EPAE
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Water
November 1979
Livestock Grazing
Management
And
Water Quality
Protection
(State of the Art Reference Document)
Produced jointly by.
The United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
and
The USDI
Bureau of
Land Management
-------
EPA 910/9-79-67
NOVEMBER 1979
LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT AND
WATER QUALITY PROTECTION (STATE OF THE ART REFERENCE DOCUMENT)
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT TEAM
Elbert Moore, Project Manager, EPA
Eric Janes, Hydrologist, BLM
Floyd Kinsinger, Range Scientist, BLM
Kenneth Pitney, Soil Conservationist, EPA
John Sainsbury, Biologist, EPA
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10 REGION 8
1200 Sixth Avenue 1860 Lincoln Street
Seattle, Washington Denver, Colorado 80203
U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
Building 50
Denver, Colorado 80225
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 7
Purpose 7
Scope 8
TI. SUMMARY OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 13
General 13
Livestock Management 14
Range!and Treatments 17
III. GRAZING AND WATER QUALITY 21
General 21
Infiltration Relationships 23
Runoff and Ground Cover Relationships 25
Grazing Animal Management Effects 26
Rangeland Treatment Effects 34
IV. GRAZING MANAGEMENT AND AQUATIC HABITAT 45
General 45
Recommendations 48
V. WATER QUALITY PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT . . .55
Problem Identification 55
Predicting Impacts 61
Water Quality Assessment Approaches 67
VI. RESOURCE PLANNING TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY 85
Water Quality Management Plans 85
Allotment Management Plans 90
Coordinated Resource Planning 95
-1-
-------
APPENDICES
I - Selected Small Watersheds of Western U. S 99
II - Grazing Management 109
III - Rangelands Treatments 125
-2-
-------
TABLES
Page
1. Factors Affecting Infiltration Rates 24
2. Runoff from Differentially Grazed Watersheds 32
3. Selected Parameters from Water Quality Standards 60
4. Biological Evaluation Criteria 70
5. Biological Status 72
6. Sub-Basin Environmental Information 76
-3-
-------
FIGURES
Page
1 . Project Area 11
2. Regression Relationships of Infiltration 28
3. Response to Conversion of Chaparral 38
4. Variables that Influence Runoff and Erosion 55
5. Region 10 Water Quality Assessment fig
6. Lower Columbia Biological Status 7]
7. Lower Columbia Recreational Status 73
8. Lower Columbia Land Use 74
9. Lower Columbia Land Ownership 75
10. Stability Rating of Streambanks and Grazing 79
-4-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGE ME NTS
This document was prepared under a cooperative agreement between the
Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 8 and 10 and the Bureau of Land
Management, Denver Service Center. An interdisciplinary team of scientist
from the parties to the cooperative agreement prepared the document. The
documents are mandated by Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act.
The National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) accepted a small
contract from EPA to coordinate a Technical Advisory Committee to provide
input and assistance to the Project Team. The Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) met three times and reviewed drafts prior to the development of this
document. The members of the Technical Advisory Committee were:
Robert C. Baum, NACD, Pacific Region, Coordinator of TAC
Dr. John C. Buckhouse, Representing Western Universities Public
Rangeland Committee
Joseph Burke, National Wool Growers Association
Roche D. Bush, Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Dr. Gerald E. Gifford, Representing Society for Range Management
Dr. Carlton Herbel, Science and Education Administration
Peter V. Jackson, II, NACD, Public Lands Committee
Dr. Terry A. McGowan (deceased) formerly with U.S. Fish and
Wil dl if e Service
Ronald A. Michieli, National Cattlemen1 s Association
Paul E. Packer, U.S. Forest Service
Ralph V. Pehrson, Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Steve Pilcher, Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Services, Water Quality Bureau
Phil Schneider, National Wildlife Federation
Johanna H. Wald, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
- 5 -
-------
INTRODUCTION
Pur pos e
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) have prepared this document intended to inform and assist state,
federal, Section 208 planning and management agencies, r angel and and other
land managers and the public in understanding the potential water quality
impacts associated with grazing, and practices and techniques for
minimizing adverse impacts. The document is specifically intended to
assist in: (1) the identification of existing and potential hazards to
water quality; (2) selection of procedures, practices or methods suitable
for preventing, minimizing, or correcti ng water pollution problems and;
(3) providing several procedural alternatives for assessment of the.
ran gel and management component of a rangel and watershed1 s total runoff and
pollutant production. Alternatives are related to the man-caused rather
than natural or geological phenomena. It is also a reference source to
other publications, information and materi als, and it provides a
prespective on the subject for the eleven western states.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 Public Law 95-217, set a national goal of
water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and which provides for recreation in and on the
waters to be achieved by July 1, 1983. The Clean Water Act mandates that
pollution caused by runoff from agricultural activities including land
used for livestock production, as well as other nonpoint sources (silvi-
culture, mining, hydromodification, etc.), be controlled in addition to
the control of point sources in order to achieve the national goal of
water quality.
The Clean Water Act requires water qua 1 ity management plans to be
developed on all lands that will "include a process to (1) identify, if
appropriate, agricul turally rel ated nonpoint sources of pollution, includ-
ing runoff from land used for livestock production and (2) set forth
procedures and methods to control to the extent feasible such sources"
(Sec. 208). Section 304(e) directs EPA to address the nature, source and
extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants and processes, procedures and
methods to control such sources.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires
(1) " An inventory to be prepared and maintained on a continuing basis
of all public lands and their resource and other values (including,
but not limited to, outdoor recreation and scenic values'), giving
priority to areas of critical environmental concern. This inventory
shall be kept current so as to reflect changes in conditions and to
identify new and emerging resource and other values. The preparation
and maintenance of such inventory or the identification of such areas
shall not, of itself, change or prevent change of the management or
use of public 1 ands ."
- 7 -
-------
(2) "Land Use Planning with public involvement and consistent with
the terms and conditions of this Act, to develop, maintain, and, when
appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas
for the use of the public lands."
Land use plans shall be developed for the public lands regardless of
whether such lands previously have been classified, withdrawn, set aside,
or otherwise designated for one or more uses.
(3) "In the development and revision of land use plans, agencies
shall (a) use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield set forth in this and other applicable laws; (b) use a syste-
matic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration
of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences; (c) give
priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical
environmental concern; (d) rely, to the extent it is available, on the
inventory of the public lands, their resources, and other values; (e)
consider present and potential uses of the public lands; (f) consider
the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of
alternative means (including recycling) and sites for realization of
those values; (g) weigh long-term benefits to the public against
short-term benefits; (h) provide for compliance with applicable
pollution control laws, including State and Federal air water, noise,
or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and (i) to the
extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the
public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and
management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning
and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and
of the States and local governments within which the lands are
located."
(4) "Any classification of public lands or any land use plan in
effect on the date of enactment of this law is subject to review in
the land use planning process conducted under this section, and all
public lands, regardless of classification, are subject to inclusion
in any land use plan developed."
Scope
The document emphasizes summarization of research, prevention and control
techniques, and criteria for preventing or minimizing water pollution. It
presents, an overview of rangeland utilization and treatment related to
water quality and selected management practices and techniques for the
protection of water quality in rangeland management. The document is
intended to be an aid for dealing with nonpoint source pollution control.
It is designed to form the technical basis to assist managers in making
rangeland decisions that minimize impacts on water quality. It is also
intended to serve as a first step in developing a definitive basis for
water quality management planning for this important nonpoint source of
water pollution.
- 8 -
-------
Nonpoint sources of water pollution are characterized by three elements.
First, the pollutants are conveyed by water, the source is uncontrolled by
any person; that is, the water pollution results from precipitation,
natural flooding or snowmelt. Second, the pollution is not traceable to a
discrete, identifiable source such as a facility. Because this runoff may
be channeled into a ditch or drain before entering navigable waters does
not make natural surface runoff a discharge from a point source. Third,
the control of nonpoint source water pollution is generally best achieved
by implemenation planning and management techniques rather than by collec-
tion and treatment of pollutants (Permit Regulations for Agricultural
Activities Federal Register Vol. 41, No. 36, February 23, 1976).
Wildlife populations are extensive on much of the rangeland of the west.
Where concentrated and poorly managed, they can impact water quality
similarly to livestock. Some of the principles and techniques identified
in the document may be useful in reducing water quality impacts from wild
ungulate populations. However, the major emphasis of the report is on
livestock grazing, rangeland treatment and water quality protection.
The Environmental Protection Agency has already prepared a report entitled
"Methods and Practices for Controlling Water Pollution from Agircultural
Nonpoi nt Sources" (EPA 1973). The report covers all agricultural activi-
ties and is national in scope. Consequently, it is of a very general
nature. In contrast, this report deals specifically with one important
aspect of agricultural activities for the west.
Animal grazing is a major land use in the western United States that can
impact water quality. Grazing activities are used in a broad context; and
covers the actions and results of range rehabilitation, livestock grazing,
grazing systems and range management planning. These activities are inter-
related in may instances and it is difficult to idependently evaluate the
potential water quality impact. Therefore, combinations of activities
must be considered to adequately judge potential water quality
significance.
Throughout the west there are significant potentials for adverse water
quality impacts from many facets of grazing activities. The most
significant of these potential impacts are related to erosion and
sedimentation but in some areas pathogens and salts are significant
potential problems. Fertilizers and pesticides are potential site
specific problems. However, overall in the area of grazing land
management, they are of less severity than sediment, salt and pathogens.
There are wide variations in the applicability of the techniques and
methods presented in this report. This results from the varying
significance from one sub-region to another of physical and biological
factors such as temperature regime, soil s/hydrologic characteristics,
geology, fisheries, precipitation patterns, range sites, and range
condition.
- 9 -
-------
Significant advances in water quality protection can be made through
on-site planning. Depending upon the complexity and degree of water
quality impact risk, this may involve interdisciplinary input, use of_
predictive or impact models, expanded utilization of specialized grazing
systems, and technical guidelines which have been developed for the
specific area of consideration.
Throughout the west, there are widespread differences in the availability
of resources of management expertise, field personnel, use of various
grazing systems, and in field control from one land manager to another.
These differences influence the level and degree to which water quality
management goals are achieved. This suggests the need for different types
and levels of management approaches. This is particularly apparent when
related to grazing activities on public land in contrast to private lands.
Where intensive planning (such as allotment management planning) is done
and field control is adequate, specific water quality prescriptions or
plans can be developed on a site specific basis.
The eleven western states shown in Figure 1 is the specific area of
concern for the compilation of this document. Much of the published
state-of-the-art information was gathered by workers within the west where
livestock grazing is the major land use in many areas. An effort was made
to evaluate and assess concepts, approaches and practices on a broad basis
rather than being site specific.
The literature review was as comprehensive as practical. It was made
after an assessment and utilization of several national data banks. The
Bibliography Retrieval Services (NTIS and CAIN data resources), Bio
Sciences Information Services (Biological Abstracts data sources), Water
Resources Abstracts and S.D.C.'s International Search Service were the
computer searches used. Limited manual library and literature reviews were
also made. Some significant data sources may have been overlooked in the
effort.
- 10 -
-------
FIGURE 1 PROJECT AREA
-------
SUMMMARY OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR MINIMIZING OR PREVENTING ADVERSE
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
General
"Best Management Practices (BMP's)" means a practice or combination of
practices, that is determined by a state (or designated areawide plan-
ning agency) after problem assessment, examination of alternative prac-
tices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective,
practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional con-
siderations) means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution
generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality
goals (Federal Register Vol. 40, No. 230, November 28, 1975). BMP's also
refer to a broader process of identifying practices and techniques that
may be used to reduce water quality impacts. It is the latter concept
that is used in summarizing state-of-the-art techniques and practices.
The major emphasis in identifying BMP's was on technical adequacy of
practices to reduce water quality impacts. Limited emphasis was placed on
economic and institutional acceptability.
Best Management Practices may involve single practices or combinations of
practices, selected for specific soils, climates or problem areas.
Selection of BMP's to be applied should normally be made by the land
manager from the appropriate suitable alternatives based on site
characteristics, management objectives and water quality requirements.
Current knowledge of BMP's is primarily based on soil erosion control
practices that were developed to reduce soil loss and maintain produc-
tivity. The inference is made that if soil erosion is minimized, the
technique or practice will be effective in substantially reducing water
quality impacts if sediment is the problem. For some of the BMP's there
are limited research data to validate this inference. Monitoring the
effectiveness of practices is a continuing need for land and water quality
management agencies.
Some of the principles that should be recognized in selecting BMP's to
reduce water quality impacts from grazing and rangeland treatment are:
1. In many instances, there will be several technically adequate
alternatives that may be applied to minimize water quality impacts
when problems occur.
2. Exclusion of livestock use because of watershed and site
conditions may be the BMP in some instances to minimize water quality
impacts.
3. Selection of adequate BMP's may require the expertise of
interdisciplinary resource specialists.
- 13 -
-------
4. The most effective protection techniques must be based on site
specific conditions such as soils, vegetation, geology, climate,
proximity to water bodies and management objectives.
5. BMP's may prevent as well as mitigate water quality problems.
6. BMP's reflect the concept that a system or combination of
practices may be needed on a particular site or planning area.
7. The frequency of storm events may have an impact on the
ability of BMP's to mitigate water quality impacts. BMP's are more
effective in controlling frequent storm events than in controlling
the unusual storm climate events. The net effect of BMP's will be
some reduction in the total volume of sediment produced, with a
large reduction in the concentration during more frequent flows.
BMP's are summarized to emphasize their importance in water quality
management planning. Rationale for many of the techniques is presented
in the document. Some of the techniques identified in the summary
represent inferences based on the state-of-the-art assessment and
literature review by the Project Team that prepared the document.
Livestock Management
1. Reducing Impacts from Grazing
a. To implement effective livestock grazing management,
basic principles of grazing, vegetation, soils, wildlife, cultural and
other uses and resources and their relationships must be understood and
used. Although exceptions occur, some important concepts and guiding
criteria are:
(1) Livestock graze selectively. Palatability of
different plant species varies during the year. Livestock graze many
of the same plants repeatedly year after year. They tend to graze a
greater variety of plants around a water source and readily accessible
areas.
