u taHorti ujiVV O^FP^. ^JE
o>°ve Cja^)l& C.rp»Tlnq tm^^ a^pr'o^njt^ au
lawda and. 4^aJ" 5a.^^/lone>
cT VllMTklej ^ 4
xurvHt-ig bo per
.
aiiq rtftieti. on. Cl^;+^ca.^
6. Natural, Scenic and Historic Areas: fede-^l & ^K^e -
'
ujiU ayf'n. ^rv
7 Riding Stables: Mo
8. Rockhounding: WU ^ prahilo.^ll
i , FegLeraJ.
lav\'ivMiJtg- iy> I^S1? g.^utPbe vgu^eMJcA ^M 5t°A'g. ^q3't^fa-\Mfq.
tjj\\\ be Yvm^.ft_ "1 '^'•c^-^- a^*A. O.ptTW i^i Pl&-^ '
11. Winter Sports Areas: SloV app\1'co.\)V:
land needed in the future? YES
^ C.a-1 Opev^ fwaj cere
Cto) A covs
Tto
Cc")
u Stcnlc R.'vcv **M . ID e^ige "*
. civui vv^aiV+Qi'viini 0.-V appropri^^: ^Vcs
OI^. OL™re.^-vM^-hi oPfte.l'a\s of- OKi^otv I *-u«.lc. R k
to t^Gsara-^ff tKetti. 4o increase ft« pr^v««^-iio^ ac-'t'loM) alartfl fmiroajl .
") A ^rt n>rcvJev\Via-/syppro«iovv f\o-*- Wat bt cLevelopeci LuVicU W'H iwtluf
' '
recorded in the plan, they too may require
careful wording, scrutiny, discussion, and
revision. This will reveal clearly to the group
what the problems are perceived to be.
Again, use of a. blackboard is helpful.
Resource management systems
To avoid a practice-by-practice approach
to planning, which can result in incomplete
considerations, the CRMP process uses the
concept of resource management systems.
Each system consists of a group of practices,
measures, or items that should be considered
for each resource use during the planning
process. These formats were developed by
a team of specialists who listed the items
that must be considered to deal thoroughly
with a subject. The formats serve as guide-
lines or checklists for thorough, systematic
discussion while formulating the coor-
dinated plan. They help the moderator to
hold the planning group's attention on a
single issue. If a group member persists in
changing the subject of discussion to some-
thing he or she perceives to be more impor-
tant, for example, the moderator can say,
"Jack [or Jane], right now we are discussing
recreation on the planned area. We will get
around to your particular point later as we
work through the complete plan."
Nineteen such formats have been devel-
oped to date. As new formats are needed,
they should be developed with the help of
appropriate specialists. The resource man-
agement system formats now available in-
clude wildlife (general); big game and,
where appropriate, feral horses; nongame
wildlife; upland game birds and waterfowl;
rare and endangered species; natural lake
fisheries; reservoir and pond fisheries;
stream fisheries; wildlife depredation; live-
stock grazing; tree management (general);
forestry; nonirrigated cropland; irrigated
cropland; irrigated and subirrigated pas-
ture; recreation; transportation systems; and
watersheds. (A set of the formats can be ob-
tained from Robert Baum.)
In addition to lists of consensus objectives
and problems, coordinated plans consist of
relevant resource management system for-
mats on which decisions made by the plan-
ning group have been recorded. With each
format, the moderator promotes group
decision-making, item by item. For example,
"What are you going to do about vacation
cabins and homesites with respect to the
recreational use of the area being planned?"
The consensus decision is concisely recorded
on the format. There is no need for lengthy
written explanations because all decision-
makers participated in developing the ra-
tionale upon which the decision is based;
they know the reasons. This type of plan,
in addition to being formulated by those in-
volved with the planned area, is also de-
signed for the use of this group—it is their
plan. However, in some instances a brief
background or historical treatise to supple-
ment the coordinated plan decisions may be
useful.
The planning group's decisions can be
(a) to do something, (b) to do nothing,
(c) to state a need, or (d) to postpone a deci-
sion pending further study or consultation.
A decision must be made, however, because
the CRMP process is a decision-making pro-
cess, not a forecasting service. The moder-
ator tries to get a decision to do something
constructive. If the group bogs down on a
controversial issue, the moderator should
work for a decision to postpone the issue
rather than to risk terminating the planning
process because of the controversy. Discus-
sion can then move on to other issues on
which constructive decisions can be made,
thereby completing as much of the plan as
possible. Participants must recognize that
CRMP complies with existing laws, regula-
tions, and land use plans. CRMP groups
make decisions without overriding the au-
thority of those ultimately responsible for
both private and public resources.
V-5
-------
Some items listed in a relevant resource-
management-system format may not apply
to the area or conflict being planned. A
notation "not applicable" is made to signify
that each item on the format has been con-
sidered by the planning group, and none was
overlooked.
In most cases, decisions and needs are
entered on formats in legible handwriting.
Some prefer to reproduce these statements
with typewritten copies. Handwritten for-
mats have some advantages, however. After
each planning session, an exact reproduction
of decisions made during the day can be
handed to each planning group participant.
This can be important in gaining confidence
within polarized groups. Moreover, the cost
and delay of typing is eliminated. If correc-
tions or additions are needed during the
formulation of the handwritten copy, they
can easily be made by ruling out or adding
words.
A succinct, handwritten or typed resource
management format may appear unprofes-
sional, but it is effective and inexpensive.
The plan itself is not the end product, nor
is its quality affected by appearance. A
resource management plan should be mea-
sured by its effectiveness in achieving con-
flict resolution, accomplishments on the
land, and social change, always with trust
and mutual respect among members of the
planning group.
Signing off
After all formats relevant to the area or
conflict in question have been completed,
members of the planning group are asked
to sign a signature sheet acknowledging
their participation and concurrence. This
signature sheet is not intended to be a legal
document; it is more like a gentlemen's
agreement, which is in keeping with the in-
formality of the CRMP process.
Selecting priorities
Following completion of the plan, there
remains the task of deciding which projects
have priority. The number of projects re-
lated to a thorough resource management
plan often appear formidable To help the
planning group evaluate all projects it de-
cided were needed, the moderator should
list all planned projects, grouping them
according to resource management systems.
Using this to-do list, the planning group can
identify and select which projects need to
be done first during the next year or less,
determine who will do each project, and,
if desirable, estimate costs and schedule
completion dates. Selecting priority projects
is essential for orderly and realistic alloca-
tion of time and money, both private and
public, given other budgetary considera-
tions.
Project planning, which is done for pri-
ority projects after they are selected, con-
sists of a set of specifications for construct-
ing or installing the project or measure
according to a required standard (3). The
entire CRMP planning group need not be
involved in this detail. Project planning
should be done by those who will actually
use the project or measure.
Periodic reviews
The initial coordinated resource manage-
ment plan should not be construed as a
precise document when implementation be-
gins because such plans are based on
momentary knowledge and viewpoints. Im-
plementation ususally reveals additional
needs and necessary adjustments. Moreover,
stagnation in the implementation of a coor-
dinated plan is almost invariably caused by
a lack of follow-through; coordinated plans
do not differ from other types of resource
management plans in this respect. Conse-
quently, periodic reviews of a coordinated
plan are essential. Reviews should be made
by the original planning group if possible
and at least once a year. Conservation
districts are an appropriate group to initiate
review and encourage follow-through with
plan implementation.
The objective of a review is not to rewrite
the initial plan. It is to document progress
by (a) listing accomplishments collectively
made by the various segments of the plan-
ning group since the plan was formulated
or since the last review, (b) listing new prob-
lems and needs that have become apparent,
and (c) selecting additional priority projects
for completion during the next year or less.
A CRMP review preferably involves a field
trip to observe accomplishments as well as
new problems and needs.
During the interim between group re-
views, decisions to change significantly the
initial plan should not be made unilaterally
by any segment of the planning group.
Group involvement is as important in mak-
ing major changes as it is during the initial
planning process. The original moderator
need not be the review chairman; however,
this is desirable for the first few reviews
when needed amendments are likely to be
revealed and require group discussion.
In summary
The CRMP process can be conducted in
various ways, but certain basic elements
must be observed. Resource owners, man-
agers, and users must work together as a
team, from beginning to end, in develop the
rationale upon which resource management
decisions are based. Coordination must be
achieved between the major resources and
uses made of them and among the various
ownerships within the planned area or asso-
ciated with resolving a specific conflict. Re-
source owners and managers must make the
final decisions after listening to the view -
points, experiences, and options of others.
Formulating resource mangement plans
within an agency or group for the purpose
of subsequently submitting the plans to
others for review and comment—the refer-
ral system—certainly does not qualify as
CRMP.
Based on practical experience and
thought at the field level by a variety of
competent practitioners and professionals,
the chronological procedure and format out-
lined herein has helped to overcome a num-
ber of the common obstacles associated with
resource management planning. The face-
to-face exchange of viewpoints on objectives,
problems, and alternatives is an ameliorat-
ing force that allows acceptable decisions to
be made under polarized situations. This
form of exchange also makes use of multi-
ple judgments and expertise in different
disciplines or subjects. This greatly adds to
the soundness of decisions made during the
planning process and to the consideration
of second- and third-order consequences
that take place following activity on the
land.
Furthermore, the involvement of partici-
pants from beginning to end helps them to
develop a sense of responsibility and confi-
dence in the outcome; the plan becomes
their plan, which increases the likelihood
that they will help implement it. They in-
crease their awareness of resource relation-
ships and interactions and become more
knowledgeable because they listen to the
viewpoints, experiences, goals, and options
of others. All of this helps them to amend
the viewpoint that they had at the begin-
ning, which is part of the social changes that
are needed. Social changes achieved in this
manner are usually long-lasting and even
self-expanding (2).
REFERENCES CITED
1. Anderson, E. William. 1977. Planning the use
and management oj renewable resources
Rangeman's J. 4(4 & 5): 99-102, 144-147.
2. Anderson, E. William. 1980. Social change—a
necessary component oj resource planning
Rangelands 2(4):156-157.
3. Anderson, E. William, and Robert C. Baum.
1987. Coordinated resource management
planning: Does it work? J. Soil and Water
Cons. 42(3): 161-166.
4. Nowak, Pete, and Max Schnepf 19S7 Im-
plementation oj the conservation pnn ixiun* in
the 1985 farm hill: A sun-t-i/ oj rounty-lfi'rl
U.S. Department of Agriculture agcm-ii per-
sonnel. }. Soil and Water COILS 42(41 2SV21M)
V-6
-------
APPENDIX VB
- -
Local resource coalitions
can foster communication
in their attempts to
overcome polarization
among the interests
involved in developing land
management plans
Innovations in coordinated
resource management planning
By E. William Anderson
DURING the past four decades in
Oregon, concern about develop-
ment and management of renewable
natural resources has undergone significant
change. Initally. concern focused on re-
source management for commercial use,
mainly grazing. More recently, concern
about watershed, riparian, and aesthetic
values and wildlife habitat have become
rccogni/.cd as important components of
resource management programs.
With the advent of these changes came the
involvement of additional and different
disciplines, agencies, organizations, and in-
dividuals in the planning and implementa-
tion of resource management plans. This, in
turn, necessitated thought about how such
diverse interests could be amalgamated in-
to an efficient, effective team to produce a
feasible, practical, and scientifically correct
nianagemcnfprogram on the land.
Most of the important innovations to
achieve this goal have to do with obtaining
mutual understanding among a diverse,
sometimes polarized group of participants
(2). The coordinated resource management
planning (CRMP) process, which also was
an innovation in then-current planning pro-
F. William Anderson i.v med until the !.nc
1460s Hxvu-u1!. ilv CR\1P r.ve-,-.-
V-7
-------
working together, from beginning to end, as
a local team of ranchers, conservation
districts, and agency people to make and im-
plement consensus decisions—was used
throughout that period. These early planning
teams usually consisted only of those agen-
cies, owners, and users actually involved
with management of the planned area. Oc-
casionally, a conservation district supervisor
would participate.
The scope broadens
By the early 1970s, the complexity of most
resource issues, not just ranching, was
beginning to be correctly perceived as re-
quiring the involvement of several agencies,
landowners, organizations, and user groups
in the planning process, especially where
public resources and multiple-use manage-
ment were involved. The National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
helped this perception along. NEPA brought
about many conceptual advancements in
resource management and planning, some
of which have been adopted in other coun-
tries. It also strengthened and broadened the
scope of various viewpoints about resource
management that previously had been
overlooked or ignored.
NEPA also produced adverse reactions
that contributed to some agencies, land-
owners, user groups, and environmental
organizations becoming polarized, defen-
sive, and introverted. The number of instant
experts on a host of biological and en-
vironmental issues proliferated without
benefit of much practical experience.
Bureaucracies expanded and intensified to
meet increasing demands created by public
requests. Harmony was disrupted. Agencies
were forced to focus on defensive actions in
an attempt to avoid or win lawsuits. Time
and money were diverted from on-the-land
management and other practical matters.
NEPA benefically expanded the number
of organizations, agencies, disciplines, and
individuals to be considered in organizing
a local CRMP team. The law also made it
significantly more difficult to achieve har-
mony, mutual understanding, and consen-
sus among members of CRMP teams who
previously had become polarized in their
viewpoints.
Now, two decades after NEPA, we are ex-
periencing an even greater surge of public
interest and involvement in the way natural
resources are being managed and for what
objectives. Exploitation—the history of
development in our country—is no longer
acceptable, nor should it be. On the other
hand, strong efforts toward excessive
preservation—no commercial use—are ap-
parent. More than ever before, there is an
urgency to help reduce unacceptable ex-
ploitation, minimize unnecessary preserva-
tion, and accelerate conservation—wise
use—through every means available to us.
This is a real challenge because many of
the new players in this resource allocation
and management ballgame are just that—
newcomers. Some need to learn much about
the real world of resource management and
development. Some of what they believe to
be valid will have to be amended to be
technically correct, feasible, and practical
within society's needs and the capability of
the land. This can occur by genuinely in-
volving these people in natural resource
planning activities.
It must be recognized that "old-time" nat-
ural resource managers also have a lot to
learn to deal with the new, innovative, and
significantly valid concepts, procedures, and
objectives that are conceived by these new-
comers. We "old-timers" must learn from
the newcomers and ask them to help merge
their viewpoints with our expertise, proce-
dures, and objectives so all can collectively
comply with society's changing needs. This,
too, can happen by genuinely working with
and listening to these newcomers.
Some CRMP innovations
As these changes have occurred, innova-
tions in the CRMP process have been de-
vised, of necessity, to forestall difficulties
and to improve techniques for obtaining ra-
tional planning-team action under com-
plicated cicumstances. Some of these in-
novations, if not used, are commonly among
the reasons for less-than-satisfactory results
from the planning effort (J).
Based on recent experiences, those in-
novations needing re-emphasis include the
following:
>• Ensure that the proposed area or issue
to be dealt with using CRMP is manageable.
A management plan cannot be formulated
for something that is not manageable. If the
proposed area or issue is too extensive, too
complicated, or involves too many interests
or people, it will be difficult, if not impossi-
ble, for the planning team to make specific
decisions on what is to be done, where, and
by whom. An unmanageable situation may
be handled by dividing it into manageable
segments and planning each segment
separately (I).
>• Be circumspect regarding who is in-
vited to participate on the CRMP team.
Keep the team as small as practical. Ask
multiple-member organizations to designate
one member as its representative on the
team. This reduces the probability that plan-
ning sessions might degenerate into public
meetings with haggling among members of
various organizations.
>- Develop and use a preliminary check-
list of topics or issues that the planning team
needs to consider in making decisions. This
helps the moderator keep group discussion
on a single topic, thereby methodically and
thoroughly completing the planning process.
>• Encourage discussion, debate, and
suggestions for wording decisions by using
a blackboard or projected transparency on
which to write stated objectives, problems,
and complex decisions so all can scrutinize
and improve on selection of words and in-
tent. At one CRMP session in which the
transparency technique was used, a lap-top
computer operator recorded each final state-
ment in the appropriate format. This pro-
vided a final copy immediately.
>• Make sure the problems or issues to
be resolved are really resource management-
related and not matters of land use. Some-
times the CRMP process cannot proceed
until certain issues are settled by the land
use planning process because the decisions
that need to be made must involve a higher
authority than the local CRMP team.
Other innovations have been required
because of the necessity of dealing with an
increasing number, extent, and diversity of
situations, viewpoints, and goals or aspira-
tions of individuals, organizations, disci-
plines, and agencies. These innovations were
needed because CRMP teams were becom-
ing too large and too diverse to function ef-
fectively as decision-making teams. More-
over, individuals in the group often were
unacquainted with each other's viewpoints
and could not collectively address how to
resolve specific problems or issues. They
needed time and a reason for getting ac-
quainted, to learn how to listen to each other
in another setting. There was a great need
to minimize the degree of polarization over
controversial issues prior to using the
CRMP process; polarization carried into the
decision-making process stymied progress.
Decisions could not be made.
Building coalitions
A fairly recent and successful innovation
for minimizing polarization between re-
source-oriented organizations for the pur-
pose of facilitating progess toward resolv-
ing issues in Oregon has been the organiza-
tion of resource coalitions or working
groups. The first of these groups was con-
ceived in 1985 by several far-sighted
members of the Pacific Northwest Section
of the Society for Range Management
(SRM). The premise was that higher levels
of thought and cooperation might be more
successful than continued bickering and
mistrust.
V-8
-------
Several SRM members met with Oregon
representatives of one industrial and four en-
vironmental organizations. Using the prem-
ise as a focal point for initiating discussion,
members of the group found they had com-
mon resource-oriented interests and goals
that were more important than the differ-
ences that had been stifling progress. To be
sure, there were different ways to approach
common goals, but the group found that
many of their differences could be resolved
or ameliorated through face-to-face
communication.
Consequently, a pioneering, statewide
coalition was organized in February 1986,
known as the Oregon Watershed Improve-
ment Coalition (OWIC). Current member-
ship consists of four SRM representatives;
five representatives from the Oregon Cat-
tlemen's Association; one each from the
Oregon Forest Industries Council, Oregon
Small Woodlands Association, Izaak Walton
League, Oregon Environmental Council and
Oregon Rivers Council; two from Oregon
Trout; and one publicist.
From the beginning, it was agreed that no
subject about which any member felt too un-
comfortable or antagonistic would be dis-
cussed further at that time, and no action
or activities would be undertaken except by
consensus of the group. As time went on,
the group began discussing topics that, at
first, would have been too controversial and,
therefore, not allowed. Trust and respect was
established. Progress was made.
OWIC's motivation and goal is to ensure
the long-term sustainability of Oregon's
watersheds and to improve communication
among the diverse interests that affect water-
shed management. Its objectives are to:
*• Provide a mechanism for landowners,
land managers, and the public to determine
achievable objectives for watershed manage-
ment, irrespective of ownership.
*• Promote recognition that watersheds
vary in potential and the quality of riparian
zones is influenced by these differences.
Therefore, solutions to problems and re-
sponses of watershed streams are site-
specific.
*• Help develop management programs
thai identify objectives that respond to and
are consistent with riparian and upland
ecological processes operating in the
watershed.
*• Promote a greater understanding of
watershed management potentials and
riparian processes to private and public in-
ierests through an educational program.
This coalition is not a public agency, and
the public at large has not been invited to
attend its meetings at this time. This is the
result of a conscious decision by the group
to provide a favorable atmosphere conducive
The OregonianrTom McAllistef
to frank and open discussions of oftimes sen-
sitive and volatile issues. OWIC members
view themselves as facilitators, not medi-
ators. Compromise and tradeoffs, which
take place during the subsequent CRMP
process, are not coalition goals in and of
themselves. The concept that is fostered is
that of a healthy watershed, with the
resulting effect that everyone benefits.