(2) In the design or selection of any grazing
system, long term benefits must be considered. Watershed protection
must be the first consideration. Watershed protection cannot be
sustained on deteriorating rangeland vegetation. The selection for
management, and response to grazing, of key plant species is very
important since they reflect the health of the total plant community.
Key species must be selected for management to meet several objectives,
one of which is watershed protection, keeping in mind that the amount
type, and timing of grazing is the key to resource protection and
management.
(3) All uses and resources that affect livestock
grazing or that livestock grazing affects must be evaluated.
Objectives for each should be determined and conflicts resolved. For
- 14 -
-------
example, where wildlife and livestock compete for the same forage, careful
planning is necessary to keep a balance between all grazing animals and
the forage produced.
b. Management practices, such as changing season of use or
rate of stocking; implementing a system of grazing; or obtaining better
distribution of livestock may, singly or in combination, improve the range
and minimize adverse water quality impacts. However, any such practices
must be integrated into a well planned and implemented livestock manage-
ment program. This is essential to the success of obtaining the most
efficient use of the range without significantly adversely impacting water
quality and other rangeland resources.
c. Flexibility in livestock herd management (numbers) is
absolutely essential to keep forage in balance with livestock needs. This
is especially true during years of low forage production. Maintain an
animal stocking density that will sustain the vegetation under normal
conditions. Site characteristics, including soils, vegetation, water uses
and season of use, will affect the animal-acre ratio. Adequate vegetative
cover should be maintained to control runoff and reduce erosion.
d. It is difficult to develop a grazing management system
that is entirely satisfactory on a deteriorated overgrazed range. Two
simultaneous actions must be initiated. Adjust stocking rates to meet
forage production and apply management that will provide deferment of
grazing for key forage species on key grazing areas. The adjustment and
the period of deferment will be governed by the species present, the
desired and attainable rate of improvement, watershed characteristics and
potential for water quality impacts.
e. From the standpoint of achieving livestock management
objectives and minimizing soil, vegetation and water quality impacts,
grazing management plans will vary. There is no set formula that will
identify the type of grazing system or management plan that will be best
for any livestock operation or allotment. Water quality impact will be
closely related to soil erosion and sedimentation, associated with
vegetation cover and concentration of livestock grazing. The grazing
system must be designed on the basis of soil and vegetation capabilities,
water quality considerations and livestock and wildlife requirements.
f. Ground cover and size of bare soil openings have the
greatest influence on overland flow, soil erosion, and pollutant trans-
port. Research has documented that seventy percent (70%) or above plant
cover (standing live and dead vegetation) is an optimum density to reduce
erosion, runoff, and water quality impacts from rangelands. From a water
quality standpoint, vegetative cover can be manipulated within a range of
70 to 100 percent to maximize forage production and use without a
significant effect on water quality. Some semiarid and most arid
- 15 -
-------
range lands of the west do not support a seventy percent vegetative
cover, but are not necessarily high producers of sediment because of
the nature of the soil, gravel pavements that have developed, and the
lack of runoff-producing preciptiation.
g. In summary, BMP's include adjusting numbers of
livestock to balance with normal average forage supply but maintain
options to be flexible in numbers as forage production varies from
year-to-year; practices or combinations of livestock management
practices which may be applied to mitigate specific water quality
problems include (in addition to adjusting rate of stocking) season of
use, fencing, herding, placement of salt and supplements, class of
livestock and providing alternative sources of water; the ultimate goal
should be to incorporate all feasible management practices in a
well-designed and coordinated livestock management plan with specific
management objectives, one of which must be to provide the optimum
vegetation ground cover to protect the watershed from runoff and
erosion.
h. Land use plans and allotment management plans will
identify the amount of vegetation necessary to provide adequate
watershed protection under grazing use to insure perpetuation of the
vegetation, maintain and enhance plant vigor, and assure soil
stability. Specific techniques used to mitigate the impact of grazing
animals on sensitive watersheds may include:
(1) Fencing and applying rotation grazing
management.
(2) Providing water diversions and alternate water
sources to attract grazing animals away from
streams, reservoirs, lakes, etc.
(3) Periodic herding to redistribute livestock.
(4) Placing salt or food supplements or providing
shade away from water.
(5) Improving rangeland condition including
revegetation, fertilization, prescribed
burning, and other rangeland treatment
practices.
2. Reducing Impacts from Animal Concentrations
a. Livestock access in the riparian or streamside
management zone should be restricted for sufficient periods to allow
vegetative recovery and maintenance. Livestock exclusions are
primarily important in areas where water uses to be protected include
- 1-5
-------
fisheries production, wildlife, primary contact recreation and human
consumption. Pathogen concentrations may not be directly affected by
livestock exclusions.
b. Livestock exclusion criteria are included in many
public agencies technical guides and handbooks for land management.
Some of the major considerations are summarized below:
(1) Purpose - to protect, maintain or improve the
quantity and quality of the plant and animal resouces; to maintain
enough cover to protect the soil, and to minimize water quality impacts,
(2) Where applicable - where soil hydrologic
values, existing vegetation, fish and wildlife production and
recreation are prevented or damaged by livestock.
(3) Livestock should generally be excluded from:
(1) overgrazed areas where water uses are important, (2) areas of high
susceptibility to critical erosion and (3) critical watersheds used for
municipal and domestic water supply.
c. Locate supplemental feed and salting stations
reasonable distances from streams and water courses. They should be
moved about to avoid excessive trampling and can be a means of
encouraging better grazing distriubtion. Shading facilities (when
needed) either natural or constructed should be incorporated into the
planning. They are normally permanent in nature but, like salt and
supplements, do not need to be adjacent to watering sources.
Range!and Treatments
1. Reducing Impacts from Mechanical Treatments
a. The major objective of most mechanical
rangeland treatments is to improve vegetative production by increasing
moisture storage and reducing soil erosion. This objective is usually
consistent with minimizing water quality impacts on a long term basis
or after improved vegetation establishment.
b. Soil characteristics (texture, structure,
consistency, and moisture holding capacity), climate, type of
vegetation, and implements used are the principal variables that
determine water quality impacts of any treatment. An understanding of
these variables is essential to evaluate the potential for or to
minimize the water quality impacts from any rangeland mechanical
treatment.
c. The most consistent beneficial response to
rangeland mechanical treatment in terms of vegetation production and
reduction of runoff and erosion in cited research occurred on medium
(very fine sandy loam, loam, silt loam and silt) to fine (sandy clay,
silty clay and clay) textured soils.
- 17 -
-------
d. With severe soil disturbance resulting from
many rangeland mechanical treatments, it is essential that sites be
conducive to vegetation establishment with seeding after the treatment
is completed. Since the life of most rangeland mechanical treatments
is relatively short, it is essential to minimize water quality impacts
from sediment that a desirable vegetation cover be established and
mai ntained.
2. Reducing Impacts from Prescribed Burning
a. Carry out all burns in accordance with a prescribed
burning plan. An adequate plan considers those factors which have the
potential to adversely affect water quality and incorporates actions to
avoid or minimize these impacts.
b. The following site and watershed characteristics
should be evaluated and addressed in the preparation of prescribed
burning plans: litter accumulations, availability of fuel, soil type,
stability and moisture content, susceptability of soil to water
repellancy, annual precipitation, topography, type of vegetation,
recovery potential, and proximity of treatment area to streams and
lakes. Season of year and wind conditions are also important factors
to consider.
c. Exclude grazing from the burned area for the length
of time identified in the prescribed burning plan.
d. Monitoring for potential pollutants should be a
planned activity when water uses indicate there is a need.
e. Prescribed burning plans must be consistent with
local, state and federal air quality regulations to avoid adverse
impacts on air quality.
3. Reducing Impacts from Chemicals
a. Use of pesticides should be consistent with
manufacture's label. Over use can lead to unnecessary contamination
and under use will detract from full effectiveness.
b. Disposal of excess pesticides and empty containers
must be consistent with federal, state and local regulations.
c. Use pesticides only when other control methods are
ineffective or are not economically feasible.
Feral Horse and Burro Management
The key to managing wild horse or burro populations and their habitat
is a determination of the number of animals to be managed in any
particular area. This determination must be based upon the ability of
-------
the land to produce forage and cover for all animal species, including
horses or burros, plus the compatibility of use by horses or burros with
other animal species and/or resource values. In some cases trade-offs may
be necessary for best multiple use management. Once the number of horses
or burros to be managed on each area has been determined, the first manage-
ment action undertaken is actual reduction or addition of animals to obtain
the "desirable number".
BMP's include horse and burro numbers at levels proportionate to the
forage supply to prevent overgrazing and subsequent runoff and erosion and
which mitigate adverse water quality impacts; minimum fencing of water
sources for protection, but care must be exercised that the law or
biological requirements of the animals are not violated; and development
of alternative water sources to protect higher value riparian/aquatic
ecosystems.
Summary
It is essential to have a good water quality assessment of an area or
watershed to assist in making a selection of BMPs to solve existing prob-
lems. In many instances, it is not necessary nor appropriate to apply
Best Management Practices across the board or throughout a watershed. The
emphasis in selection and application of BMP's should be on recognized or
potential water quality problem areas. Coordinated interdisciplinary
resource planning involving State, Federal and private rangeland managers
is an effective tool for minimizing impacts from grazing animal management.
- 19 -
-------
GRAZING AND WATER QUALITY
General
McElroy et al. (1976) state that pollution from nonpoint sources can be
attributed to the following types of activities: (1) agriculture -
cropland, pastures, range!and, woodlands and "small" livestock and poultry
feeding operations; (2) silviculture - forest growing stock, logging, and
forest road building; (3) construction - urban or commercial development
and highway construction; (4) surface mining; (5) terrestrial disposal of
agricultural, industrial, commercial and municipal wastes and wastewaters;
and (5) stormwater drainage from urban areas.
Several attempts have been made to place numerical ratings on several land
types and use classifications. For example, Stewart (1975) as cited in
Dixon et al., 1977 computed forest land at 0.53 percent and agricultural
cropland at 89.6 percent of total nonpoint source production. Several
disturbance types were rated at intermediate percentages, including
grassed rangeland (5.87 percent). The above example allocates the problem
once location, physiography, and a land use mix are set. In reality,
local soil, vegetation, aquatic relations, geology, slope, aspect and
hydrology along with land use will determine the erosion, runoff and water
quality effects.
Land distrubances vary in their water quality impacts. It is at this
variation that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (1973) areal
erosion rate index system is aimed. In this scheme, high impact rela-
tively non-extensive uses (mining, road construction) receive high,
adverse dimensionless scores, whereas the more extensive lower impact
activities such as grazing are rated more favorably. It is widely
accepted that the major nonpoint pollution problem in the Western United
States is sediment (EPA, 1973). This chapter focuses on the sediment
yield responses associated with various livestock grazing systems and
rangeland treatments.
"Nutrients" as used in this document include major pollutants such as
nitrogen and phosphorus. The pollution potential from cow-calf operations
and cattle wintering (confinement to a barnyard area near a farm homesite)
in particular, would appear to be in the form of sediment, nitrogen, phos-
phorus, organic compounds, and fecal coliform bacteria, although the
limited current data indicate nitrogen and phosphorus contributions will
be small (Dixon et al,, 1977).
Various pollutants have variable effects on rangeland streams. Nitrogen
and phosphorus are essential nutrients for plant growth. Aquatic
vegetation of the free-floating type, such as algae, depends on dissolved
nitrogen and phosphorus compounds for a nutrient supply. When periodic
flushes of nutrients are injected into rangeland streams, dense, rapidly
- 21 -
-------
multiplying algal blooms may occur. Often such growths of algae are
undesireable to water users and may interfere with other forms of aquatic
life. The enrichment of a water body is called eutrophication and can be
an adverse result of excessive nutrient loading.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is also of great importance to aquatic
ecosystems and can be affected by range managemet actions. Data concernir
the impact of open rangeland grazing systems and range improvement prac-
tices on stream water quality are very deficient. The most important face
of this problem is that land characteristics (edaphic, geologic, vegeta-
tive), natural wildlife populations, local hydrology and present and past
climatic conditions all tend to interact to influence and confound the
effects of grazing management operations on nonpoint source loading and
pollutant transport and effects.
"Dissolved solids and total dissolved solids (TDS) are terms generally
associated with freshwater systems and consist of inorganic salts, small
amounts of organic matter, and dissolved materials. Principal inorganic
anions dissolved in water are the carbonates, chlorides, sulfates and
nitrates. The principal cations are sodium, potassium, calcium and
magnesium, (EPA 1976). Excess dissolved solids are objectionable in
drinking water because of possible physiological effects, corrosion and
water treatment expense.
Agricultural uses of water are limited by excessive TDS concentrations,
particularly where the amount of sodium cation is high in relation to
others present. In this instance, osmotic pressures may become excessivel
high, and soil structure, infiltration and permeability problems may
result.
The term "suspended and settleable solids" is descriptive of the inorganic
particulate matter in water. It includes suspended sediment and bedload.
Suspended solids produce turbid water. Both turbidity and suspended
solids are of concern in municipal and industrial water supplies. The
less turbid water becomes, the more desirable it is for swimming and other
water contact sports. Fish and aquatic life requirements concerning
solids in suspension can be divided into effects brought on by a turbid
water column (impact on the compensation point for photosynthetic activity
and effects resulting from sedimentation of the bottom of a stream or pond
(blocking of gravel spawning beds, removal of dissolved oxygen from over-
lying waters, smothering of bottom invertebrates). In addition, the
discharge of sediment (suspended inorganic particulate material) into a
stream creates an energy demand upon the kinetic energy of streamflow
which may result in a change in channel erosion and deposition processes.
The presence of fecal coliforms in streams is not in itself proof that
domestic livestock are the source, as is demonstrated by a study of three
pristine watersheds of northern Utah (Doty and Hookano, 1974). Because
fecal coliform generally do not multiply outside the intestines of warm
blooded animals, and have a short life span, the high densities of fecal
- 22 -
-------
coliform reported for Halfway, Corduroy, and Whipple Creeks following a
3.16 inch rainfall event in 8 hours (August, 1977) are indicative of
relatively recent pollution, presumably from wildlife populations. All
three basins have been protected from fire, domestic grazing, and
silvicultural operations for the previous 45 years.
Coliform organisms are used as an indicator of bacterial water pollution.
An appreciable count is considered to indicate a disease producing
potential in the water sample. Members of the coliform bacteria group may
come from soil, water, vegetation and feces.