This diverse group of people has met
many times seeking means of developing
sound watershed management programs.
The results include amelioration of relations
between individual coalition members and
between their organizations
Subsequent to this coalition's organiza-
tion, Oregon's legislature in 1987, with in-
put from OWIC, established an on-going
program for enhancement of riparian areas
and associated uplands, created a Governor s
Watershed Enhancement Board, and ap-
propriated funds tor operations (Senate Bill
23). One of the board's duties is to "coor-
dinate the implementation of enhancement
projects approved by the board wuh the ac-
tivities of the Soil and Water Conservation
Division staff and other agencies, especial-
ly those agencies working together through
a system of coordinated resource manage-
ment planning." This legislation augmented
the OWIC goal, strengthened the existing
Oregon CRMP organization of agencies, and
promoted use of the CRMP process in
preparation of proposed watershed projects.
As benefits from this coalition became ap-
parent and the Watershed Enhancement
Board became operative statewide, some
OWIC members and others, including
several livestock ranchers, saw the need to
expand the coalition concept Thc\ con-
John Randall (left) and other ranchers
have worked with federal, state, and local
agencies, using the CRMP process, to
Improve critical mule deer habitat and
range conditions in the Keating Range
area ol Oregon.
tnbuted to organizing local coalitions or
working groups to help resolve long-
standing resource management conflicts
within selected territories (4) Such locally
focused resource coalitions have beneficially
involved localized representatives of
resource-oriented agencies and organiza-
tions. This, in turn, is improving the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of subsequent
CRMP sessions because coalition members
desire rational solutions for achieving their
goals and objectives.
Role of strategic plans
Certain resource issues that must be
resolved often apply more-or-less uniform-
ly over a large area that might be too com-
plex and involve too many people or orga-
nizations for the CRMP process to work ef-
fectively. From the standpoint of making ex-
plicit resource management decisions, this
kind of territory is essentially unmanage-
able; a viable resource management plan
probably cannot be formulated within a
reasonable time. But if the territory can be
subdivided into manageable areas, the
CRMP process is well-suited to formulating
a management plan, manageable area by
area. For example, a stream corridor could
be considered unmanageable for a number
of reasons, while dividing n into reaches
could create a series of SIIUJIIKIIS c.i>.h >'i
which is manageable
\Micn a ler ritors i-- suKli\ ulcJ ml') 1:1.111
V-9
-------
ageable segments to facilitate decision-
making, each coordinated resource manage-
ment plan should contribute to resolving the
broad resource issues related to the territory
in which the plan occurs. To help attain this
continuity between management plans, it is
desireable to have overall goals and objec-
tives for the territory that will guide each
CRMP team as it deals with the formula-
tion of a resource management plan,
manageable area by area. The overall goals
and objectives essentially constitute a
strategic plan for the territory. This provides
a better territorial perspective to the local
CRMP teams than would be derived from
normal county land use plans, Forest Ser-
vice forest resource and land plans, or BLM
resource management plans, all of which are
helpful but often too generalized or
segregated to provide the degree of guidance
needed for addressing major resource issues
related to a specific territory.
One function that a resource coalition can
provide is the formulation of overall goals
and objectives—a strategic plan—for a ter-
ritory selected. A coalition also can help
subdivide a territory into manageable areas
and assign priorities, if needed, for the pur-
pose of facilitating the CRMP process.
During 1990,1 helped several local CRMP
teams formulate coordinated resource plans
that were guided by a strategic plan, devel-
oped by organized group action, for a terri-
tory that encompassed the specific area to
be planned. In these cases, different kinds
of territories were selected by various groups
as their focal point of attention. Different
issues motivated group action in each case.
For example, the Keating Range Improve-
ment Cooperative is concerned about a ter-
ritory that encompasses one major and
several smaller watersheds extending from
the crest of the Eagle Mountains south to
the Powder River in northeastern Baker
County, Oregon. This territory or watershed
is an important source of irrigation water;
the watershed is used primarily for livestock
grazing, forestry, wildlife habitat, and
recreation.
The motivating force behind this working
group's activities is a critical big-game
winter range, mainly mule deer, on which
thermal cover and winter forage supplies
have become so depleted that deer loss dur-
ing severe winters is critical. Land at higher
elevations was included in this territory
because the forested summer range has been
altered by past forest management to the
point where body-fat condition of deer mov-
ing from summer range to lower-elevation
winter range is below requirements for sur-
vival during prolonged severe weather.
The need to do something about this
critical winter range situation had been dis-
cussed locally for many years, but nothing
was done. The Keating group decided to do
something about it. At one of its meetings,
members formulated an overall goal and
subdivided the territory into several
manageable areas, to which priorities were
assigned. The CRMP process was to be used
to formulate management plans for each
priority area, one at a time, with each con-
tributing toward achieving the territorial
goal.
This working group consists of about 20
representatives of two conservation districts,
federal and state agencies, local sportsman's
groups, and ranchers. Decision-makers in
the CRMP process for the first-priority
area—Crystal Palace CRMP—were three
ranchers; BLM; Oregon Department Fish
and Wildlife; U.S. Forest Service; Oregon
Hunter's Association, Baker County
Chapter; Soil Conservation Service; and
Keating and Eagle Valley Conservation
Districts.
A different kind of territory and motiva-
tion was the basis for organizing the Cen-
Iral Oregon Lands Issue Forum. This is a
working group of about 50 representatives
of local environmental and sportsman's
organizations, federal and state agencies, and
ranchers. The territory of major concern is
a sizeable geographic portion of central
Oregon, occurring generally east of the city
of Bend. It is used primarily for livestock
grazing, forestry, wildlife habitat, and
recreation. This group's two major concerns
are that (1) strong efforts are being made to
eliminate livestock grazing from public land
and (2) private land in the vicinity of Bend,
including some within the coalition-
identified territory, are in danger of or are
being zoned for 20-acre residential develop-
ment lots. These private lands include much
of the natural water sources and riparian
areas that exist in the territory, and they oc-
cupy sizeable portions of critical winter
range for mule deer, antelope, and sage
grouse. This group is motivated by the need
to maintain open space, ecological health,
and biological diversity on public as well as
private land in this territory.
To maintain this immense benefit—open
space—to the general public, the group
stated its overall goal that "for sustainable
blocks of private land to remain in econom-
ically viable ranching use, long-term,
ecologically sound grazing on adjacent
public lands is essential. Otherwise, these
private lands will be converted into uses
which may be less desireable from a total
ecosystem perspective.''
The coalition-identified territory was sub-
divided into manageable areas by the coali-
tion on the basis of individual livestock
ranching enterprises within the territory.
each of which involves private and public
land. Decision-makers for the group's first-
priority coordinated management plan—
Leslie Ranch CRMP—were the ranch
manager, BLM, Forest Service, and Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Several
coalition members participated in the
CRMP process.
In conclusion
Those who are concerned with formulat-
ing and implementing resource management
plans should pay special attention to the
CRMP process and the innovations that have
helped improve this technique. CRMP is
based on much practical experience and
evaluation of successes and failures. It
facilitates dealing judiciously with the in-
creasing number, extent, and diversity of
resource situations, viewpoints, and goals
or aspirations of individuals, organizations,
disciplines, and agencies. Such complexity
typifies the kind of setting in which many
of today's resource-oriented issues must be
resolved.
Polarization, whether caused by a lack of
information, misinformation, or a tunnel-
visioned mind-set, can be disruptive to the
CRMP decision-making process and stymie
progress. Local resource coalitions or work-
ing groups, consisting of representatives
from involved organizations and agencies,
can foster communication that will
ameliorate or overcome the reasons for
polarization before the CRMP process
begins. Such groups are a valuable, effec-
tive innovation that will benefit the resource
management program.
Land use planning, or its equivalent, is
often lacking or is too generalized to be of
much value in resolving resource issues for
a specific territory. A local resource coali-
tion is an effective means of formulating a
strategic plan that sets forth goals and ob-
jectives for a specific territory. Such a plan
provides a broad-based territorial perspec-
tive that can be taken into account as
manageable segments of the territory are ad-
dressed, one by one, using the CRMP pro-
cess to produce a management plan. A
strategic plan also can help attain continui-
ty between CRM plans so they collectively
achieve the territorial goals and objectives.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Anderson, E. W. 1990. Tips on initiating a coor-
dinated plan. Rangelands 12(5): 262-263.
2. Anderson, E. W., and R. C. Baum. 1987. Coor-
dinated resource management planning: Dies it
work? J. Soil and Water Cons. 42(3): 161-166.
3. Anderson, E. W., and R. C. Baum. 1988. How
to do coordinated resource management pl
-------
APPENDIX VI
Backhouse, J. C. and Williams, J. D. July 1991. Surface runoff plot design for
use in watershed research. J. Range Management 44(4): 411-412.
VI- 1
-------
Surface runoff plot design for use in watershed research
JOHN D. WILLIAMS AND JOHN C. BUCKHOUSE
Abstract
A micro-watershed design is presented for use in watershed
research projects. The plot size is 5 m (1 X 5 m) and uses low cost
materials for construction. This plot size is suitable for surface flow
and soil erosion research projects conducted where space is limit-
Ing and may be used either for monitoring natural or simulated
rainfall events. Similar plots were used in research conducted on
the Hall Ranch of the Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Cen-
ter, Union, Ore.
Many micro-watershed plot sizes have been used in the history
of rangeland hydrology. The large (3.7 m X 18.3 m) USLE plots
have been used in open shrub and grass lands (e.g., Johnson and
Gordon 1986) and in some forest clear cut applications (Hart
1984). This size of watershed plot usually must be in close proxim-
ity to a road for transport of building materials and simulated
rainfall equipment (if it is used). Heede (1987) argued that the
proper area of a micro-watershed in selectively cut forests in Ariz-
ona is one with naturally defined topographic boundaries. Unfor-
tunately, many logging and/or grazing research projects are not
conducted in units that lend themselves to such subdivision.
An alternative to the above size is a smaller plot of 1 X 5 m (5 m2)
(Fig. 1). Plots of this size were used in a research project conducted
in a selectively cut ponderosa pine forest in the foothills of the
Wallowa Mountains in northeastern Oregon (Williams 1988). In
this study, the 5-m2 plot maximized understory vegetation repres-
entation, sample size, and efficient use of the study area. The 5-m
length may be inadequate for surface flow to develop from natural
rainfall events onto forest soils. This size plot will be adequately
covered by a single 3 nozzle modula of the programmable rainfall
simulator developed by Meyer and Harmon (1979) and Neibling et
al. (1981). Depending on site conditions, the possibility exists to
expand this area without a considerable amount of extra work.
The watershed plot design is a scaled-down simplified version of
plots used by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) at Pen-
dleton, Ore., for surface flow and sediment studies conducted on
cultivated fields (Mutchler 1963, Zuzel et al. 1982).
Watershed Plot Design
A 5-cm steel round-bar template is used to maintain a constant
Authors are graduate research assistant. Department of Rangeland Resources,
Oregon State University, Corvallis 97331 at the time of research, currently graduate
research assistant. Department of Range Science, Utah State University, Logan
84322-5230, and professor. Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State Uni-
versity, Corvallis 97331
Submitted as Technical Paper 9035. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station,
Corvallis. The authors gratefully acknowledge support and funding from the Eastern
Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns and Union, Oregon.
Manuscript accepted 11 August 1990.
Soil Inlerfoce
Collection
Through
75 liter Collection Tonk
19 liter Bucket
Fig. 1. Layout of micro-watershed plot.
area and slope. It is placed on the hillside and the slope within it is
measured with a clinometer. Position of the plot is determined by
moving the template until both the top and bottom are level with
the contour of the hillside.
The plot is delineated by borders constructed with preservative
treated 2.5 X 10.2-cm fir and larch boards. These are buried
approximately 5 cm below the surface of the soil, with approxi-
mately 5 cm left above the surface. The boards are held in place on
the inside of the plot by a straight cut face in the soil. The cut face
and space for the board is made by using a 1 mX 15 cm piece of 4.8
mm flat steel with a sharpened edge used as a knife to make 2
parallel cuts approximately 2.5 cm apart in the earth. A hook-knife
device made from a 2.5 cm wide piece of steel is then used to cut off
any roots between the soil faces and lift the soil out. This produces
a relatively straight and undisturbed face. Surveyor stakes are then
driven into the ground to hold the boards in place. If the board
VI-2
-------
does not press firmly against the soil in the plot, a tighter fit can be
obtained by wedging additional stakes between the first stake and
the board. Excess soil from excavations for the collection trough,
pipe, and collections tank is then tamped in as back-fill on the
outside of the plot to insure stability and prevent rill development.
At the bottom of each plot a overflow sill is driven into the
ground (Fig. 2). The overflow sill is constructed from 14 gauge
sheet metal and resembles a 3 dimensional "H" placed on the
ground. The horizontal arm follows the contour of the hillside and
20cm
Fig. 2. Detail of overflow sill for micro-watershed plot.
the vertical arms are positioned perpendicular to the slope contour.
A sledge hammer and a wooden platform are then used to drive the
overflow sill into the soil until the horizontal arm is an average 5 cm
below the surface of the soil. To further facilitate this process the
leading edge of the overflow sill is sharpened in order to cut
through the soil instead of pushing into it.
A 1 m length of metal storm gutter is then placed beneath the
overflow sill to serve as a collection trough and is supported by a
box constructed with treated 2.5 X 10.2-cm boards. The box is
constructed so that when placed under the overflow sill the gutter
has a 2.5% slope along the contour of the hillside. A cover con-
structed of treated 2.5 X 30.5-cm boards prevents rainfall from
directly falling into the trough. The space between the cover and
the soil above the overflow sill is about 5 cm. Hardware cloth with a
60.4-cm mesh covers this opening to prevent the gutter from filling
with pine needles and grass and to discourage curious rodents.
The trough empties into a 10 cm diameter polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) storm drain pipe which extends down hill 3 m to a 75 liter
garbage can used for the collection tank. The end of this pipe is also
covered with 0.64-cm mesh hardware cloth to further prevent
rodents from falling into and drowning in the collection bucket.
The PVC pipe and collection tank are then buried for protection
and to insulate samples against freezing temperatures. A 19-liter
collection bucket is placed inside the collection tank. The bucket is
easily removed to measure and sample surface flow. The gutter,
PVC pipe, and collection tank are all protected from large herbi-
vore trampling by a 3-strand barbed-wire fence.
A. 1.25 m length of PVC pipe with a cap glued onto the end of it
is wired on a fence post to collect rainfall at the plot. Each collec-
tion bucket and rain gage is charged with anti-freeze and mineral
oil to prevent freezing or evaporation.
Literature Cited
Hart, G.E. 1984. Erosion from simulated rainfall on mountain rangeland in
Utah. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 39:330-334.
Heede, B.H. 1987. Overland flow and sediment delivery five years after
timber harvest in a mixed conifer forest (Arizona). J. Hydrol. 91:205-216.
Johnson, C.W., and N.D. Gordon. 1986. Runoff and erosion from rainfall
simulator plots on sagebrush rangeland. In: Proc. 1986 Summer Meeting
of the Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng., San Luis Obispo, Calif., June 29-July 2,
1986.
Meyer, L.D., and W.C. Harmon. 1979. Multiple-intensity rainfall simula-
tor for erosion research on row sideslopes. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng/.
100-103.
Mutchler, C.K. 1963. Runoff plot design and installation for soil erosion
studies. USDA Agr. Res. Serv., ARS 41-79.
Neibling, W.H., G.R. Foster, R.A. Nattermann, J.D. Nowlin, and P.V.
Holbert. 1981. Laboratory and field testing of a programmable plot-
sized rainfall simulator, p. 405-414. In: Erosion and Sediment Transport
Measurement Proceedings of the Florence Symposium, June 1981.
1AHS Pub. 133.
Williams, J.D. 1988. Overland flow and sediment production potentials in
logged and nonlogged sites of a ponderosa pine forest in northeastern
Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 108 p.
Zuze), J.F., R.R. Allmaras, and R. Greenwalt. 1982. Runoff and soil
erosion on frozen soils in northeastern Oregon. J. Soil & Water Conserv.
37:351-354.
VI-3
-------
APPENDIX VII
PHOTO PLOTS
A GUIDE TO ESTABLISHING POINTS AND TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS
TO MONITOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
VII- 1
-------
PHOTO
PLOTS
A guide to
establishing points and
taking photographs to monitor
watershed management projects
Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board
3850 Portland Road ME
Salem, Oregon 97310
Phone: 1-800-624-3199
The
Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board
Salem, Oregon
October 1993
-------
Contents
Photo Plots 1
What Equipment will I Need? 2
Ok! Let's Take the Pictures 2
Close-Up Photographs 3
General View Photographs 4
How Can I be Sure to Find the Same Photo
Plot Next Year? 5
How Do I Take Subsequent Photographs? 6
What if I Need Help? 6
Tables and Figures
= Table 1 - Monitoring Common Practices
" For Effectiveness 7
Figure 1 - Close-Up Permanent Photo Plot
Location 9
Figure 2 - Photo Identification Label 10
Figure 3 - General View Photo Plots 11
Photographs
Close-up Photo Plot Location 12
General View Across a Creek Bed 13
General View Along a Creek Bed 14
General View Along a Fence Line 15
General View Landscape 16
PHOTO PLOTS
A Simple Way to Monitor
Watershed Management Projects
Monitoring is an effective way to find out if a water-
shed management project is meeting its goals and
objectives. Monitoring can show how well, or how
poorly, a management system is working. It can help
identify needed changes in management and can show
others how to improve watersheds and riparian areas.
Many kinds of monitoring systems are used to docu-
ment the results of watershed enhancement projects.
Some systems, such as taking measurements and
recording scientific data, can be exacting and quite
complicated. The data may take many years to de-
velop and analyze.
Other systems are quite simple. Taking photographs
is one of the most basic monitoring techniques. While
photographs cannot tell the entire story about a pro-
ject, much information can be gathered from photo-
graphs taken at the same point over a number of
years.
Photographs of ten reveal changes that measurements
miss. They serve as a reminder of how far you have
come in establishing a healthy-functioning, natural
resource area. Photos are an easy way to make others
aware of the benefits of good land management prac-
tices.
This booklet can help you establish the reference
points or photo plots from which to take pictures to
monitor changes resulting from a resource manage-
ment project.
-------
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
WHAT EQUIPMENT WILL I NEED?
You will need only a few supplies to photo-monitor
your project.
You will need a camera, of course, preferably 35mm,
and film. Either the print or slide type is fine al-
though slides are preferred by most natural resource
managers. While not really a vital necessity, you
may also wish to have a camera tripod to get steady,
clear shots.
For close-up photographs, you will need four pieces
of angle iron or rebar stakes about 16 inches long (or
any height you can see easily), and a hammer or
post driver depending upon ground conditions. For
general view photographs, you will need two stakes
about 3 to 4 feet high. Brightly colored spray paint
for the stakes will help you to find them later.
A wood or steel measuring tape, photo identifica-
tion labels, a map at an appropriate scale, for ex-
ample a USGS quad sheet, and a black felt-tip pen
are also necessary.
OK! LET'S TAKE THE PICTURES
Table 1 on page 7 shows what photographs should
be taken to monitor certain management practices.
Depending upon the type of project you have, there
are two types of photographs you may wish to
consider taking, close-up and general view.
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPHS
Close-up photos show specific characteristics of an
area, such as soil surface or the amount of ground
surface covered by vegetation and organic litter.