Infiltration Relationships
The infiltration of water into a soil determines the amount that becomes
soil water. The balance either evaporates, is transported by plants, or
becomes surface or overland flow. Infiltration rates limit the
occurrence, as well as the quantity and timing, of runoff when rainfall
intensity is between initial and final infiltration rates.
Many factors influence the rate at which rainfall can enter a soil. Table
1, (modified from Branson et. al., 1978), presents these factors by like
groupings. Of those listed, litter, biotic, and some of the physical soil
characteristics are the ones which livestock grazing and rangeland
treatments most directly affect. While runoff does cause erosion and
provide pollutant transport, infiltration can also cause nutrient
transport (particularly nitrates). In general, nitrates will move with
water with little regard for erosion control. If the water infiltrates,
the nitrates will migrate downward.
Grazing and browsing animals remove protective plant material and compact
the soil surface (Branson et al., 1978). Reduction of live plant cover
(plus litter) and compaction of the soil surface both reduce infiltration
rates. When this happens runoff potential is increased in sediment and
attendant chemical and nutrient pollutants, and microorganism transport.
While increasing grazing intensities and grazing as an activity have been
shown to reduce infiltration rates in many studies, recovery of
infiltration rates after reduced grazing pressures or nonuse has also
occurred in a number of studies. Some two dozen studies on a variety of
range conditions and under a wide variation in grazing intensity have
assessed the time length of reduced grazing intensity or nonuse necessary
for soil water infiltration rates to recover up to some pre-treatment
level (inches per hour water intake rate through the soil surface ). A
summary by Branson et al., (1978) shows three to thirteen years of nonuse
or reduced grazing is required for complete restoration of infiltration
rate.
- 23 -
-------
TABLE 1
FACTORS AFFECTING INFILTRATION RATES
Groupings
Factors
I. Litter/Stone Cover
2. Biotic
3. Physical Soil Characteristics
4. Chemical Soil Factors
5. Climatic Conditions
6. Topography
Percent litter, small stone, large
stone
Vegetal canopy coverage, successiona
stage and age of vegetation, micro-
biolgical activity
Shrinking and swelling of colloids,
soil temperature, degree of aggrega-
tion, surface crusting, quantity of
coarse material in soil surface, soi
structure and texture, bulk density,
moisture content, capillary force
patterns, parent material
Exchangeable ions present, degree of
dispersion of surface soil by sodium
coatings, percent organic matter,
parent material
Season of year, rainfall energy, win
action, air and water temperature
Slope, aspect, exposure
- 24 -
-------
Runoff and Ground Cover Relationships
The kinetic energy of raindrop impact at the soil surface is the primary
force responsible for initiating soil movement at the land surface.
Surface runoff is the dominant force for transportation offsite of the
detached soil particle. Runoff begins when water occupies all available
surface detention storage (soil depressions plus plant interception
storage) and when rainfall intensity exceeds the instantaneous soil water
infiltration rate.
Factors affecting the timing of runoff and the volume from individual
storms for a given watershed include type of precipitation, rainfall inten-
sity and duration, rainfall distribution, watershed topography, geology,
soil characteristics, watershed cover characteristics, and antecedent soil
moisture conditions. Of these, soil and watershed cover characteristics
are the ones affected by livestock grazing and land treatment practices.
Evaporation and transpiration reduce the reservoir of available soil water.
The most active region of the soil-piant water regime extends from a few
centimeters in the soil to the top of the plant canopy (Lorenz, 1974).
Hence any disturbance or alteration of the components of this region influ-
ences the water balance of the entire system, which in turn influences
surface runoff and water quality.
Livestock grazing removes protective vegetation and trampling compacts
surface soils. These effects cause a reduction in infiltration rates which
may result in increased surface runoff. As pointed out earlier, increased
surface runoff may result in water quality degradation becuase of increases
in suspended matter and attendant pollutants.
Ground cover components of live vegetation and litter (mulch of dead
vegetation) play a large part in controlling surface runoff from rain-
storms. Stuidies in Colorado and New Mexico found that storm and annual
runoff varied with the amount of bare soil or the amount of vegetation
plus mulch (Branson et al. 1978). Runoff increased as vegetation and
mulch decreased, or bare soil increased. Studies in Idaho and Utah found
that 65-70 percent ground cover (basal area of live plants plus mulch) was
required to maintain minimum surface runoff and erosion (Packer, 1961).
These studies also found that to maintain minimum runoff and erosion,
ground cover had to be increased when trampling associated with grazing
increased.
A study of three contiguous watersheds in New Mexico (Aldon, 1964)
reported runoff before and after implementation of a summer-deferred
grazing system was about the same, as was annual average precipitation,
although sediment production decreased when the season-long system was
converted to deferred. Changes in sedimentation were thought to be
attributable to the decrease in grazing intensity during treatment.
- 25 -
-------
Numerous investigators (Packer, 1953; Elwell and Stocking, 1974 and
Gifford, 1976) have reported consistently that about 70 percent plant cover
(aerial projected) is a critical value in terms of the stability of the
hydrologic environment. Above 70 percent cover, changes in land use which
simply alter the amount of plant cover, have little effect on runoff.
Packer's (1953) work emphasized that the rule of thumb is only applicable
on western mountain rangelands where site potentials of 70 percent or
greater are biolgically feasible. Gifford (1978) interprets this break-
point to mean that as cover on a site is reduced below the range of 65-75
percent, soil factors become increasingly important over vegetation as
determinants of runoff regime.
The significance and physical meaning of the percent figure must be
cautiously considered. The figure is not a universal breakpoint for water
quality effects, such as bacterial pollution or nutrient loading, however
it is a fairly reliable guide for sediment. Also, it is important to note
that all sites with 70 percent cover will not respond the same. The
figure seems to be applicable over a wide area, but the degrees of soil
stability between sites are dependent in large part on local factors.
While 70 percent may result in less sediment production from numerous
mountain rangeland sites, these minimums have a large amount of scatter
rather than strongly approaching any single value. The guide should not
be applied to arid and semi arid rangeland watersheds where site produc-
tivity cannot support 70 percent cover. Therefore, from a water control
and erosion standpoint, plant cover theoretically can be manipulated
within the spread of 70 to 100 percent so as to maximize livestock
production functions without much effect on runoff and erosion relations.
It must be understood that in practicality, cover changes seldom would
occur without simultaneous changes in other important system variables
(infiltration rates, soil water depletion patterns). This would obviously
influence a measured response in erosion, water quality or streamflow.
Grazing Animal Management Effects
Infiltration Rates
Several studies have shown that moderate to heavy grazing by livestock can
decrease infiltration rates, increase surface runoff, increase soil
compaction, and increase erosion and sediment yields (Dortignac and Love,
1961; Lusby, et al. 1971; Tromble et al., 1974; Thompson, 1968, Rauzi,
1956; Dunford, 1949; Aldon, 1964). Some of these studies also show that
reduction of grazing intensities, change from yearlong to seasonal
(nongrowing period) grazing, or elimination of grazing can result in
improved watershed conditions.
Wherever livestock grazing and soil or water response has been assessed,
the observed changes in runoff, infiltration, soil compaction and sediment
yield have been due to not only the livestock grazing activity but also
wildlife utilization. The latter has never been successfully
independently quantified.
- 26 -
-------
Data relating grazing intensity to infiltration rates are available,
however, distinct limitations to the data have recently been pointed out
by Gifford and Hawkins (1978). It is emphasized that only the infiltra-
tion process has been examined in a degree of detail which allows for a
preliminary quantitative analysis.
Gifford and Hawkins (1976) concluded that intensity is by far the most
common expression of grazing activity. Figure 2 from Gifford and Hawkins
(1978) show simple linear regression models fitted to measured final or
constant (fc) infiltration rates as associated with varying degrees of
grazing intensitiy.
The conclusions drawn by the authors based on the regression analysis and
considerable paired student's "t tests" are as follows:
a. There is an influence of grazing on final water infiltration
rates. Ungrazed rates are statistically different from grazed (at any
intensity) at the alpha level of 10 percent.
b. It is difficult to differentiate between the influences of
moderate and light grazing.
c. There is a significant effect of heavy grazing intensity on final
infiltration rates.
d. At the lower range of water infiltration rates (generally less
than 0.8 inches per hour) there is an apparent positive improvement (in-
crease) in the final rate as a result of any level of grazing intensity.
This may reflect a soil wetability problem or hoof chiseling of an
impermeable sealed soil surface. This phenomena is reflected by data of
Branson et a!., 1962; Johnston, (1962); Dortignac and Love, (1961);
Thompson, (1968); Rauzi, (1955).
The Gifford and Hawkins review demonstrates with quantitative analysis
that data relative to range condition are insufficient for proper evalua-
tion of hydrologic change. Their recommendation for research which will
allow for more systemmatic hydrologic assessment is a detailed definition
of the long term effects of grazing (by year and season) on infiltration
rates as a function of range site and condition, and grazing intensity.
Infiltration rates were found to be slightly higher on grazed than
ungrazed plots for the last 20 minutes of infiltration runs at Badger Wash
in western Colorado (Lusby et al., 1971). This indicates that under cer-
tain conditions grazing has no appreciable effect on infiltration during
the latter stages of extended pains. However, the initial quantity of
water infiltrated before runoff began on ungrazed plots was significantly
higher than on grazed plots (Thompson, 1968). In Colorado, protection from
cattle grazing resulted in increased infiltration rates; the recovery
period extended 6 years on ponderosa pine-grass sites and 13 years on
grassland sites. Infiltration rates of soils in grassland and pine-grass
- 27 -
-------
I
25 ,
M
ce
O
O.397l«/hr
R3 m 0.576
N • 31
O3 1.0 1.5 14 2.5 34 3.3
fc (\n/kr) UNGRAZED
N = B
1.0 I-J J.O J.I 3.0 3J
<,. - UNGRAZED
FIGURE 2 REGRESSION RELATIONSHIPS OF FINAL INFILTRATION RATES UNDER
LIGHT/MODERATE GRAZING INTENSITY (Y) AND UNGRAZED (X) RATES (GIFFORD
AND HAWKINS, 1978)
-------
sites could be estimated by measuring the quantity of dead organic
material and non-capillary pores in the surface soil (Dortignac and Love,
1961).
In northeastern Colorado on blue grama and buffalo grass short-grass
prairie, heavy grazing (1.79 acres per yearling heifer per month) signi-
ficantly decreased infiltration rates on an Ascalon sandy loam site, on a
Nunn loam site, but not on a Shingle sandy loam site (Rauzi and Smith,
1973). This research was conducted at the Central Plains Experimental
Range. During the first 10 minutes of the infiltration process, only the
effects of soil was found significant. After an additional 5 minutes,
grazing intensity effects on infiltration rates were statistically
discernible. By 30 minutes, the interaction of soil type and grazing
appeared important. The implication for shortgrass types is that for high
intensity, short duration (less than 10 to 15 minutes) thunderstorm
events, grazing system effects may have no effect; soil type and
characteristics may be the controlling factors.
Work in Oklahoma (Hanson et a!., 1970) has indicated that grazing
intensity makes little difference on total runoff during large storms
which are preceded by wet periods.
Trampling
The disturbance of litter and soil caused by trampling associated with
livestock grazing has long been recognized as an important factor
contributing to accelerated erosion and storm runoff on western forest and
range watersheds. Because of a shortage of useful information on the
tolerable limits of trampling, Packer (1953) initiated a simulated tramp-
ling disturbance study at two intermixed types of foothill spring-fall
range (Agropyron inerme and Bromus tectorum) on steeply sloping, granitic
slopes of the Boise River Watershed. Each of five degrees of simulated
mechanical trampling was randomly applied to trial plots. All levels of
trampling disturbance (10, 20, 40, and 60 percent of the plot surface)
reduced ground cover and increased interspace size on both range types. A
similar response was observed in amount of overland flow and soil move-
ments, with undisturbed sites as the reference level. Packer (1953)
stressed that the findings of the Boise River trampling study had some
important management implications for the wheatgrass and cheatgrass
covered granitic rangelands of southwestern Idaho as follows: "It appears
that such ranges having less than 70 percent ground cover are probably not
in a satisfactory watershed condition and should be improved. It also
appears that where these ranges have from 70 to 80 percent ground cover,
light grazing use is indicated for maintenance of protective conditions.
On range having ground cover on the order of 90 precent or more, trampling
is apparently not too serious a consideration."
Work later by Packer (1963) on the Gal latin elk winter range of south
central Montana further demonstrated the importance of maintaining a 70
percent ground cover density with maintenance and restoration of soil
- 29 -
-------
stability being the land management objectives. As rainfall intensities
increased, so did soil erosion under all conditions of ground cover,
however the erosion increases were relatively large on sites having less
than 70 percent cover.
Packer's (1953, 1963) studies support 70 percent cover as a critical
value. The Boise River work also emphasized that the 70 percent figure
becomes academic where precipitation, site potential or repeated heavy
disturbance prevents plant cover from reaching this relatively high cover
percentage. Quantitative relations between grazing intensity (numbers of
animals, or acres per animal unit month), utilization, trampling and
changing infiltration rates remain undetermined for all soil-plant
community complexes, 25 years after Packer first conducted his steel hoof
disturbance studies.
Effects on Runoff
Runoff from plots in a Colorado study was greatest for those heavily
grazed, while the least runoff was from protected plots. While the
results from the study showed an increase in runoff from moderately grazed
plots, this increase was not accompanied by increased soil loss. The
investigators concluded that moderate grazing was permissible if the
resulting loss of water did not cause a critical shortage of soil moisture
for plant development (Dunford, 1949). A study in western Colorado found
30 percent less runoff from ungrazed watersheds than from those with two
years of winter-spring grazing by cattle and sheep (Lusby, 1970). In
Arizona, Rich and Reynolds (1963) found that spring and fall grazing by
horses and cattle on porous granite soils, at intensities of 40 percent
and 80 percent, removal of perennial grasses did not increase runoff.
Rainfall-runoff relationships may be influenced by management of grazing
animals, although various grazing systems (especially rest rotation
systems) have not been studied from the standpoint of hydrologic impacts
(Gifford and Hawkins, 1976). Improved grazing management (a change
from yearlong to winter grazing, and grazing controlled to attain 55 per-
cent use of key species) on three experimental watersheds in New Mexico
(Aldon 1964) resulted in improved watershed conditions over a three-year
period.