Close-up photos are taken periodically from perma-
nently located photo points.
Usually a 3 ft. x 3 ft. square area is used for close-up
photo plots. To mark the corners of the square,
drive angle iron or rebar stakes into the ground on
all four corners (see Figure 1 on page 9.) Paint the
stakes a bright color, such as yellow or orange, to
help you relocate them during subsequent picture
taking. You may have to repaint them once in a
while if they fade.
If you have a camera with changeable lenses, you
should plan to use the same lens on your camera
during subsequent picture taking as you did when
you set up the original photo point and took the first
pictures.
You and your camera should stand on the north
side of the plot. By standing on the north side,
photographs can be taken at any time during the
day without casting a shadow across the plot.
Before taking the picture, place a filled-out photo
identification label (see Figure 2 on page 10) on the
ground next to the photo plot.
Place a steel or wood measuring tape across the
south side of the plot. The tape should be opened to
36 inches with the tape reading from left to right.
-------
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
The tape will provide some relative scale to the
photo. Stand about six to eight feet back from the
center of the plot. Be sure you can see the label in
the camera view finder.
After taking the picture, mark the location of the
photo plot on the map along with an arrow showing
the direction in which you took the photo .
If you are sending the monitoring photographs to
someone else, as an enclosure in a report for ex-
ample, be sure to keep a copy of the pictures and the
map for yourself. The copies will help you locate
the same spot and line up the landmarks for subse-
quent photos. They will also help you see the
changes that have occurred since the last pictures
were taken.
GENERAL VIEW PHOTOGRAPHS
General view photos can be divided into two cat-
egories: features and landscapes.
Feature photos document change on or around
larger objects such as rock dams, streambanks or
stream profiles. Pictures can be taken with views
across, upstream and/or downstream (showing, for
example, changes in a stream profile), or across or
up and down a fence line to show contrast between
different land management activities.
Feature photos are usually taken from opposite
ends of an imaginary line. For example, you may set
up a photo plot to monitor changes on opposite
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
sides of a stream. To do this, drive a stake or post
into the ground on each side of the stream. The two
points should be about 30 or 40 feet apart. Place the
photo identification label in an upright position so
that it appears in the foreground of the photograph.
Holding the camera over one stake, center the other
stake in the middle of the photograph. For the next
photo, reverse the procedure. Be sure to include the
photo label and, if possible, some sky in the photo to
help set the scale of the objects being photographed
Landscape photos are an overview of the area show-
ing the feature and its relationship to the surround-
ing area. A landscape photo might be taken from a
nearby hill showing from a distance the same sec-
tion of stream where the feature photo was taken.
Figure 3 on page 11 shows some examples of gen-
eral view photo plots.
HOW CAN I BE SURE TO FIND THE
SAME PHOTO PLOT NEXT YEAR?
Leaving the brightly painted stakes in place will
mark the exact photo plot location. However,
because of vegetation growth and other changes, the
photo plot may be hard to see in subsequent years.
A photograph of the area around the plot, taken
from the nearest road at the time you establish the
plot, can facilitate finding the general location.
Again, remember to keep copies of all of the photos
for yourself!
-------
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
HOW DO I TAKE SUBSEQUENT
PHOTOGRAPHS?
When you take subsequent photographs, follow the
same process used in taking the initial ones. Include
the same stakes and a new label in the close-up
photos. Match up the same landmarks and stakes in
the subsequent general view photos. Don't forget to
make up a new label.
To give validity to your photos and to really show
the results, ifs best to take subsequent photos at
approximately the same time of the year as the
originals.
WHAT IF I NEED HELP?
you need more information about how to set up
photo plots or take subsequent photos, please con-
tact GWEB at 1-800-624-3199. We will direct your
inquiry to the appropriate person in your area.
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring.
Table 1
MONITORING COMMON PRACTICES
FOR EFFECTIVENESS
Practice
Control juniper
in uplands
Manage grazing
of domestic live-
stock through new
rotation patterns,
fences or water
developments
Install gradient-
stabilizing drop
structures to
partially block
stream flow and
form pool
Construct letties
in stream channels
to partially block
stream flow and
form a pool
Enhances Watersheds
(water quality and
quantity) by ...
... reducing transpiration,
allowing grasses to increase
so they can impede and filter
overland flow, and increase
their root density to hold soil
... increasing grass cover and
vigor in uplands to intercept
rainfall, impede and filter over-
land flow, and reduce erosion
and siltation. Reducing com-
paction in riparian areas so as
to reduce bank failures, erosion
and stream siltation
... reducing stream velocity,
trapping sediment, reducing
streambank erosion and chan-
nel cutting, and promoting
streambank revegetation
... reducing stream velocity,
allowing sediment to settle,
and protecting the channel
downstream from cutting,
bank failure, and erosion
Monitor by Taking
(before, during, after)
Photos of...
... sites where junipers
have been killed or
removed
... representative areas
in uplands, and of stream -
bank profiles in riparian
areas
... profiles of represen-
tative streambanks.
Measure the depth of
silt behind the structures
... the downstream side
of jetty locations from
about 30 feet away
-------
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
Table 1
(Continued)
Practice
Enhances Watersheds
(water quality and
quantity) by ...
Monitor by Taking
(before, during, after)
Photos of...
Herbaceous
plantings in
uplands
... increasing grass cover to
intercept precipitation, impede
runoff, reduce erosion, increase
infiltration and filter overland
flow
... representative land-
scapes
Planting
vegetation in
riparian areas
... anchoring riparian soil,
reducing streambank failure,
erosion, and channel cutting;
promoting revegetation of
streambanks and restoring
channel profile; trapping debris,
filtering the stream, providing
shade, and reducing stream
temperature
... representative stream -
bank profiles (with the
horizon at the top edge
of the photo)
Install cut-tree
riprap to form
barriers along
streambanks
... impeding stream flow and
velocity along the banks; re-
ducing erosion, channel cutting,
and bank failure; reducing
siltation, promoting revegeta-
tion of streambanks to further
trap sediment; reducing com-
paction and trampling by live-
stock in riparian areas
... cross-sections of
streambanks, focusing on
locations of typical
installations
Install head-cut
control devices
... stopping channel cutting,
promoting channel healing,
helping restore channel profile
and promoting water storage
in riparian areas
... treatment areas,
providing an oblique
view of problem sites
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
Figure 1
CLOSE-UP PERMANENT
PHOTO PLOT LOCATION
(3 ft. x 3 ft. Plot Outline)
Locate a permanent stake on the north side
of the plot as a camera point
Photo I.D.
Label
N
STAND 6 ft. to 8 ft.
FROM THE CENTER
OF THE PLOT
00
o
VO
Angle
Iron/Rebar
Stake
Angle \
Iron/Rebar
Stake
-UL
JJ
Measuring
Tape
Paint the stakes with bright-colored permanent
spray paint (yellow or orange) to aid in relocation.
Repaint these stakes when subsequent photographs
are taken.
-------
GWEB Ptwto Plot Monitoring
Figure 2
PHOTO IDENTIFICATION LABEL
DATE
TIME
PHOTO POINT No.
PROJECT No.
PROJECT NAME
<
CD
Create a label with this Information on it. The label
should be large enough to be readable in the photo-
graph.
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
Figure 3
GENERAL VIEW PHOTO PLOTS
Examples of Fenceline Photo Points
< g
(J-,
A,
tX g
c
B x
A r
Examples of Stream and Stream Bank
Photo Points
A
C ^
A
B
B
-------
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
^
I
Close-up Photo Plot Location
PAofo courtesy Dave I-'ran?£n, Soil Conservation Sernce
General View Photo Plot Across a Creek Bed
Photo Courtesy Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
-------
(IW/iH Phalli f'lni Moniiuring
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
General View Photo Plot Along a Creek Bed
PlintC' Courffiy Bureau i
-------
GWEB Photo Plot Monitoring
Above 1968, Below 1984, General View Landscape
Photo Courtesy Wayne Elmore, Bureau of Land Management
«^^^S9Kt *• vi^jfv^** **•*"•*
sijll*^
-------
APPENDIX VIII
Anderson, E. W. October 1986. A Guide for Estimating Cover. Rangelands
8(5): 236-238.
VIII-1
-------
A Guide for Estimating Cover
E. William Anderson
The 1983 report of the Society for Range Management's
Range Inventory Standardization Committee (RISC) pro-
poses definitions for three kinds of cover measurements:
canopy cover, foliar cover, and ground cover.
RISC defines canopy cover as: "the percentage of ground
covered by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter
of the natural spread of foliage of plants. Small openings
within the canopy are included. It may exceed 100%." Foliar
cover is defined as: "the percentage of ground covered by
the vertical projection of the aerial portion of plants. Small
openings in the canopy and intraspecif ic overlap are excluded.
Foliar cover is always less than canopy cover; either may
exceed 100%." Ground cover is defined as: "the percentage
of material, other than bare ground, covering the land sur-
face. It may include live and standing dead vegetation, litter,
cobble, gravel, stones, and bedrock. Ground cover plus bare
ground would total 100%." Canopy cover ignores small
openings in the canopy, whereas, foliar cover takes these
Into account. Ground cover is the total of everything provid-
ing direct cover to the land, whereas, canopy cover and foliar
cover take into account vegetational layering that commonly
occurs in plant communities. Each has its own attributes. Of
the three, canopy cover is best suited as a practical field
procedure for documenting a plant community.
Author is Certified Range Management Consultant, 1509 Hemlock Street,
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 (503) 636-8017.
As a field procedure, canopy cover is equally adapted to
grassland, shrubby, woodland, and forest ecological sites.
Gramineae, forb, shrub, tree, and moss/lichen species can
be measured by this method of quantification. Bare ground,
gravel and stones, and litter/mulch also can be measured by
the canopy cover procedure. This is especially important in
watershed analysis and evaluation of trend in ecological
status. This attribute—one procedure for measuring all these
factors—strongly enhances the value of the data for ecologi-
cal interpretation.
The canopy cover procedure provides reasonably accu-
rate data suitable for decision-making consistent with the
needs of practical resource management and with a min-
imum of effort and cost.
A disadvantage of using canopy cover is that it must be
corrected for herbage removed by grazing. This is not diffi-
cult if there are ungrazed areas nearby which can be
observed. There is inherent observer error in estimating
canopy cover which can be minimized by the use of a com-
parison chart. This will improve the accuracy and, even more
important, consistency of an observer from day to day, and
conformity between observers.
Comparison charts have been used for estimating vegeta-
tional density and cover for many years. The best one I have
used is shown in Figure 1.' It was originally developed by a
'An 8 X10 inch lithographed print of the comparison chart on which the circles
are 1 inch diameter can be obtained from the author by sending a self-
addressed stamped envelope.
w
a
s s
JTJ fa
a fe
o o
s
I—I
H
CO
. .-•v .v T ^t sW-'l'isa
'*'* -' i$s • r .:i''''i»&v^
/ • v '• - •, ~\
v. vJ i>:^-^
10 X
>• . -
V ':^,
20%
25*
iT^1 V
*'*»rv
30%
40%
•i» . r • .'•*»/£,> dsSoB''.'
^:,^ ^ifc
<•. ^ <\ "i/ •»»(•« '»*>**f*. •^**tJ'**'»'5k;u
^> ^:I^ ^1^
Comparison chart lor visual estimation of percent foliage cover. Reprinted from the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology with permission
from the Journal, authors, and Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.
VIII-2
-------
Russian sedimentologist to help visually estimate percen-
tages of minerals in rock sections. It was published in U.S.A.
by Terry and Chilmger (1965).
The chart is mathematically accurate. The major feature
which makes it unusually well adapted to estimating cover of
plants is that the black spots are clustered, which simulates
the way single species, especially forbs, usually occur in the
plant community. Two arrangements of black spots, one of
small and one of larger spots, are shown for each percen-
tage. This helps select a circle which fits the relative size and
distribution pattern of species being rated. When estimating
cover of a species, group of species, or total plant commun-
ity that exceeds 50%, use the black spots on the chart to
connote openings, i.e., a 70% canopy cover is shown by the
white areas on the 30% circle.
Estimating Canopy Cover
Percent cover is estimated for each species, one at a time.
If a species has less than one percent cover, a trace (T) is
recorded. On the comparison chart, each plant of a species is
the equivalent of a small black spot; groups of plants of a
single species equate with the largest spots in the circle.
Select the circle in which the spots best represent the aver-
age size, density and dumpiness of the species being rated.
When estimating a small species such as a single-stem
annual or perennial, a small sized area, sometimes less than
24 inches diameter, is represented by the circle. Therefore, a
number of readings scattered over the area being sampled
are required to visualize an average. When each spot repre-
sents a larger species such as juniper or pine trees, the area
represented by the circle is much larger and one reading can
represent the entire area being sampled. For example, the 1%
circle can represent the average canopy cover of cheatgrass
as well as juniper trees on the area being sampled but the
surface area represented by the circle is very different in
each case.
This variability in size of area represented by a circle on the
comparison chart is due to the relationship between the size
of canopy of the species and the distance between canopies.
This does not affect the validity of cover estimates made by
this procedure since cover data are independent of plot size,
shape and sampling design (Holscher, 1959).
Estimating canopy cover on shrubby, woodland, and
forest ecological sites usually involves several vegetational
layers between the overstory and the ground. Natural grass-
land ecological sites also may have low grasses and forbs
growing under, or partially under taller species (Figure 2).
This overlapping canopy cover is handled easily by the
species-by-species technique. However, when a single maj-
or species such as Douglas-fir, is also layered according to
age classes, a canopy cover estimate for each major age
class—mature, pole, sapling, seedling or other appropriate
classes—of the species is recorded. Documenting vertical
structure of the tree overstory, species by species, provides
for interpretations of the relationships between the nature of
the canopy cover and such factors as solar energy, light
quality, precipitation intercept and their effects on under-
story species, regeneration, herbage production and water-
shed quality.
Total cover of the potential natural plant community
(PNC) is a reliable index of inherent gross productivity of the
site. For example, in an eastern Oregon natural grassland
Plant communities of natural grassland, shrubby, woodland and
forest ecological sites display vertical, overlapping layers caused by
tall- and lower-growing species and, with trees, different age classes
of a single species. fSCS photos I
VIII-3
-------
'PNC on silty soil under 9 to 11 inches annual precipitation,
the total canopy cover is about 95% of which 30% consists of
mosses and lichens in the interspaces between grasses and
forbs. By comparison, a mixed fir forest PNC on silty soil
under 26 to 40 inches precipitation has a canopy cover of
about 170% of which 120% consists of trees of various age
classes.
It is good technique to validate the sum of cover estimates
for individual species by a quick comparison with the overall
plant community cover. Appropriate circles on the chart will
provide an approximation of the total cover. If a gross differ-
ence exists, reconsider each species to find the error. In
multi-layered plant communities it helps to estimate cover
for all grasses and forbs as a group, then all shrubs, and all
trees to arrive at a total for the plant community.
Aspect Dominance Ratings
Some of the most important species in the plant commun-
ity commonly exist only as a "Trace" in the canopy cover.
These include palatable forbs which have special signifi-
cance as wildlife forage, species which signify early trend in
ecological status, and species which are ecological indica-
tors of site potential. When estimating cover, a Trace (T) is
recorded whether there is one plant of a species on the area
sampled or the species occurs throughout the stand but not
quite at the 1 % canopy-cover level. Obviously, it is beneficial
for ecological interpretation to document the relative density
of each species, including those that occur as a Trace.
As the canopy cover of each species is quantified, the
species is also rated as to its dominance in the aspect physi-
ognamy of the plant community. This is done by using a
numerical code in which the digit 5 connotes the dominant
species; 4 connotes the codominant species; 3 connotes
species easily seen in the stand; 2 connotes species seen
only by changing position and looking intently; 1 connotes
rare species, have to search for it. This dominance rating
provides data that not only help reconstruct a mental image
of the vegetational physiognamy or aspect of the area
sampled but also enhances the quantification of small and
single-stemmed species which individually exist only as a
Trace or low percentage. Species with a Trace canopy cover
can have a dominance rating of 1, 2, or 3 and there can be
considerable ecological significance attached to the domi-
nance rating. For example, in measuring trend in ecological
status, a species that changes from a Trace cover with a
dominance rating of 1 to a Trace cover with a dominance
rating of 3 in the stand can be as significant, or more so, than
a species that changes from 1% to 3% canopy cover. This is
especially true in early stages when changes in species
occurrence first begin to occur.
All species occurring as a Trace canopy cover collectively
contribute to the total canopy cover of the plant community.
However, Traces cannot be added arithmetically to numerals
to arrive at a sum total. Arbitrarily, therefore, an arithmetic
value can be assigned to a group of Traces. For example, ten
Traces of species having a dominance rating of 1 can be
counted as being equivalent to 1% canopy cover. Likewise,
three Traces of species having a dominance rating of 2 or 3
can be counted as 1% canopy cover.
Plot Size
On rangeland ecological sites, the size of the area sampled
when estimating canopy cover is about 50 feet radius (about
8,000 sq. ft.) which will normally encompass the major vari-
ability of the plant community being sampled. All species on
this area are listed. Cover and aspect dominance ratings are
made for each species.
On woodland and forest ecological sites, the size of the
area sampled usually needs to be larger to encompass the
variability of the plant community. Smaller areas may be
adequate to sample the plant community of a dry or moist
bottomland site on which the plant community is fairly
uniform.
Application
This canopy cover procedure is not suitable for measuring
the plant community on wet meadow sites because the
dense, multi-layered vegetation makes estimating per cent
cover of individual species virtually impossible. Further-
more, the occurrence and aspect dominance of wet-meadow
species commonly changes markedly as the growing season
progresses; different readings are obtained at different
times.
Experience has shown that cover estimate using the com-
parison chart tend to be quantitatively less than estimates
based on judgement alone. This is partly because each spe-
cies is scrutinized when compared with the chart and each
estimate is based upon a standard visual guide. In contrast,
judgement estimates are based on a mental concept which
varies from person to person and from time to time. This is
particularly true for species which have a low percentage
cover.
There are many important species that individually consti-
tute a low percentage cover in the plant community. Conse-
quently, using cover classes or dominance ratings alone is
practically worthless and misleading as a measurement of
single species for ecological interpretation.
Canopy cover data are so valuable for ecological interpre-
tation of the total plant community and related cover factors
such as bare ground, litter/mulch and gravel/stones that
cover data should be documented even though one or more
other procedures are also used for documenting the plant
community.
Literature Cited
Holscher, Clark E. 1959. Report of the committee on plant cover and
composition. In: Proceedings, Techniques and Methods of Meas-
uring Understory Vegetation. U.S. Forest Serv. Southern & South-
eastern Forest Exp. Sta. 174 pgs.
Terry, Richard D., and George V. Chllanger. 1955. Summary of
"Concerning some additional aids in studying sedimentary forma-
tions" by M.S. Shvetsov. J. Sedimentary Petrology 25(3):299-234.
September.
vm-4
-------
APPENDIX IX
Anderson, E. W. February 1988. Canopy Cover as a Method of Monitoring
Trend in Ecological and Soil Status. Rangelands 10(1): 27-31.
IX-1
-------
Canopy Cover as a Method of Monitoring Trend in Ecologi-
cal and Soil Status
E. William Anderson
Monitoring the trend of ecological and soil status on range-
lands and grazed forests has long been considered a neces-
sary field procedure. Historically, we have used a variety of
procedures including pantograph and photograph quadrats,
exclosures, fence-line photos, belt and line transects, and
various randomized plot schemes and methods of measur-
ing vegetation and soil factors. All have had good points at
the time and much as been written on this subject (USDA
Forest Service 1959).