Average ground cover for the three watersheds doubled, bare ground
decreased, and there were marked reductions in sediment yields and
runoff. Hanson et al. (1970) found that heavily grazed watersheds
produced runoff from short intense storms as well as from storms of long
duration, whereas lightly grazed watersheds produced runoff mainly from
long duration storms that followed wet periods (Table 2). However, when
long duration storms follow a wet period, runoff from lightly grazed
watersheds may be as much as from heavily or moderately grazed
watersheds. Leithead (1959) found that western Texas rangeland in good
condition absorbs moisture five to six times faster than poor condition
range, and thus, greatly reduces surface runoff amounts. Generally a good
grass
- 30 -
-------
cover, moderately grazed, sufficiently retards runoff and erosion while
providing a forage resource as well (Smeins, 1975). Gifford (1978) goes
further: "Maintaining a cover of 70 percent (if possible) in conjunction
with moderate or light grazing will minimize erosion and infiltration will
most likely still be 75 percent of the undisturbed values at worst."
Grazing system effects on water quality
Chemical constituents considered in this section are total dissolved
solids (mineral matter in solution) and nutrients (phosphates, nitrogen).
Physical parameters addressed are alkalinity and suspended sediment.
Bacteriological parameters are total and fecal coliform, and fecal
streptococcus organisms. Most of the early rangeland and watershed
studies neglected water quality. Often suspended sediment was the only
water quality parameter addressed.
There is little published research on grazing system effects on runoff or
water quality. Work conducted at Badger Wash, Colorado by the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (Lusby et al., 1971) did focus upon a relatively
unspecialized grazing system. However, due to management changes over the
twenty year period, consistency within and between treatments was a prob-
lem. The Colorado work thus leaves many questions unanswered. Work per-
formed at the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed, Idaho (Dixon et al.,
1977, Stephenson and Streeter, 1977) in the early 1970's investigated the
bacteriological, sedimentation and chemical aspects of deferred grazing
systems on a portion of the 23,390 hectare basin. The most comprehensive
information on grazing system - water quality relationships has been
collected at Reynolds Creek, however the allotments studied were small,
and results have limited potential for extrapolation even within the
Columbia Plateau region.
"Grazing system" as defined by tne Society for Range Management (Kothmann,
1974), is considered to be a "specialization of grazing management which
defines systemmatically recurring periods of grazing and deferment (from
grazing) for two or more pastures or management units." Badger Wash,
Colorado is one of only a few instances where a grazing system (although
relatively simple deferred) has been studied from the watershed hydrology
aspect. There are several locations where riparian sections of
specialized grazing systems have been researched for aquatic biology and
water quality effects. However, the upland hydrology of slope source
areas has not been accounted for by these fishery studies.
Reports are available on the effects of continuous or season long nonrota-
tional grazing superimposed over some previous rangeland treatment. For
example, Buckhouse and Gifford (1976) examined a southeastern Utah pinyon-
juniper site, which had been chained and windrowed. A stocking rate of 2
hectares per AUM was maintained for two weeks. No significant changes
were noted in fecal pollution. The experiment was designed to be compar-
able to rates used by the Bureau of Land Management on well established
crested wheatgrass seedings in the vicinity.
- 31 -
-------
TABLE 2
RUNOFF FROM DIFFERENTIALLY GRAZED WATERSHEDS
Year
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
Mean
Heavy!/
Precipitation
30.8
21.8
27.5
23.9
27.9
26.4
Watersheds
Runoff
4.6
1.7
0.3
0.4
3.1
2.0
by grazing
Moderate^/
treatment!/
Precipitation Runoff
30.5
21.8
28.1
23.3
28.4
26.4
4.0
0.7
0.4
0.0
2.0
1.4
Light!/
Precipitation
32.0
19.7
27.7
24.0
27.7
26.2
Runoff
3.5
0.1
0.3
0.0
1.4
1.1
I/ Four 0.8-hectare watersheds with each grazing intensity
21 Forage utilization 55%
ZJ Forage utilization 35 to 55%
4/ Forage utilization 35%
- 32 -
-------
Stephenson and Street (1977) indicated that typical rangeland cattle
operations in Idaho will probably result in coliform bacterial pollution
along various reaches of rangeland streams, with bacterial concentrations
dependent upon the number of cattle and their access to streams. In
addition, the Idaho studies performed at Reynolds Creek demonstrate the
importance of physical and hydrologic characteristics, and climatic
conditions on the total bacterial effect of livestock operations.
In three mountain streams of the Bear River Range in northern Utah,
Darling and Coltharp (1973) have reported statistically siginficant
increases in the total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus
counts at locations along streams just below the areas grazed by cattle
and sheep. No statistically significant increase could be demonstrated
for temperature, pH, turbidity, nitrates or phosphates. Because of
incongruity between watershed and allotment boundaries, and no data on
relative allotment and study watershed acreages, it is not known what
stocking levels or grazing intensities produced this impact on
bacteriological water quality.
Incremental damages to water quality from bacteriological, chemical, and
nutrient loading associated with various kinds of grazing systems and
intensitities all have relative importance depending on soil salinities,
proximity to perennial stream channels, runoff regimes, frequencies, and
other factors.
Summary
Infiltration rates and the interaction of changes associated with
livestock grazing are a complex phenomena. It is apparent based on over a
dozen studies that light and moderate intensities of grazing will not
damage infiltration rates during unsaturated soil conditions. However, a
concentration of livestock brought about by any phase of a grazing system
which encourages heavy intensity grazing is likely to produce significant
decreases in the maximum potential rate at which rainfall or snowmelt can
infiltrate into the soil. Adverse impacts on sheet and rill erosion and
water quality constituents are an outcome of these changes. The phenomena
of heavy trampling damage to infiltration rates may be an insignificant
problem on fine-textured high clay content soils where undisturbed rates
are less than one inch per hour.
It is well documented that periods of nonuse from livestock grazing,
however built into the grazing system, allow certain natural processes to
progressively improve soil water infiltration rates to predisturbance
levels. These processes include freeze-thaw cycles, buildup and decay of
plant litter, etc. Somewhat a function of season and clearly a function
of rest length, deferment of use is an important facet of any intensive
livestock management system and can be used not only as a technique for
hydrologic condition restoration, but also to achieve froage production
and maintenance goals.
- 33 -
-------
On rangelands such as those in western Montana, where aerial projected
plant cover is 70 percent or greater, a relatively high resistance to
long-term damage from livestock trampling is assured. On such sites
having a cover of 90 percent or greater, trampling associated with even
heavy grazing is not too serious, unless significant declines occur in
water infiltration rates.
The amount and peak flow of rainfall runoff appears postively correlated
with degree of grazing intensity. Heavy grazed ra^gelands (all other
variables being equal) will produce greater runoff in a shorter time than
ungrazed or lightly grazed rangelands. Each range site will produce run-
off in a quantity and rate which has no bearing on the kind of grazing
system in effect, depending upon rainfall intensity and atecendent soil
moisture. Some storm intensities may be considered acts of nature and of
an infrequency for which land managers simply accept risk and consequences.
In general, range management which maximizes plant cover and infiltration
rates, enhances channel roughness and assures well engineered water control
structures will minimize adverse effects of high intensity storms.
Maximizing water quality of rangeland streams and at the same time
maintaining a proper balance with domestic livestock production is a great
challenge to the land manager and a source of numerous research hypotheses
for the scientific community. For some time to come, until much more
specific findings on the subject are available, agencies and operators
must act on the general premise that actions which minimize adverse
changes in the stormflow and snowmelt runoff processes will simultaneously
minimize adverse water quality impacts.
This generalization is most valid for the water quality constituents of
sediment, nutrients, and salts and less valid for those constituents
with source areas in the riparian zone (bacteria, water temperature). For
all water quality characteristics it can be generally inferred that,
allotments with steep slopes and relatively large perennial stream
networks provide more potential for water quality impacts from grazing.
Also length of use, given a uniform grazing intensity will increase the
opportunity for pollutant loading, as will clustered and concentrated
centers of animal feeding and watering. A watershed with a potential for
a fishery, contact recreation, drinking water supply and open to close
public scrutiny of site conditions, requires very careful selection of a
grazing management system designed to improve hydrologic conditions.
Rangeland Treatment Effects
Though hydrologic impacts of range improvement practices have been of
interest for many years, there are still practices and physiographic
regions with relatively little information for assessing potential impacts.
Effects of range improvements on hydrologic conditions may be either
beneficial or detrimental depending on land management objectives, local
uses of water, physical and biological factors.
- 34 -
-------
Infiltration rates may change when plowing and chaining practices (for
reduction of undesirable plant species and/or seedbed preparation for
desirable species) are applied to rangeland sites. Gifford and Skau
(1967) looked at first-year impacts of plowing (moldboard plow) with
drilling and plowing with contour deep furrow drilling on infiltration
rates and potential sediment production on two big sagebrush sites in
Neveda. They found that infiltration rates, in general, for the two
plowing treatments were significantly less than rates measured on undis-
turbed sites. Sediment production on the plowed treatments, however were
not significantly different from the natural sagebrush community.
In another study on silty loam soils in southern Idaho, Gifford (1972) and
Gifford and Busby (1974) conducted intensive infiltrometer studies on a
plowed big sagebrush range over a four-year period. Results of this study
indicated there was a natural decay in absorptive capabilities of surface
soils due to the plowing treatment.
Meeuwig (1965), working in central Utah on subalpine range, reported that
seven years after disking and seeding to grass, the main effects were
decreased organic matter and capillary porosity in the surface soil,
greater bulk density, and decreased plant and litter cover. Although
seeding did not significantly affect infiltration rates or soil stability,
grazing during the previous four years did.
Blackburn and Skau (1974) studied two plowed and seeded big sagebrush
communities in Nevada. They found that infiltration rates for sandy loam
soils were not significantly different from their undisturbed counter-
parts. Studies by Gifford (1975a) showed that infiltration rates had only
been slightly affected when comparing chained sites to undisturbed
pinyon-juniper woodland.
Infiltration is generally decreased where burning (fire) is of high
intensity and the organic covering of the soil is completely consumed
(Gifford 1975b). Three studies in California on different soils showed no
decrease in infiltration rates as a result of burning while a fourth found
that repeated burning in chaparral reduced average infiltration by
ninety-five percent (95%) (Gifford 1975b).
Runoff from high intensity rainfall on chained pinyon-juniper sites with
debris left in place is less than runoff from natural woodland sites
(Gifford 1975a). However, runoff from pinyon-juniper sites chained with
debris windrowed can be expected to exceed that from natural sites.
Rehabilitation of damaged rangelands at Cornfield Wash, New Mexico
(Burkham, 1966) was tested using various land treatment practices; reser-
voirs, gully control sturctures, wire sediment barriers and rangeland pit-
ting. Some improvements could not be evaluated because of inadequate data,
however, the reservoirs were effective in reducing sediment accretion up-
stream. In addition, the advance of abrupt headcuts below the structures
was stopped and flood peaks reduced.
- 35 -
-------
In Arizona, several small experimental watersheds were established in
chaparral on the Tonto and Prescott National Forests. Brush cover was
eradicated by various techniques including herbicides and fire -- the
effects on streamflow, erosion, and other values were studied (Hibbert, et
al, 1975). Based upon this research, the average increase which could be
expected at downstream reservoirs or points of use is 2.4 inches of water
per acre treated. Initially, nitrate concentrations in streamflow
increased from 0.2 to as high as 56 ppm (Hibbert et al., 1975), and then
gradually declined to near pretreatment levels during dry periods.
Herbicides used in brush control were detected in low to moderate
concentrations in streamflow immediately below the treated watersheds
(picloram, fenuron).
In the oak woodlands of the California annual grasslands Lewis (1968)
chemically treated dense oak and brush to increase forage. Steamflow
increased and evapotranspiration decreased 4.5 and 5 inches/year,
respectively.
Conversion of woodland types to grass may result in minor changes in
runoff. In the pinyon-juniper type in Arizona, Ceilings and Myrick (1966)
found a slight increase in runoff from the treated watershed compared to
the untreated control basin but concluded that the increase could have
been due entirely to chance. Replacing Utah juniper with grass at Beaver
Creek, Arizona resulted in a 10 percent increase in runoff; however, this
was not a statistically significant increase (Wilm 1966).
Range!and treatments which change the vegetal subtype or modify the plant
cover on a watershed may result in a corresponding change in rainfall-
runoff relationships. These treatments include burning, chaining, and
other types of vegetation conversion. When annual precipitation is less
than 40 centimeters (16 inches), increase in water yield resulting from a
treatment is likely to be less than 5 centimeters (2 inches). However,
the efficiency of vegetation conversion for increasing mean annual runoff
improves with increased mean annual rainfall, at least up to 86.7
centimeters (34 inches) (Hibbert et al., 1975). (Figure 3).
Mechanical treatments of soil which are designed to enhance soil water by
reducing surface runoff also change rainfall-runoff relationships. Such
treatments include ripping, contour furrowing, contour trenching, pitting
and other cultural practices. Effects of such practices are usually
greatest immediately following application but tend to decrease with
time. Hickey and Dortignac (1964) found that surface pitting on easily
eroded shale-derived soils in New Mexico caused reductions of 12 to 24
precent of surface runoff and 16 percent in erosion the first year after
treatment. At the end of 3 years, surface runoff was reduced only 10
percent and erosion was about the same from treated and untreated plots.
Dortignac and Hickey (1963) and Hickey and Dortignac (1964) found that
ripping of shale-derived soils in New Mexico reduced surface runoff 96
percent and erosion 85 percent the first year after treatment. Three
years after treatment, reductions were 85 and 31 percent, respectively for
- 36 -
-------
runoff and erosion. Contour furrowing was found to be effective in
reducing runoff and increasing perennial grass yields (Branson, Miller and
McQueen, 1966). Furrow effectiveness decreases over time but studies in
Montana and Wyoming found an effective life of 35 years (Branson et al.,
1978).
In arid and semi-arid rangeland, the major factor influencing sediment,
bacteriological and nutrient loading from the soil surface is volume and
timing of overland flow. It is through this link that rangeland
management affects wild!and water quality.