Although intentions are good, the fact is that follow-
through under practical field conditions is frequently neg-
lected. Literally hundreds of plots and transects established
over the years have been forgotten or abandoned. Monitor-
ing, as a field technique, has been plagued by factors such as
procedures involving too much precision for easy applica-
tion by the nonresearch type people who were expected to
use them; frequent transfers of personnel without continuity
in the monitoring effort; and costs and workloads that led
administrators to decide that other budgetary items took
precedence over monitoring.
Monitoring is so important in contemporary resource
management that special effort should be made to develop a
simple, relatively inexpensive procedure that can meet the
needs of practical resource management. Reliance on legis-
lation to mandate monitoring is not enough to get the job
done.
This article presents a simple procedure for documenting
trend in ecological and soil status based on multiple factors
and sensitivity to the dynamics of change, especially in early
stages of trend. It is not intended as a substitute for more
precise procedures where they are needed. This procedure
consists of two phases, one conducted annually and one
periodically over a span of years. The annual phase, already
being used, consists of interpreting patterns of utilization
that exist following the livestock grazing season (Anderson
and Currier 1973). The periodic phase consists of interpret-
ing data collected on permanent plots as described herein.
Either of these two phases can be used alone advantage-
ously. When used in conjunction with each other, the impact
The author is Certified Range Management Consultant, 1509 Hemlock
Street. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034. (503) 636-8017
of livestock on trend is clarified in respect to the impact of
weather and other herbivores, such as elk, deer, rabbits,
mice and insects. Consequently, reasons for apparent trend
are clearer and more realistic than if trend data, per se, are
the only data for interpretation.
Causes of Change
Vegetational changes over time may result from factors
that are not readily apparent nor well understood. Not all
changes are attributable to grazing by herbivores. Long-time
observations of the synecology of ecological sites indicate
that many herbaceous species are naturally cyclic in respect
to their abundance from year to year and some naturally
disappear for a period of years. Although weather or changes
in ecological status (condition) are commonly cited as cau-
sal factors, the specifics are often speculative.
Various kinds of shoddy techniques can induce artificial
vegetational changes into the data. For exam pie, a thorough
listing of species on a plot during one data collection and an
incomplete listing during the subsequent collection results
in the data showing changes that may not have occurred. A
subsequent collection of data on a plot during a different
phenological stage than existed at the time of the first collec-
tion will produce similar results.
For reasons such as these, considerable prudence is
required to develop the rationale upon which a viewpoint on
trend in ecological and soil status can be based; it is not a
cut-and-dried procedure (R.I.S.C. 1983).
Changes Measured
Diet selectivity by herbivores causes different effects on
the plant community and the resulting changes usually
occur in combinations rather than as single effects (Ander-
son 1977). Therefore, a single criterion is not adequate for
predicting trend.
In this procedure, the following changes in the plant com-
munity were selected for measurement: floristic composi-
tion, canopy cover, litter, plant vigor, and forage production.
Trend in soil status is measured by changes in bare ground
and cover of litter, gravel/stones and mosses/lichens.
Floristic composition is measured by listing the names of
IX-2
-------
all species that occur on the permanent plot. Canopy cover
and dominance ratings of vegetation, species by species,
and cover of litter, bare ground, gravel/stones, and mosses/
lichens are measured by using the technique and guide for
estimating cover explained by Anderson (1986). Special
attention is given to the occurrence of seedlings of perenni-
al/biennial species that might help predict trend, such as
sagebrush and needlegrass, and these are rated as either
ABUNDANT or SOME.
Plant vigor, based on the current growth form as compared
to a perceived standard for the species on that particular
ecological site, is expressed in one of three classes: HIGH
MEDIUM LOW. Obviously, this is a judgmental factor with
many weaknesses. Nevertheless, the three-class compari-
son does provide an experienced-judgment opinion by the
observer which can be used as supplementary information
for predicting trend, which is in keeping with the objectives
of this practitioner-type procedure.
Forage production is not a factor for judging trend. A
change in production of perennial/biennial species can be
caused by a change in the vigor of these plants, especially
during early changes in ecological status. Changes in pro-
duction also can be caused by changes in plant density and
composition. In both cases, changes in production that are
obviously not related primarily to weather are supporting
evidence of trend. Production is estimated in usable pounds
per acre air dry, using clipped/weighed plots if desired, from
perennial/biennial species and taking into account a residue
^
»H
1
n
n
is
d
*t
c
0
tn
.D
,?
•3
u
r.
to
n
t>
K
ITEK3 & SPECIES
Bare Ground
Gravel & Stones
Litter & Mulch
Moeooa & Lichona
\ cA_CL ^\C> "rS *i C. IJ C
9t *?-i v> N v vt V "t a * ^
C>1 u e_ to y v\.c-V\ v/V\£e>A q re*, s $
• V~Q-\X" ^ *^ \ U VVC. G^ t"~d-S S
\ *^ \J ^ v *."C* VXC E cLlC O^ ^t*- S ^
Neea.t.(i - A^d.- -tWv-eaoL
Vs/cstevvv vxeedLeqra-ss
** riccsm U-MJkr^e
Ai"C_b\^
Loiao^VeGjf" pKVox.
Woo U-vpodL IOC.Q
5t>\pVivjr T^OVA/(LV~ *C? v) cJc ^v kjLajt"
Wi'llt>>A/ voeeA-
Sil^c. Ivj^i'vxt
reQ.*r \ £vc.x* \CL^^**rvc\
K ^>pc c.tc-Vc ^?OC)L- loCjo
-*1 vAa.dLi.Q-
^i irtT.eJ.eA-f -f \e.cx^?aif\e
* TV\Y-eoL(i leaf ? leirt:e< tovo sK_
* RuVber TTQ.V>S>'\VVro5li_
plus ( for 1 O Ti
Total Cover:
Perennial Cover:
U rowing season this year:
Eat. Ibo/acre air dryi Per. grass !c forbs
Shrubs
Apparent vigor (key species):
) <^o,V\.e- T e s c y ov\elvVwVtVti«-
LWTE: £>/*
DOMI-
NANCE
XXX
XXX
XXX
—
3
2.
2.
1
3
1
1
1
Z
|
2.
3
3t
l
1
1
2.
S
3
XXX
J(XX
AbAyJ): AV
loo
—
H f
abun
-i /IS
CANUI'X
coren
4-5
IO
ZO
0
•5
1
/
T
2.
T
T
T
I
T
1
1
7
r
T
T
1
ZS
3
-48
•47
::BeAv
1 L
X.
X
some
UATh: ^/
DOMI-
NANCE
XXJC
XXX
XXX
-
" 3 •»-
- 3
" 3
-- 2.
^ 3
0
"^ 3
3.
^ 1
O
Z.
2.
1
•s-
o
/
1
1
/
2-
-- I
1
- 2_
- 5
•f
/
XXX
xu
AbAv::(_A
3<
H «
X
;c
abun
X
i4»/S1
CANOI'I
COVMR
3?
/o
30
O
•5
1
I
T
2.
O
1
r
T
o
1
I
T
2.
O
T"
T
T
T
1
T
r
i
iS"
b"
7"
/
•AT
-IT
j) :DeAv
3O
o-
L
some
X
Fig. 1 . Format for recording monitoring data on a single plot over a span of time. Data shown are abbreviated from an actual plot study.
IX-3
-------
conforming to safe degree of utilization (proper use).
Frequency of measuring changes in vegetation and soil on
permanent plots can be at intervals of five or more years
depending upon objectives and the size and distribution of
workloads. If an objective is to learn about the dynamics of
trend in ecological and soil status at early stages of serai
change, the five-year interval produces such information.
Permanent Plots
In this procedure, each permanent plot consists of three
components: a 3-foot square plot marked by steel pegs,
which serves as a close-up photo point; a 25-foot line plot,
suitably marked at both ends and encompassing the 3-foot
plot, which serves as a photo point of the general aspect; and
an unmarked plot approximately 50 feet in radius centered
on the 3-foot plot which is the area on which all plant species
and other measurements are recorded. The size of the plot
(approximately 8,000 sq. ft.) is usually sufficient to encom-
pass the species variability and dumpiness typical of native
plant communities. Larger areas may be required in some
vegetational types and smaller areas may be adequate to
sample plant communities that are fairly uniform. The size of
the plot used in the initial data collection should be recorded
on the data sheet so that subsequent collection will repres-
ent approximately the same area.
Subsequent readings of an unmarked plot can only approximate
the area previously read. A few species may be added or lost
in the data. The dominance rating which accompanies the
cover estimate for each species will flag the rare species
which are too insignificant in the floristic composition to
affect interpretation.
This procedure is not suitable for measuring the plant
community on wet meadow sites because the dense, multi-
layered vegetation makes estimating per cent cover of indi-
vidual species virtually impossible. The occurrence and
aspect dominance of wet-meadow species commonly changes
markedly as the growing season progresses and different
readings are obtained at different times due to phenological
changes.
Number and location of plots is an important considera-
tion in monitoring trend in ecological and soil status by this
procedure. Since an objective is to simplify and reduce costs
consistent with meeting the needs of practical resource
management, the number of plots is minimal. No attempt is
made to attain statistical adequacy. Rather, the philosophy
of this procedure is "on the basis of the data from these plots,
the predicted trend for this ecological site is...and for these
reasons...." For those who have never tried this approach to
interpreting data, experience has shown that it is a common-
sense philosophy acceptable for practical resource
management situations.
In order for a minimum number of plots to provide a reason-
able basis for predicting trend, it is necessary to judiciously
select the location of each plot. The value of the data from the
plots is enhanced and made more acceptable for interpreta-
tion and extrapolation by locating each permanent plot on a
representative example of each major ecological site in the
pasture being monitored. In large pastures, several plots per
ecological site are desirable. Thus, the ecological site
becomes the means for stratifying the landscape into rea-
sonably homogeneous units which require fewer plots to
sample. The site becomes the basis for extrapolating to other
areas of the same site within that pasture. Plots should not
contain transition zones between sites so as to obtain as
much homogeneity and extrapolation value as possible.