Gifford's (1957b) review on some aspects of range improvement practices
showed that such measures are not all beneficial from a runoff and sedi-
mentation standpoint. Some measures which often result in an increase of
erosion and sediment yield are chaining of pinyon-juniper, plowing and
improper burning practices. Most investigators that have assessed the
hydrologic impact of rangeland improvement practices looked at only
sediment as a water quality barometer.
Summary
The process of water infiltration generally is decreased or unaffected by
rangeland treatments. Severe mechanical disturbance will generally
adversely affect infiltration rates. The question of whether or not an
improvement practice will produce more runoff depends upon the composite
of such responses as infiltration, soil water depletion patterns, plant
interception and storage changes. It is impossible to generalize on the
runoff changes expected.
Contour trenching and furrowing may be expected to cause decreases in
water yield, as measured by watershed runoff. Runoff response to vegetal
conversion will depend on community type and structure, plant cover and
the rainfall regime. The efficiency of vegetation conversion for
increasing mean annual runoff improves with mean annual runoff, as seen in
Figure 3. Conversion of deep rooted plants to shallow rooted plants also
increases runoff.
- 37 -
-------
8
RESPONSE TO CONVERSION
18 20 22 24
MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
26
FIGURE 3 AVERAGE WATER YIELD FROM NATURAL AND CONVERTED CHAPARRAL
AS A FUNCTION OF PRECIPITATION. DIFFERENCE IS ATTRIBUTED TO
TREATMENT. (HUBERT, DAVIS, AND BROWN, 1975)
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF BMP's AND GRAZING
AND WATER QUALITY SECTIONS
Aldon, E. F. 1964. Ground-cover changes in relation to runoff and
erosion in west-central New Mexico. USFS, RMFRES Research Note
RM-34, 4p.
Blackburn, W. H. and C. M. Skau. 1974. Infiltration rates and sediment
production of selected plant communities in Nevada. Jour, of Range
Management 27:476-480.
Branson, F. A. 1975. Natural and modified plant communities as related
to runoff and sediment yields. _Iji Ecological Studies 10, Coupling
of land and water systems. Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc.
p. 157-172.
Branson, F. A., R. F. Miller, and I. S. McQueen. 1962. Effects of
contour furrowing, grazing intensities, and soils on infiltration
rates, soil moisture, and vegetation near Ft. Peck, Montana, J.
Range Mgt., 15: 151-158.
Branson, F. A., R. F. Miller, and I. S. McQueen. 1966. Contour
furrowing, pitting and ripping on range!ands of the western United
States. J. Range Mgt. 19:182-190.
Branson, F. A., Gerald F. Gifford, Kenneth G. Renard, and Richard F.
Hadley. 1978. (Editors) Rangeland Hydrology. Preliminary 2nd
Edition, unpublished, of Range Science Series 1: Rangeland
hydrology. Society for Range Mgt., Denver, Colorado.
Buckhouse, John C. and Gerald F. Gifford. 1976. Water quality
implications of cattle grazing on a semiarid watershed in
southeastern Utah. J. Range Mgt. 29(2):109-113.
Burkham, D. E. 1966. Hydrology of Cornfield Wash area and effects of
land treatment practices, Sandoval County, New Mexico. 1951-60
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1831. 87p.
Clary, W. P., M. B. Baker Jr., P. E. O'Connell, T. N. Hohnsen, Jr., and
R. E. Campbell. 1974. Effects on pinyon-juniper removal on
natural resource products and uses in Arizona. U.S. Forest
Service Research Paper, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, RM-128.
Coll ings, M. R., and R. M. Myrick. 1966. Effects of juniper and pinyon
eradication on streamflow from Corduroy Creek Basin, Arizona. U.S.
Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 491B. 12p.
Darling, Leslie A. and George B. Coltharp. 1973. Effects of livestock
grazing on the water quality of mountain streams. Water-animal
Relations Symposium, Proceedings. Snake River Conservation
Research Center, Kimberly, ID. USDA, ARS. p. 1-8.
- 39 -
-------
Dixon, J. E., G. R. Stephenson, A. J. Lingg, D. V. Naylor and D. D.
Hinman. 1977. Nonpoint pollution control for wintering range
cattle. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, Raleigh, N. C. June 26-29, 1977. 21 p.
Dortignac, E. J., and W. C. Mickey. 1963. Surface runoff and erosion
as affected by soil ripping. USDA. Misc. Publ. No. 970:156-165.
Dortignac, E. J. and L. D. Love. 1961. Infiltration studies on
Ponderosa Pine ranges of Colorado. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Station Paper 59. 34 pp.
Doty, Robert D. and Ezra Hookano, Jr. 1974. Water quality of three
small watersheds in northern Utah. USDA, Forest Service.
Research Note INT-186, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Ogden, UT. 6 pp.
Dunford, E. G. 1949. Relation of grazing to runoff and erosion on
bunchgrass ranges. U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station Research Note 7. 2pp.
Elwell, H. A. and M. A. Stocking. 1974. Rainfall parameters and a
cover model to predict runoff and soil loss from grazing trials in
the Rhodesian Sandveld. Proc. Grassland Society of South Africa,
9:157-164.
Frickel, D. G. 1972. Hydrology and effects of conservation structures,
Willow Creek Basin, Valley County, Montana 1954-68. USGS Water
Supply Paper 1532-G. 34pp.
Gifford, G. F. 1972. Infiltration rate and sediment production trends
on a plowed big sagebrush site. J. Range Management 25:53-55.
Gifford, G. F. 1975a. Impacts of pinyon-juniper manipulation on
watershed values. J_n Proc., Pinyon-Juniper ecosystems—A
Symposium, Utah State University, Logan, UT, May 1-2: 127-140.
Gifford, G. F. 1975b. Beneficial and detrimental effects on range
improvement practices on runoff and erosion. Proceedings of a
symposium conducted by ASCE, Logan, UT. August 11-13.
Gifford, G. F. 1976. Personal communication.
Gifford, G. F. 1978. Personal communication.
Gifford, G. F. 1978. Written communication.
- 40 -
-------
Gifford, G. F. and C. M. Skau. 1967. Influences of various rangeland
cultural treatments on runoff and sediment production from the Big
Sagebrush type, Eastgate Basin, Nevada. Third American Water
Resources Conference, San Francisco, CA. Proc., Nov. 8-10,
P- 137-148.
Gifford, C. F., and F. E. Busby. 1974. Intensive infiltrometer
studies on a plowed big sagebrush site. J. Hydrol. 21:81-90.
Gifford, G. F., R. H. Hawkins and U. S. Williams. 1975. Hydrologic
impact of livestock grazing practices in the San Luis Valley,
Colorado. Contract completion report to the USDI, Bureau of Land
Management by Utah State University Foundation, Logan, UT.
Gifford, G. F. and R. H. Hawkins. 1976. Grazing systems and watershed
management—a look at the record. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 31.
Gifford, G. F., J. C. Buckhouse, and F. E. Busby. 1976. Hydologic
impact of burning and grazing on chained pinyon-juniper site in
southeastern Utah, Utah Water Res. Lab. Rpt. PRJNR012-1, 22p.
Gifford, G. F. and H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic impact of grazing - a
critical review. 1978 volume of Water Resources Research.
Hanson, C. L., A. R. Kuhlman, C. J. Erickson, and J. K. Lewis. 1970.
Grazing effects on runoff and vegetation on western South Dakota
rangeland. J. Range Mgt. 23:418-420.
Hibbert, A. R. 1971. Increases in streamflow after converting
chaparral to grass. Water Resources Res. 7:71-80.
Hibbert, A. R., E. A. Davis, and T. C. Brown. 1975. Managing
chaparral for water and other resources in Arizona, Jjn Watershed
Management. Proc. ASCE Symp., Logan UT, August 11-13:445-468.
Hickey, W. C., Jr., and E. J. Dortignac. 1964. An evaluation of soil
ripping and soil pitting on runoff and erosion in the semi-arid
southwest. Internatl. Union Geodsey and Geophys. Internatl.
Assoc. Sci. Hydrol., Land Erosion. Precipitation Hydometry. Soil
Moisture, Comm. Publ. 65:22-23.
Holtan, H. N., and M. H. Kirkpatrick, Jr., 1950. Rainfall,
infiltration and hydraulics of flow in runoff computation, Trans.
Amer. Geophys. Union, 31, 771-779.
Johnston, A. 1962. Effects of grazing intensity and cover on the water
intake rate of fescue grassland, J. Range Mgt., 15: 79-82.
Knoll, G., and H. H. Hopkins. 1959. Effects of grazing and trampling
upon certain soil properties, Trans. Kansas Acad. of Sci., 62:
221-231.
- 41 -
-------
Kothmann, M. M. 1974. A glossary of terms used in range management.
Second Edition, Society for Range Mgt., Denver, CO.
Leithead, H. L. 1959. Runoff in relation to range condition in the Big
Bend-Davis Mountain section of Texas. J. Range Mgt. 12:83-87.
Lewis, D. C. 1968. Annual hydrologic response to watershed conversion
from oak woodland to annual grassland. Water Resources Research
4(l):59-72.
Linnartz, N. E., C. Hse, and V. L. Duvall. 1966. Grazing impairs
physical properties of a forest soil in central Louisiana, J.
For., 64: 239-243.
Lorenz, Russell J. 1974. Effects of grazing on microenvironment of U.S.
rangelands. Paper 17, Jji Plan morphogenesis as the basis for
scientific management of range resources. Proceedings of the
Workshop of the U.S.--Australia Rangelands Panel, Berkeley, CA
March 29—April 5, 1971.
Lusby, G. C. 1970. Hydorlogic and biotic effects of grazing vs.
non-grazing near Grand Junction, Colorado. J. Range Mgt. 23:
256-260.
Lusby, G. C., V. H. Reid and 0. D. Knipe 1971. Effects of grazing on
the hydrology and biology of the Badger Wash Basin in western
Colorado, 1953-66. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper
1532-D. 90 p. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
McElroy, A. D., S.Y. Chiu, J. W. Nelogen, A. Aleti and F. W. Bennett.
1976. Loading functions for assessment of water pollution from
non-point sources. EPA-600/2-76-151, May 1976. Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D. C.
Meeuwig, R. 0. 1965. Effects of seeding and grazing on infiltration
capacity and soil suitability of subalpine range in central Utah.
J. Range Mgt. 18(4):173-180.
Packer, P. E. 1953. Effects of trampling disturbance on watershed
condition runoff, and erosion. J. Forestry 51:28-31.
Packer, P. E. 1961. The effects of grazing on soil erosion, water
quality and sediment. From Proceedings Watershed Quality and
Sediment. From Proceedings Watershed Management Study Conference,
Mcall, ID.
Packer, P. E. 1963. Soil stability requirements for the Gallatin Elk
Winter Range. J. Wildlife Mgt. 27(3):401-410.
-------
Pitt, M. D., R. H. Burgy and H. F. Heady. 1978. Influences of brush
conversion >nd weather patterns on runoff from a northern
California watershed. J. Range Mgt. 31(l):23-27.
Rauzi, F. 1954. Water infiltration studies in the Bighorn National
Forest, Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta., Mimeo, Cir. No. 40, 10pp.
Rauzi, F. 1955. Water infiltration studies in the Bighorn National
Forest, Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta., Mimeo, Cir. No. 38, 10pp.
Rauzi, F. 1956. Water infiltration studies on the Bighorn National
Forest, Wyoming. Wyoming Agriculture Station. Mimemo, Cir. 62.
10pp.
Rauzi, F. 1963. Water intake and plant composition as affected by
differential grazing on rangeland, J. Soil & Water Conserv., 18:
114-116.
Rauzi, F. and C. L. Hanson. 1966. Water intake and runoff as affected
by intensity of grazing, J. Range Mgt., 19: 351-356.
Rauzi, F. and Freeman M. Smith. 1963. Infiltration rates: Three
soils with three grazing levels in northeastern Colorado. J.
Range Mgt. 26(2): 126-129.
Reed, M. J., and R. A. Peterson. 1961. Vegetation, soil and cattle
responses to grazing on northern Great Plains range, USDA, Forest
Service Tech. Bull. No. 1252, 79pp.
Rhoades, E. D. , L. F. Locke, H. M. Taylor, and E. H. Mcllvain. 1964.
Water intake on a sandy range as affected by 20 years of
differential cattle stocking rates, J. Range Mgt., 17: 185-190.
Rich, L. R. and H. G. Reynolds. 1963. Grazing in relation to runoff
and erosion on some chaparral watersheds in central Arizona. J.
Range Mgt. 16:322-326.
Schillinger, J. E. and D. G. Stuart. 1976. Microbiology and chemistry
studies of water quality factors in a watershed used for municipal
supply and waste disposal. MSU, Bozeman, WRRC, OWRT Completion
Report B-040-MT.
Smeins, Fred E. 1975. Effects of livestock grazing on runoff and
erosion. ASCE Watershed Mgt. Symp., Logan, UT. Aug. 11-13.
Stephenson, G. R. and L. V. Street. 1977. Water Quality investigations
on the Reynolds Creek Watershed, southwest Idaho. A 3-year
progress report. Interim Report on Water Quality, Agreement No.
12-14-5001-6028, April, 1977. Boise, ID.
-43-
-------
Steward, B. A. (Editor). 1975. Control of water pollution from
cropland; Volume 1. A manual for guidance development. Report
No. ARS-H-5-1, Agric. Research Service, USDA, Hyattsville, MD.
Thompson, J. R. 1968. Effect of grazing on infiltration in a western
watershed. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 23:63-65.
Tromble, J. M., K. G. Renard and A. P. Thatcher. 1974. Infiltration
for three rangeland soil-vegetation complexes. J. of Range Mgt.
27:318-321.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Methods for identifying
and evaluating the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of
pollutants. EPA-430/9-73-014. 261 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for
water. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NTIS, PB-263-943. 501 pp.
Wilm, H. G. 1966. The Arizona watershed program as it enters into its
second decade. 10th Annual Arizona Watershed Symp. (Phoenix)
Proc., Arizona Water Commission, p. 9-11.
- 44 -
-------
GRAZING MANAGEMENT AND AQUATIC HABITAT
General
Many researchers over the past few decades have addressed the livestock
grazing/fishery/wildlife resource problem. Impacts on spawning and
general habitat have been related to livestock grazing and other sources
of disruption by Behnke and Zarn (1976), Borovicka, Culbertson and Jeppson
(1975), Duff (1977), Gunderson (1968), Lewis (1969), Marcuson (1977), Page
and Collins (1974), Platts (1977), and the BLM Nevada study (1975).