The objective of monitoring trend is to denote changes
caused by herbivore grazing. It is essential that each per-
manent plot be located where it will be grazed. Plots on
upland sites should be located at least one quarter mile from
water and in easily accessible area to ensure being grazed.
Plots located in the vicinity of roads help reduce travel time
between plots, which constitutes a large proportion of the
cost of monitoring.
Data Collection
The process of initially reading a plot is necessarily some-
what different than subsequent readings because the first
reading establishes the plot and its basic data. Subsequent
readings focus on changes that have taken place since the
previous reading.
Step 1 is to select the location of the plot, establish the
3-foot square and 25-foot line plots and take a color photo of
each using a standard lens to avoid distortion. Each photo
should display a placard for identification of the plot. Prefer-
ably, two people, one acting as recorder, should be involved
in data collection so as to save time and provide a cross-
check on estimates made when measuring factors. Collec-
tion of data begins by listing the names of all species—
annuals and perennials—occurring on the 50-foot-radius
plot using common and/or scientific names. Symbols are not
readily translated during interpretation when numerous
species are involved. After both persons have searched the
plot and all species have been recorded, the process of
quantifying begins by estimating canopy cover and domi-
nance ratings, species by species, then bare ground and
other items. Both persons verbally concur on each estimate
and rating before it is recorded using the scattergram and
technique described by Anderson (1986) so as to maintain
reasonable accuracy and consistency.
Seedlings of species that might help predict trend in eco-
logical status are recorded and rated as to abundance—
ABUNDANT or SOME. Estimates of usable forage and
apparent vigor of key species provide supplemental infor-
mation.
Subsequent plot readings are made to denote changes
that have taken place during the interim. Starting with the
data sheet from the initial reading, use a check mark to
indicate the species currently on the plot that were there
previously. Add those species that are currently on the plot
but were not there previously and mark these with an asterisk
for ready identification during interpretation of the data.
Species that have disappeared from the plot since the pre-
vious reading should be marked by a zero in the current
quantification (Fig. 1).1 For species currently on the plot that
were there previously, if no change has occurred, the pre-
vious percent cover and dominance rating for each of those
'A copy of a field data sheet which accommodates four readings of a plot can
be obtained from the author by sending a self-addressed, stamped envelop
Figure 1 is a simplified version.
IX-4
-------
species is recorded as the current data. If change has
occurred, estimating cover, rating dominance and other
measurements are the same procedure as used in the initial
reading.
Case History
This monitoring procedure was established on the 576,000-
acre Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge in Nevada-Oregon in
1978 after the coordinated resource management plan for
the refuge was developed. Selected management units that
had been grazed by cattle and feral horses were examined
annually to map zones of utilization and record other perti-
nent data. Fifty-three permanent plots were established
initially representing 14 different ecological sites and all
management units. Distribution was reasonably uniform
over the entire refuge. Since the initial plots were estab-
lished, a number of additional plots have been established in
strategic locations.
The initial reading of the permanent plots involved 11 days
between June 6 and June 22,1978, and required 110 hours
for each of two people, about 65 percent of which was locat-
ing and establishing plots and travel between plots. About 40
minutes were required to document a single plot. Plant
communities on most ecological sites were fairly well deve-
loped phenologically.
The next reading of plots was originally planned for 1983;
however, that was an exceptionally favorable year for vegeta-
tional growth which might have exaggerated actual changes
that had occurred. Therefore, the readings were postponed
to 1984, when it involved 9 days between June 25 and July 13
and required 102 hours for each of two people. Growing
season temperatures were near normal. Crop-year (Sep-
tember through June) precipitation was above normal (121%).
But precipitation during the critical spring growing season,
April through June, was only 72% of normal. Phenologically,
some species were slightly overmature on some sites. Two
plots had been vandalized and could not be relocated.
Data collected by using this procedure provided a basis for
the following kinds of interpretations regarding trend:
Canopy Cover: In 1984, plot readings showed a uniform
reduction in the cover of perennial/biennial species on all
ecological sites and in all management units. Only 10 of the
51 plots located during the second reading showed increased
cover and one plot remained static. Decreased cover was
likely due to the droughty spring growing season which
adversely affected production. Had grazing management
been a factor, some units would have differed from others
because grazing varied from unit to unit and from year to
year in asingle unit. Mapped zones of utilization support this
viewpoint.
Floristic Composition: Between 1978 and 1984, low sage-
brush sites on Sheldon lost six perennial/biennial species
but gained 23 new perennial/biennial species. The bitter-
brush site lost 13 and gained 32 new; the mountain maho-
gany site lost six and gained two new; the juniper site lost five
and gained four new; the big sagebrush sites lost 13 and
gained 23 new; and the bottomland sites lost 15 and gained
20 new perennial/biennial species. This general increase of
new perennial species on nearly all sites and in all manage-
ment units over six years indicates an apparent favorable
trend in ecological status toward the potential natural plant
community (PNC) of the sites.
The desirable quality of these new species, as illustrated
by species such as basin wildrye; big, Canby and Cusick
bluegrasses; serrate balsamroot; lineleaf, threadleaf and
Austin fleabanes; modoc hawksbeard; and cream and rock
buckwheats, lend credance to this trend.
Diversity of vegetational types is often cited as a major
management objective, especially in respect to wildlife man-
agement. Under natural conditions, diversity is usually asso-
ciated with the pattern of vegetational types in the area, e«g.,
low sagebrush, big sagebrush, juniper. The addition of new
perennial species to the plant community of an ecological
site is also an important factor in achieving vegetational
diversity, albeit generally overlooked.
Litter: The 1984 reading showed that litter had increased
on 23 plots and remained static on 26 of the 51 plots read.
Litter increased on eight major ecological sites, remained
static on four and decreased on two relatively minor sites.
Increased litter is related to the standing stubble left on
forage plants at the end of the past five grazing seasons in
conformance with the objective of obtaining safe degree of
utilization. Mapped utilization zones support this viewpoint.
Increased cover of litter indicates the development of an
improved microenvironment for establishment of seedlings
of herbaceous species. This, in turn, represents an apparent
trend toward eventual establishment of new species and an
increased stand density.
Soil: No clearcut procedure for rating trend in soil status
exists. Several factors related to soil stability, infiltration and
evaporation were observed. On the average, bare ground decreased
on five sites, remained static on seven and increased slightly
on two minorecological sites. Cover of gravel/stones decreased
on three sites, remained static on nine and increased slightly
on two minor sites. Cover of mosses/lichens increased on
seven sites, remained static on five and decreased on two
ecological sites. Cover of litter, which is a factor in both
ecological and soil status, has been cited previously.
Summary: Based on the plots of this study, it was found
there was an apparent overall trend in ecological status
toward the potential natural plant communities of the eco-
logical sites on the Sheldon Refuge. The rationale for this
prediction is based on the significant increase in litter reflect-
ing the standing residues associated with safe degree of
utilization obtained annually, the increased number of per-
ennial/biennial forbs, the abundance of new species, and the
kinds of perennial/biennial species that have increased or
are new in the plant communities as a result of mangement
between 1978 and 1984. Futhermore, there is an apparent
improvement in soil status on upland sites as indicated by
reduction in bare ground and a significant increase in litter.
Summary
The monitoring procedure described herein is equally
adapted to grassland, shrubby, savannah, woodland and
forest sites. All species of grasses, grass-likes, forbs, shrubs
and trees, as well as bare ground, gravel-stones, mosses/li-
chens, and litter are measured by the same method of
quantification—estimated canopy cover. This enhances the
value of the data for ecological interpretation, especially as
related to watershed values and wildlife habitat.
The plot used is large enough to encompass the major
IX-5
-------
variability of the native plant community being sampled.
Percent cover and a dominance rating for each species on
the plot clearly displays the kinds and rate of changes that
occur in respect to floristic composition and canopy cover.
Changes in bare ground, litter, mosses/lichens and gravel/-
stones also are documented thereby providing a combina-
tion of factors upon which the rationale for predicting trend
in ecological and soil status can be based.
Ecological sites provide the means for stratifying the
landscape into relatively homogeneous units and each plot
is located on a representative example of an ecological site.
This enhances the value of the data for interpretation and
extrapolation.
Predictions of trend are based on the data from a few
carefully selected plots; location in relation to ecological
sites and grazing patterns is emphasized. Fewer plots affect
the cost and workload involved which can be important for
perpetuating the monitoring program in competition with
other activities.
This procedure requires the ability to identify all the plant
species, which is a skill that some resource managers do not
have or have not retained. However, people skilled in plant
taxonomy are available and can use this procedure.
Because of the nature of the data obtained, the greatest
value of this procedure may be its contribution to our know-
ledge of the autecology of species and the synecology of
ecological sites upon which prudent resource management
must be based.
References Cited
Anderson, E. William, and Wilbur F. Currier. 1973. Evaluating zones
of utilization. J. Range Manage. 26:87-91
Anderson, E. William. 1977. Effects of diet selectivity—a review of
literature. P. 93-123. In: Proceedings 2nd United States/Australia
Rangeland Panel "The impact of herbivores on arid and semi-arid
rangelands" 1972. Australian Rangeland Society, Perth. Western
Australia.
Anderson, E. William. 1986. A guide for estimating cover Range-
lands 8:236-238.
Range Inventory Standardization Committee (RISC). 1983 Guide-
lines and terminology for range Inventories and monitoring.
(unpublished report). Society for Range Management, 1839 York
Street, Denver, CO 80206. 13 pg.
USDA Forest Service, Southern and Southeastern Forest Experi-
ment Stations. 1959. Techniques and methods of measuring
understory vegetation Proceedings of a symposium at Tifton.
Georgia 174 pg
IX-6
------- |