Impacts on food type and abundance have been studied by Duff (1977),
Haugen (1977), Platts (1977), and others. Impacts on water quality and
quantity have received study from Claire and Storch (1977), Cordone and
Kelley (1961), Duff (1977), Meiman and Kunkle (1967), and Page and Collins
(1974). Grazing impact evaluation and prediction techniques have been
explored by Duff and Cooper (1976) and Cooper (1977) and are discussed in
more detail in the chapter on problem assessment. Platts (1977) presents
an excellent review of the above referenced literature plus additional
references.
Armour (1977) summarized the concerns of fisheries biologists regarding
fishery habitat loss resulting from "improper" livestock management. Some
biologists also express concern over rest-rotation grazing systems. For
example, Platts and Rountree (1972), Behnke (1976) and Johnson (1976) view
one year rest-rotation grazing systems as insufficient to protect or
restore woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation. Studies by Duff (1977),
Glinski (1977), Marcuson (1977), Winegar (1977) and others substantiate
need for a rest period approaching five years—and even this appears
somewhat optimistic in many cases.
Carothers et al. (1974), established the strong relationship between
riparian vegetation removal and breeding bird use. Hubbard (1971),
Johnson and Simpson (1971), and Anderson and Ohmart (1977) have documented
the inordinately high use by various avian groups of this particular habi-
tat type. In addition to the above, many other researchers have documented
the riparian habitat importance to avian and mammalian organisms in the
publication, "Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian
Habitat", USDA, Forest Service (1977).
In addition to the above references specifically oriented to livestock
grazing and riparian zone resource problems, other literature from such
activities as forest harvest and roadbuilding also identifies impacts on
the aquatic habitat due to siltation and loss of streamside cover.
Tagart (1976) demonstrated a strong negative correlation between salmonid
survival-to-emergence and gravel permeability in gravels with a high
percentage of particle composition less than 0.850 mm in size.
- 45 -
-------
Shelton and Pollock (1966) demonstrated salmon egg mortalities of 85 per-
cent when 15 to 30 percent of spawning gravel voids were filled with sedi-
ment. Koski (1966) also demonstrated that the percentage of fine sediments
in spawning gravel had a strong inverse relationship to salmonid egg and
fry survival. Phillips (1971) listed effects of suspended and settleable
solids (sediment) as determined by field research. Fine sediments not only
produced anoxic conditions and interference with removal of metabolites
(carbon dioxide and ammonia), but also reduced escape cover and available
food supply required for survival of emerging fry. Gammon (1970) observed
that both fish and macroinvertebrate standing crops were severely depressed
in response to increased sediment loadings. Moring (1975) demonstrated a
direct relationship between reduced salmonid populations and various
altered environmental parameters including elevated summer water tempera-
tures and depressed intragravel dissolved oxygen levels in a stream where
riparian vegetation had been removed during clearcutting. A significant
increase in sedimentation was also observed. Burns (1972) observed a
water temperature increase of 20°F following riparian canopy removal
during road construction. Chapman and Bjornn (1969) also observed that
many young salmonids overwinter in the stream substrate when temperatures
fall below about 5°C and that riparian vegetative cover (insulative pro-
tection) is therefore extremely vital to survival. McNeil (1966, 1968) in
studying reproductive success of salmonids, observed that certain spawning
bed environments effected by logging activities caused significant spawn-
ing-to-emergence mortality. Low streamflows in summer caused depressed
intragravel dissolved oxygen and winter fluctuating flows caused mortality
due to freezing. Sheridan (1961) also concluded that riparian vegetative
cover could be instrumental in preventing freezing of intragravel eggs
during cold "open" winters, i.e., with little snow cover insulation.
Skovlin and Meehan are three years into a five-year study entitled "The
Influence of Grazing on Riparian and Aquatic Habitats in the Central Blue
Mountains," in northeast Oregon (personal communication - Skovlin). One
of the principal elements will be the evaluation of the effects of grazing
management strategies on fish populations. In addition to studies on
watershed and soils characteristics and water quality and quantity, the
project also addresses impacts by big-game, benthic fauna density and
diversity, streambed sedimentation, and herbaceous and woody vegetation
production and utilization. Results should be directly applicable to
selection and evaluation of BMP's.
A study being initiated by the BLM in Utah will inventory riparian
vegetation and aquatic biota and establish a grazing system/exclosure
monitoring program in conjunction with the Hot Desert Environmental
Statement (ES) in SW Utah. The proposed three pasture rest-rotation
system will be monitored utilizing riparian zones along with some
vegetation recovery/exclosure studies and fisheries/water quality studies
in selected riparian reaches (personal communication - Duff).
- 46 -
-------
Thomas, Maser and Rodiek point out in a draft report entitled "Riparian
Zones" that the riparian zone is the most critical wildlife habitat in
southeastern Oregon and that, of the 350 terrestrial wildlife species
occurring in the area, 281 are directly or significantly dependent on this
zone (personal communication - Thomas).
The Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Tempe, Arizona, is
one year into a three-year study addressing management and stewardship
problems of riparian habitat in southwestern national forests. "Reducing
the impacts of cattle grazing...", "classification, restoration and
management...", and "habitat requirements, biology and distribution of
native...trouts" within/of the riparian zone are the principal study areas
(personal communication -Clark).
A cooperative ten-year study involving private (Saval Ranch), BLM and
Forest Service lands is scheduled to begin this year in Nevada (personal
communication - Platts). Nevada Fish and Game will initiate the wildlife
inventories this summer. The Science and Education Administration* will
conduct hydrologic studies and soil and vegetation inventories in 1979.
Exclosures, both upland and riparian zone, will also be constructed. In
1980, after study and evaluation of the data and conducted inventories, a
grazing management system will be designed and implemented and the
methodology prescribed for measurement of grazing effects.
The principal conclusions derived from review of state-of-the-art
references are that:
1) Severe damage to riparian wildlife and fisheries habitat often
results from riparian zone activities such as livestock grazing.
2) The riparian zone is a critical habitat during some life stage
for a very high percentage of the species inhabiting a given
geographic area.
3) In most cases good livestock management alone is not adequate to
protect riparian fisheries and wildlife habitat from severe
damage.
4) Of the livestock grazing management techniques available for
riparian habitat protection, only riparian zone fencing appears
capable of certain protection.
5) It is not economically feasible to fence all riparian habitat on
livestock grazing lands.
*previously the "Agricultural Research Service"
- 47 -
-------
6) Riparian habitat protection, the inventorying of critical
riparian habitat types and prioritization of specific streams
and/or stream reaches to be protected must be accelerated.
7) Streams and/or stream reaches characterized by unstable soils and
a fragile but diverse vegetative community should receive urgent
consideration for fencing.
8) Streams and/or stream reaches characterized by comparatively
stable soils and vegetation should initially receive protection
via BMP's other than fencing - with follow-up by a strong
monitoring and BMP evaluation effort.
There are many ongoing research efforts that should yield guidance,
recommendations and conclusions leading to a resolution of the riparian
zone problem. The following recommendations are supplemental to current
research. Some of these recommendations are in part being implemented, or
are ongoing under various state or federal agencies.
Recommendations Supplemental to Current Research
1. Establish rankings on riparian reaches based on vegetative,
wildlife and fishery/macroinvertebrate potential for the purpose of
identifying BMP's and prioritizing their implementation.
An important first step in prescribing and defending riparian management
decisions is the development of a system for describing and classifying
riparian habitat and site potentials. "Recognizing the site potential
prior to developing the management program will aid in achieving desired
streamside goals and focus efforts on areas where maximum results can be
obtained" is suggested by Claire and Storch (1977).
If all streams within a given area were ranked based on a) aquatic
insect/fishery potential b) vegetation recovery and establishment
potential, or c) wildlife potential it is conceivable that high, medium
and low protection priority streams could be designated and receive
protection based on the above resource potential. Complicating factors
within the drainage such as competing water use (irrigation diversion,
subsurface withdrawal, flow regulation), timber harvest, mining
activities, etc., must be considered if a valid ranking of riparian
habitat potential is to be achieved.
Until the vegetative, wildlife, or fishery/macroinvertebrate potential of
streams are determined and ranked throughout an area the implementation of
riparian protection BMP's will be questioned and open to unnecessary
criticism.
Where undisturbed "control" streams, wilderness streams, National Park
streams, etc., are not available to demonstrate or establish riparian zone
biological potential, stream exclosures should be used. The potential
must be identified to accurately predict and assess the benefits from the
improvement program.
- 48 -
-------
2. Initiate the planning and implementation of density and
diversity benchmark inventories of vegetation, wildlife and
instream fauna to facilitate evaluation of selected BMP's.
Most range managers, specialists, and researchers agree that each grazing
allotment must receive site specific evaluation and prescription of BMP's,
i.e., combinations of grazing systems and range improvements, etc., and
that no BMP will handle all situations. Controversy arises when consider-
ing how widely applicable a largely research derived BMP should be. The
BMP's proposed initially may be an interagency cooperative effort "best
shot". It will then be up to the resource agencies' physical and biologi-
cal scientists to evaluate and recommend change as needed. Benchmarks of
present riparian flora and fauna and critical habitat are essential and
must be a first priority before implementation of BMP's. BMP's cannot be
rationally evaluated or justified unless based on a benchmark biological
inventory.
The determination as to which inventory parameter or combination of
parameters should be benchmarked, will be largely dependent on the
projected highest and best use of the riparian zone in question. If the
highest and best use is determined to be fishery then either the fishery
or aquatic macroinvertebrates should be selected. If wildlife, avian use
is determined to be highest and best use then a vegetation benchmark
should be considered. The vegetation benchmark should also be used when
livestock grazing is determined to be the highest and best use. The
classification of riparian vegetation in the southwest is being refined by
Pase and Layser (1977), Pase (1977), Dick-Peddie and Hubbard (1977) and
others such as Brown and Lowe (1974) and Pfister and Arno (1977). The
classification may be modified for use in many areas.
The State of Arizona is producing a riparian habitat inventory and mapping
process through multiple agency efforts in delineation of perennial stream
and wetland resources (Brown, Carmony and Turner, 1977).
3. Establish an information and data center oriented to
grazing/riparian biota research completed, current and proposed.
Archive, catalogue, and track research and field studies and
supply requested information.
Many universities, state agencies, interest groups, etc., are realizing
the benefits from central data and information efforts. A few of the
benefits are 1) greatly reduced duplication of effort, 2) improved
intra- and inter-disciplinary communications, 3) the creation of a forum
through which projects and concepts can be supported, 4) the creation of a
unified, cohesive interest group or body of experts which carries
considerably greater political and professional impact, and 5) providing a
mechanism by which future research could be directed or ongoing research
redirected.
- 49 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GRAZING MANAGEMENT AND AQUATIC HABITAT
Anderson, B. W. and Ohmart, R. D. 1977. Vegetation structure and bird
use in the Lower Colorado River Valley, J_n Importance,
Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat, A Symposium, USDA
For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Retp. RM-43, p. 217.
Anonymous. 1977. Importance, preservation and management of riparian
habitat, USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-43, p. 217.
Armour, C. L. Effects of deteriorated range streams on trout,
BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, (n.d.).
Behnke, R. J. 1976. An analysis and determination of Salmo Clavki Utah
Purity and significiance in national resource land streams of the
Thomas Fork drainage, with observations of aquatic habitat
problems, US Dept. of Int., BLM, Rock Springs District, Kemmerer
Resource Area, Wyo., p. 26.
Behnke, R. J. and Zarn, M. 1976. Biology and management of threatened
endangered western trouts, USDA, For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-28,
p. 45.
Borovicka, R.; Culbertson, R.; and Jeppson, P. 1975. Birch Creek
aquatic habitat managment plan, US Dept. of Int., BLM Idaho Falls,
Idaho District, p. 40.
Brown, D.; Carmony, N.; and Turner, R. 1977. Inventory of riparian
habitats, p. 10-13, J_n Importance Preservation and Management of
Riparian Habitat: A Symposium, USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-43, p. 217.
Brown, D. E. and Lowe, C. H. 1974. A digitized computer-compatible
classification for natural and potential vegetation in the
southwest with particular reference to Arizona, J. Ariz. Acd. Scil.
9, Suppl. 2.
Brown, D.; Lowe, C.; and Hausler, J. 1977. Southwestern riparian
communities: their biotic importance and management in Arizona, P.
201-211, J_n Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian
Habitat: A Symposium, USDA ^or. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43, p.
217.
B.L.M. Nevada Study. 1975. Effects of livestock grazing on wildlife,
watershed, recreation and other resource values in Nevada, US Dept.
of Int., B.L.M., Nevada State Office, Reno, p. 95.
Burns, J. W. 1972. Some effects of logging and associated road
construction on northern California streams, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.,
No. 101 (1), pp. 1-17.
- 50 -
-------
Car-others, S. W.; Johnson, R. R.; and Aitchison, S. W. 1974.
Population Structure and Social Organization of Southwestern Riparian
Birds, Amer. Zool., No. 14, pp. 97-108.
Chapman, D. W. and Bjornn, T. C. 1969. Distribution of salmonids in
streams, with special reference to food and eating, Jjn Symposium on
salmon and trout in Streams, T. G. Northcote, ed., Univ. Brit.
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Claire, E. W. and Storch, R. L. 1977. Stream side management and
livestock grazing, an objective look at the situation, In press
Livestock and Wildlife-Fisheries Relationships in the Great Basin,
John W. Menke, ed., Published by Pac. S.W. For. and Range Exp. Sta.,
Berkeley, Calif.
Cooper, J. L. 1977. A technique for evaluating and predicting the
impact of grazing on stream channels, USDA, For. Serv. Idaho
Panhandle N.F., Coeur d'Alene, Id., unpublished rept., p. 28.
Cordone, A. J. and Kelley, D. E. 1961. The Influences of Inorganic
Sediments on the Aquatic Life of Streams, Calif. Fish, and Game., No.
47(2): 189-288.
Dick, Peddie, W. A. and Hubbard, J. P. 1977. Classification of riparian
vegetation, p. 85-90, Jji Importance, Preservation and Management of
Riparian Habitat: A Symposium, USDA, For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-43, p. 217.
Duff, D. A. 1978. BLM, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah,
personal communication.
Duff, D. A. 1977. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big
Creek, Utah, In press Livestock and Wildlife-Fisheries Relationships
in the Great Basin, John W. Menke, ed., Published by Pac. S. W. For.
and Range Exp. Sta., Berkeley, Calif.
Duff, D. A. and Cooper, J. L. 1976. Techniques for conducting stream
habitat surveys on national resource lands, US Dept. of Int., B.L.M.
Tech. Note 283, p. 72.
Gammon, J. R. 1970. The effect of inorganic sediment on stream biota,
EPA Rep. No. 18050 DWC 12/70, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash., D.C,
p. 113.
Glinski, R. L. 1977. Regeneration and distribution of sycamore and
cottonwood trees along Sonoita Creek, Santa Cruz County, Arizona,
_Iji Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat, A
Symposium, USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-43, p. 217.
- 51 -
-------
Gunderson, D. R. 1968. Floodplain use related to stream morphology and
fish populations, J. Wild!. Mgt., 32(3): 507-514.
Gunnell, F. and Smith, A. G. 1972. Pothole community management for
livestock and wildlife in the Intermountain Region, J. of Range
Mgt., 25(3): 237-241.
Haugen, G. N. 1977. Ruby River Fishery Habitat and Range Resource
Evaluation, Sheridan Ranger District, Beaverhead Nat. For. Montana,
p. 39.
Hubbard, J. P. 1977. The summer birds of Gil a Valley, New Mexico,
Nemouria, Occ. Pap. Delaware Mus. Natur. Hist., pp. 1-13.
Johnson, J. E. 1976. A proposed change in livestock grazing on
national resource lands and its effects on aquatic and riparian
communities, paper presented to Colo-Wyo. Chapt. A. F. S., Fort
Collins, Colo.
Johnson, R. R. and Simpson, J. M. 1971. Important birds from blue
point cottonwoods, Maricopa County, Arizona, Condor 73: pp. 379-380.
Koski, K. V. 1966. The survival of coho salmon (Onchorhynchus Kisutch)
from egg deposition to emergence in three Oregon coastal streams,
M.S. Thesis, Oregon St. Univ., Corvallis, Ore., p. 84.
Land Use Planning Report, 1978. Vol. 6, No. 33, p. 263.
Lewis, S. L. 1969. Physical factors influencing fish populations in
pools of a trout stream, Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 98: 14-19.
Marcuson, P. E. 1977. The effect of cattle grazing on brown trout in
Rock Creek, Montana, In Press Livestock and Wildlife-Fisheries
Relationships in the Great Basin, John W. Menke, ed., Publ. by Pac.
S. W. For. and Range Exp. Sta., Berkeley, Calif.
Martin, C. 1978. U.S. For. Serv., Rocky Mtn. For. and Range. Exp.
Sta., Tempe, Ariz., Personal communication.
McNeil, W. J. 1968. Effect of streamflow on survival of pink and chum
salmon in spawning beds, Jji Logging and Salmon, Proceedings of a
Forum, Am. Inst. Fish. Res. Biol., Alaska Dist. Juneau, Alaska, p.
144.
McNeil, W. J. 1966. Effect of the spawning bed environment on
reproduction of pink and chum salmon, U.S. Fish and Wild!. Serv.,
Fish Bull. No. 65 (2): 495-523.
Meiman, J. R. and Kunkle, S. H. 1967. Land treatment and water quality
control, J. Soil and Water Conserv., 22(2): 67-70.
- 52
-------
Moring, J. R. 1975. The Alsea watershed study: Effects of Logging on
the Aquatic Resources of Three Headwater Streams of the Alsea
River, Oregon, Parts I, II, & III, Ore. Dept. Fish. Wild!., Fish.
Res. Rep., No. 9, p. 129.
Page, J. L. and Collins, B. F. 1974. Mahogany Creek Aquatic Habitat
Management Plan, revised, US Dept. of Int., B.L.M. Winnemucca
District, Nevada, p. 49.
Pase, C. P. 1977. Classification restoration, and management of
riparian habitats in Southwestern National Forests, Unpublished
study plan 1710-44, Rocky Mtn For. and Range Exp. Sta., Tempe,
Arizona.
Pase, C. P. and Layser, E. F. 1977. Classification of riparian habitat
in the southwest, p. 5-9, Ir± Importance, Preservation and
Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium, USDA, For. Serv. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-43, p. 217.
Pehrson, R. V. 1978. Idaho Dept. Fish & Game, Boise, Idaho, Personal
communication.
Pfister, R. D. and Arno, S. F. 1977. Forest habitat type
classification methodology, USDA, For. Serv. Intermtn. For. and
Range Exp. Sta., p. 29.
Phillips, R. W. 1971. Effects of sediment on the gravel environment
and fish production, Jji Forest Land Uses and Stream Environment,
Proceedings of a Symposium, Ore. St. Univ., Corvallis, Ore., p. 162.
Platts, W. S. 1978. U.S. For. Serv., Intermountain For. & Range Exp.
Sta. Research Lab., Boise, Idaho, Personal communication.
Platts, W. S. 1977. Stream channel, streamside environment and thermal
conditions of Bear Valley Creek, Idaho, p. 93.
Platts, W. S. 1977. The effects of livestock grazing in high mountain
meadows on aquatic environments, and fisheries, USDA, For. Serv.,
Intermtn. For. and Range Exp. Sta., draft reasearch project
proposal, INT 1651 (250).
Platts, W. S. and Rountree. 1972. Bear Valley Creek, Idaho, aquatic
environment and fishery study, USDA, For. Serv., Boise, Idaho,
Unpublished rept., p. 46.
Shelton, J. M. and Pollock, R. D. 1966. Siltation and Egg Survival in
Incubation Channels, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 95 (2), pp. 183-187.
Sheridan, W. L. 1961. Temperature Relationships in a Pink Salmon
Stream in Alaska, Ecology 42 (1), pp. 91-98.
- 53 -
-------
Skovlin, J. 1978. U.S. For. Serv. Range and Wildlife Lab., LaGrande,
Ore., Personal communication.
Tagart, J. V. 1976. The Survival from Egg Deposition to Emergence of
Coho Salmon in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington,
M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wash., Seattle, p. 101.
Thomas, J. W.; Maser, C.; and Rodiek, J. E. 1978. Riparian Zones, Jji
Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests - the Blue Mntns. of Oregon
and Washington, J.W. Thomas, ed., Pacific N.W. For. & Range Exp.
Sta., USDA, Forest Service, LaGrande, Oregon, (in press), Personal
communication.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1977. Importance, Preservation and
Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium, USDA Forest Service,
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43, p. 217.
Winegar, H. H. 1977. Camp Creek Channel Fencing—Plant, Wildlife,
Soil, and Water Responses, Rangeman's Journal No. 4, pp. 10-12.
- 54 -
-------
WATER QUALITY PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
Problem Identification
One of the major problems of assessing water quality impacts from grazing
and other nonpoint sources of pollution is the lack of adequate criteria.
As indicated in the Introduction, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, established a national goal wherever attainable of water
quality that provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shell-
fish and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the waters by
July 1, 1983. Therefore, the basic framework for problem identification
is established. However, the national goal has not been quantified in
terms of water quality criteria.
Considerable information is available on criteria and techniques for
evaluating soil erosion problems and impacts on vegetation from grazing.
Soil surveys, various watershed evaluation and rating systems and several
range condition survey techinques are used to evaluate soil and vegetation
conditions on rangelands. The relationship of this information to water
quality is often by subjective inference without any cause and effect or
statistical basis.
The purpose of this section is to present the considerations that should
be built into water quality assessments related to grazing, and to
summarize the documented water quality assessment techniques related to
aspects of range management.
Water quality impacts of grazing are associated with amount, duration and
timing of runoff, erosion and sedimentation. All these factors are associ-
ated with vegetative cover. Sediment, turbidity, pathogens and nutrients
are the major water quality parameters associated with range management.
Water temperature changes associated with riparian vegetation, dissolved
solids and the use of chemicals may also impact water quality. These
types of impacts tend to be much more specific to channel and drainage
area than runoff or suspended sediment. Sediment, pathogens and nutrient
related problems are summarized in Chapter III.
It is difficult to determine and quantify beneficial and detrimental
influences of grazing on runoff and erosion as related to water quality
because of the complex interaction of many associated variables. Some of
the inter-relationships involved in assessing grazing related impacts were
illustrated by Smeins (1975). His concept is broadened to include water
quality and is shown in Figure 4. Some of these inter-relationships may
reduce the application of generalizations related to potential water
quality impacts. This diagram is not all inclusive. Conservation
programs or the application of Best Management Practices would reduce the
water quality impacts.
- 55 -
-------
CLIMATE
GRAZING ANIMAL
SOIL/SLOPE
*}
VEGETATION
WATER QUALITY IMPACT
FIGURE 4 VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCE RUNOFF AND
EROSION (MODIFIED FROM SMEINS, 1975)
-------
FIGURE 5
REGION 10 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Region 10
Present water Quality Assessment
Effect of land UM upon the Biological. Recreational, and Water
Quality of Regional streams
STflRCT ftivnr
ain Approach
1) STORE! basin tuia* map*
2) Reiterative process until all basins ara coaplete
3) Land ma and ownership plottad on baaa map _
Strata Segment Identification
1) Drainage basin aaaoclaced with aegnent
2) Segments identified by States (further
breakdown may ba necessary)
Phaaa I Segnent Information
1) Segment length
2) Bydrologic data
3) Point Sourcaa
4) Mining
5) Hydronodification
Phaua II aiological Status
1) Develop criteria
2) Contact field biologists for atatua
3) Develop backup table and color coded caps
Phase III Recreational Statua
1) Develop criteria (contact & noncontact)
2) Contact water users, recreation agencies,
etc.
3) Develop backup table and color coded na-pa
°raaa IV water Quality Statua
1) Solect acraening peranetera
2) Select Federal criteria & data
criteria
3} STORZT retrieval uaiog Standards
Program
4) Develop (tation distribution nap & KJCT—•»
violation printouts
Phaaa V Land Uae & Qvnersnip Statua
1) Determine Z use and ownership considering
grazing, silviculture, agriculture, urban
uaea and Taderal, State, Indian, and pri-
vate landa
if
STDRET River Ba»ln Suamary Table
1) Including all data fron segments (Fhasoa I thru V)
2) Tabla to be uaed in deciaion mnking procosa
field Verification of Thanes II tttru V
1) Areas to be selected on a random basis ^
Region and .State Decision ^talcing Proeass
Information fron thia process may be used for chit following:
1) Data needs identification
2) Prioritize work area* and program by baaln. State, land
use, ownership, ate.
3) tf.Q. standards review
4) Assess waters presently meeting 1913 goals of "fishable swln-
mabla"
5) Determine effect of and/or needs for hyctroraodifIcatlon
6) Assess the "cause and effect" relationships of various land
uses and therefore BHFs.
7) Assist Federal, State, and private agencies in Identifying
problems
8) Base study to support future abatement program success
«ent
-------
The field hiolopist utilizes the folluuinE evaluation matrix in rieterpinin"! stream seci"ent status clasfilf icatioa.
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
TABLE 4
^~~~~~~--— _^TIME A SEVERITY
CRITERIA FOR^^~^-^_FACTORS
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION""""-----^
. Destruction of haoitat for
Indigenous ipeclat - passage,
(pawning, rearing.
II. Interuplion of total food chain
III. Intolerance with tho wall
boing of indiocnoui tpacios of
fith or food chain organiirru.
Duration of Advene Condition
TMr
FERMITTENl
i^Pa/1
Hed
Severity of Adverse Condition
TH lir, _._
-V" ft AH
U*- Bpdl
1_ fin A
Period of Biological Activity
NOll-CWICAt CiailC^i
Blua/vellow
Yellow
Re.3
Bed
Ked
Kca
NOTE: The color-code (blue, yellow, and red) is used on the maps (see slides).
On the summary tables, a pattern-code was used to allow for easier duplication.
Therefore: Blue corresponds to:
Yellow corresponds to:
Red corresponds to:
-------
SCALE OF MILES
—(—/—
0 10 20 30 40 60
ACCEPTABLE
OBJECTIONABLP
NOT ACCEPTABLE
Figure6
LOWER COLUMBIA BASIN BIOLOGICAL STATUS
(GENERALIZED)
-------
TABLE "5
BIOLOGICAL STATUS
River Basin Name Columbia River Contact: Errol Claire, Oregon
Fisheries & Wildlife
STREAM
NAME
Sl reams
north of
Col umbia
River in
l'/as h ing —
ton from
Ktnnewick
to
Good no e
Hills
M . !•' .
John Day
source to
mouth
(conflu-
ence with
U.K.)
STREAM
KLACH
(River
Mile)
Various
32.37
76.2-0
Recorder R.A. Wagner Date 8/23/76 Commission, Canyon City
SEG#
14-31
-01
JD-26
-01
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Destruction
of Habitat
C
o
•1 —
•*->
t3
1-
^3
Q
C
C
^
•r-
$-
O
i- ro
O <4—
0.
E "+-
•5 0
Yes
Yes
Interruption
)f Food Chain
C
o
4->
fU
L-
~^
^^
C
C
-^
•"^
S-
>•
at
i/>
11
H
Interference
vith Species
VJell Beina
C
o
4->
ro
t-
**^
t — \
I
C
.^
^
Z.
>
QJ
OO
11
II
BIOLOGICAL PROBLEM
Overgrazing, poor logging and
land management practices,
road construction, intermit-
tent, uncontrolled runoff.
Eurythermal oligotrophic
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Habitat loss, niche quality
reduced. Adverse effects
to biota because of scouring,
temperature, silt, sediment,
turbidity, and riparian loss
streams. , due to bank erosion.
(No Biological Activit
Overgrazing; poor logging, water
and land management practices;
road construction; and intermit-
tent uncontrolled runoff. Bank
loss, scouring effects to stream
bed in spring, low flow and high
temperatures August thru Septem-
ber. Coarse fish buildup.
y - Natural Condition)
Same aa above including
drastic reduction for fish
passage, spawning, and
rearing.
STA1
»i
»j
S = Seldom
I = Intermittent
C = Continuous
L = Low
M = Medium
H = High
Ace = Acceptable
Obj = Objectionable
N.A.= Not Acceptable
5/17
-------
Off-Site Impacts
The potential for water quality impacts from grazing managements and
rangeland treatments are dependent upon storm characteristics and local
hydrologic characteristics and conditions. Many grazing allotments of the
West are drained by ephemeral streams with a few perennial drainages.
Numerous small watershed studies have shown runoff events frequency to be
of small amount and very irregular in the western portion of the United
States. This is due primarily to low annual precipitation and flow losses
in the normally dry streambeds. Porous soils, small scale storms, stream
alluvium and very large evaporation deficits also contribute to the
scarcity of streamflow. In many large watersheds, runoff is produced from
only a portion of the area, in response to a high intensity, limited area!
extent convective thunderstorm. Snowmelt runoff does not normally
contribute an appreciable fraction of the runoff originating from lower
elevations on semi-arid rangelands.
Forest land hydrologic response research, as it relates to vegetative
manipulation, has been incorrectly extrapolated by some in the past to
substantiate claims that vegetative manipulation of the lower elevation,
more xeric rangeland communities will produce significant "improvements"
in water yield and quality. Great dangers exist in transferring research
findings from forested watersheds to lower elevation areas where storms,
soil water depletion patters, climate and hydrology are much different
than in the winter snowpack zones.
Generally it can be said, and has been frequently pointed out by Gifford
(1975b), that the critical hydrologic concern on rangeland watersheds of
the West is more efficient utilization of precipitation and soil water
on-site, rather than any off-site or downstream concerns.
Where runoff has low potential to leave a site, land management treatments
should be aimed at increasing water use efficiency. Follow-up monitoring
should be along plot study, rather than small watershed lines, in these
instances. Extremely large storms (50 year recurrence interval and
greater) will be an exception. However, under such conditions storm
characteristics dominate all local watershed and hydrology
characteristics, and most generalizations become academic.
A very small portion of western grazing lands do have the potential for
generating runoff from the more typical storms and transmitting them to a
location where this is cause for concern. This sometimes occurs in areas
which have been designated Critical Community Watersheds! by the Bureau
of Land Management, because annual precipitation and snowmelt runoff is
large. Steeper, snorter slopes and closer proximity to perennial streams
is often characteristic.
Considered by USDI , Bureau of Land Management , to be any basin which
contributes 10 percent or more of a community water supply from public
lands. Also qualifies if the basin has produces flood and sediment
damages in excess of $1,000 per year in community damages.
- .57-
-------
Water Quality Standards
The water quality standards of the states in the west are related to
water use classifications. The designated uses for which waters of the
states are to be protected include, but are not necessarily limited to,
domestic and industrial supplies, irrigation and stock watering, fish and
wildlife, recreation and aesthetic qualities. The states have general
and special standards for specifically designated waters. The designa-
tions may include lakes, streams, segments of streams, or river basins.
Various classes related to uses such as AA, A, B and C are frequently
used to identify specific bodies of water.
The criteria in water quality standards are related to classes. An
example of some of the key criteria from state standards that may be
affected by range management and livestock grazing are illustrated in
Table 3.
Sediment and Turbidity. Sediment and turbidity are important parameters
in municipal and industrial water supplies.
Turbid water interferes with recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment.
Fish and other aquatic life requirements related to suspended solids can
be divided into, those whose effect occurs in the water column, and those
whose effect occurs following sedimentation to the bottom of the water
body (EPA 1976a). Both effects impact water uses.
None of the existing water quality standards in the western U.S. include
a sediment criterion. With sediment being the principal pollutant
related to lifestock grazing and other nonpoint sources, the current
standards are not adequate measures of water quality impacts from
nonpoint sources.
Turbidity criteria are used in the state standards, some of the
limitations of using turbidity as a measure of water quality impacts are
(1) it does not relate to sediment concentrations the same for all
streams, and is not a quantitative value, (making it difficult to relate
it to erosion, per unit area or time); (2) it does not identify a
particular size of water body of applicability; i.e., a first order
stream has the same "limit value" as the Columbia River, etc.; (3) a
uniform blanket criterion on some streams is too restrictive and on
others, allows a significant adverse impact on water quality.
The suggested criterion (EPA 1976a) for solids and turbidity is that
"settleable and suspended solids should not reduce the depth of the
compensation point for photosynthetic activity by more than 10 percent
from the seasonally established norm." The compensation point is the
level at which incident light penetration is sufficient for plankton to
produce enough oxygen to balance their respiration requirements. This
suggested criterion is very difficult to use as a practical tool in water
quality management.
Some of the major needs in developing useful water quality standards
related to grazing and other nonpoint source pollution control programs
- 58-
-------
are: (1) natural sediment production rates on ungrazed areas should be
established for different plant communities on major soils, (2) plant
communities must be better understood in relation to potential of soil
loss and its effect on water quality, (3) a better definition of impacts
due to grazing, associated with various plant communities and soil loss is
necessary, and (4) establishment of sediment criterion for standards based
on water uses.
Solids (Dissolved) and Salinity. Dissolved solids consist of inorganic
salts, small amounts of organic matter, and dissolved materials. For most
purposes, total dissolved salt content and salinity are equivalent. The
principal inorganic anions dissolved in water include the carbonates, chlo-
rides, sulfates and nitrates. The principal cations are sodium, potassium,
calcium, and magnesium. Excess dissolved solids are objectionable in
domestic and livestock drinking water because of possible physiological
effects, unpalatable mineral taste and cost for treatment.
The suggested criterion (EPA 1976a) for dissolved solids in domestic water
supplies is 250 mg/1 for chlorides and sulfates. Studies (Soiseth, 1975,
EPA 1976a) have indicated that cattle and sheep can survive on saline
waters up to 15,000 mg/1 of salts of sodoum and calcium combined with
bicarbonates, chlorides and sulfates but only 10,000 mg/1 of corresponding
salts of potassium and magnesium. The approximate limit for highly
alkaline waters containing sodium and calcium carbonates is 5,000 mg/1.
Water uses as irrigation and industrial consumption have specific salt
limitations.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria. Microbiological indicators have been used to
determine the safety of water for drinking, swimming, and shellfish
harvesting. As knowledge concerning microbiology has increased, so has
the understanding of the complex interrelationships of the various
organisms with diseases (EPA 1976a).
Bacteria of the coliform group are considered the primary indicators of
water quality. The coliform group is made up of a number of bacteria, and
have been associated with feces of warmblooded animals and with soil.
The suggested criterion for bathing waters for fecal coliform is "based on
a minimum of five samples over a 30 day period, the bacterial level should
not exceed a log mean of 200 per 100/ml, nor should more than 10 percent
of the total samples taken during any 30-day period exceed 400 per 100 ml."
Total coliform is not recommended as a quality criterion for water because
of the difficulty of relating it to a source (EPA 1976a).
Many of the criteria in existing state standards are currently being
revised as a result of the mandate of P.L. 95-217, Section 303(c)l. The
states shall from time to time (but at least once each three years
beginning in 1972) hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing
applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and
adopting standards.
- 59 -
-------
TABLE 3
SELECTED PARAMETERS FROM STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
State
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Turbidity
10 JTU
0-5 JTU 50-100 JTUi
20% above nat. NTU 10 JTU
10 JTU/net/backgrd
5 JTU above nat.
10 JTU
10 JTU max inc.
10-50 FTU
10% above nat.
25 NTU increase/backgrd.
10 JTU max increase/backgrd.
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/1
quantitative/ambient level
quantitative/ambient level
quantitative/ambient
1500-20,000
500 mg/1 max.
Fecal Coliforms
#lOOml
1000
50-200
200
501
200
200-10001
100-1000
1000
2000
240-10001
200
Footnote
1 - Depends on body of water
-------
Water quality criteria and standards are not synonymous. Criteria are
constituent concentrations associated with a level of environmental effect
upon which scientific judgments may be based. Criteria usually refer to
designated concentrations of constituents that, when not exceeded, will
protect an organism or water use. Standards are legally enforceable
requirements for water dischargers. Water quality standards may be based
on stream reaches or effluent levels. Standards may differ from criteria
because of local natural conditions, economic considerations or the degree
of protection desired for water uses. The objective of revision of cur-
rent standards is to update, them to reflect new knowledge or considerations
related to water uses
Predicting Impacts
Monitoring Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
Water quality monitoring of various types of nonpoint source activities as
forestry, agriculture and livestock grazing are increasingly becoming an
activity and responsibility of resource managers. Better water quality
data is needed on range management practices such as quantification of
impacts associated with various seasons of use, intensities of grazing,
cattle distribution, range condition and range improvements.
This section presents an overview of some important aspects of water
quality monitoring relative to nonpoint sources of pollution. The
emphasis is on rangeland practices; however, many of the concepts
presented apply to other nonpoint sources of pollution. The discussion is
not intended to develop a how to do it approach, or solve the many
contemporary problems associatd with various aspects of water quality
monitoring. It is intended to emphasize some to the fundamentals and
complexities involved in monitoring related to such nonpoint sources of
pollution as livestock grazing and rangeland treatments. The EPA (1976b)
document outlines the details for establishing a water monitoring program.
Some to the common needs for water quality monitoring are to: (a) evaluate
the presence of pollution; (b) define causes or sources of pollution; (c)
evaluate data for development of assessment of preventative measures; (d)
determine the natural background quality of water in the watershed, and to
be able to distinguish between natural and man-caused sediment, bacteria
and other water quality parameters in a system of extreme variability;
and (e) document or enforce the application of BMP's as designed by state
or areawide 208 plans.
Livestock grazing has short-term impacts during and immediately following
use of an area and generally decreasing long-term impacts if grazing is
not continuous. The major pollutants are eroded mineral sediments,
associated salts , and bacteria. Significant localized pollution problems
can be caused by pesticides and nutrient elements (principally nitrogen
and phosphorus) from soils, plant and animal matter, and fertilizers.
- 61 -
-------
Some important aspects of nonpoint source monitoring that must be
recognized in developing a monitoring system are: First, that sediment is
the most significant pollutant from nonpoint sources on rangelands in the
Western States and secondly, that stream systems naturally produce
sediment during certain periods.
Biological monitoring may be especially appropriate and useful in
assessing impacts from grazing related activites. The protection and
continued propagation of aquatic life is a good indication of water
quality. This was recognized in the declaration of goals and policy,
101(a) of P.L. 92-500, which stresses the need to restore and maintain the
biological integrity of the nation's waters. Aquatic organisms are very
efficient pollution monitors, because they integrate the effects of water
quality over periods of time and reflect impacts that may not be detected
by using only chemical parameters in monitoring.
Biological monitoring is defined in Section 502(15) of P.L. 95-217 as "the
determination of the effects on aquatic life, including accumulation of
pollutants in tissue, in receiving waters due to discharge of pollutants."
The requirements for a basic minimal ambient biological monitoring program
are outlined in a document by EPA (1976b).
The principal communities of aquatic organisms used in biological
monitoring are identified and described in the EPA (1976b) reference. It
is emphasized that the properties useful in determining the condition of
aquatic communities include: (1) abundance (count and biomass), (2)
species composition and diversity, and (3) metabolic activity. The basic
biological monitoring program described below is designed to provide
information on (1) the trophic status of lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries,
through the use of plankton chlorophyll as an algal biomass (productivity)
index, (2) the biomass (productivity) and taxonomic composition of the
periphyton, which is a lower-food-chain-level producer community, (3) the
abundance and species composition of the macroinvertebrates, which form an
intermediate-food- chain-level consumer community, and (4) accumulation of
toxic substances in fish and shellfish, which are upper-food-chain-level
organisms.
The parameter list, sampling season, frequency and method for each
hydrologic area, and the rationale for measuring various parameters are
outlined in EPA (1976b). Much of the above discussion indicates the
limited value of general prescription approaches to monitoring nonpoint
sources. Monitoring activities should be designed for predefined purpose.
Monitoring should normally be limited to those parameters most likely to
be significantly affected by grazing and related practices. As indicated,
the most significant parameters may be sediment, salts and bacteria.
Temperature, nutrients, and chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers
may require monitoring in special situations. Stream flow should also be
measured to assist in interpreting water quality data.
- 62 -
-------
The sampling frequency for chemical, physical or biological monitoring
must be carefully established so that all the ranges of water quality
experienced from grazing and related practices are observed. Monitoring
schemes must be built on knowledge of how and when the pollutant is likely
to be produced. For example, it is known that sediment enters streams
primarily during storm events. It is also documented that bacteria has
the greatest potential for entering streams during and immediately after
rainfall and runoff. The first major rainfall runoff event of the "season"
will generally contain the highest number of bacteria. For water tempera-
ture monitoring, the sampling should be geared to diurnal variations, as
well as seasonal and annual variations.
Sampling Approaches
Among those factors which should be assessed in selection of sampling
approach are: expected water quality effects; desired accuracy and
precision; laboratory expense and certification requirements; area
hydrology; climatology; seasonal variations; and state water quality
standards.
Long-Term Monitoring. This type of monitoring is designed to establish
representative water quality and document seasonal and year-to-year
fluctuations. The monitoring stations should be on major drainages within
a watershed to adequately represent the combined effects of all activities
within a drainage. The information will give an overview of the quality
of water within the source area.
Many long-term monitoring stations already exist and are operated by the
EPA, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, Science and Education
Administration, State agencies and universities. In special interest
areas such as municipal watersheds or water bodies used for primary
contact recreation, if grazing occurs over a period of time, it may be
desirable to establish long-term stations to document water quality
impacts. The information may be used in developing preventative and
corrective measures.
Project Monitoring. This type is designed to monitor project activities
before implementation (to establish a calibration), during implementation
(to establish the effect of the activity on quality) and after implemen-
tation (to establish time frames for return to pre-disturbance
conditions).
These short-term monitoring stations should be located near activities to
be assessed. The paired-station approach, one station upstream and one
station downstream, is the most convenient and conventional. It is
appropriate for monitoring practices such as mechanical land treatments,
and grazing in riparian areas. The shortest possible time should occur
between sampling the two monitoring stations.
- 63 -
-------
The potential limitations of the paired-station approach are fa) in-situ
changes in pollutant concentration due to past natural--or—man caused
activities; (b) locating downstream stations to insure adequate mixing,
yet avoiding unrelated pollutants from instream areas; (c) the approach
does not indicate the frequency of changes or their meaning at water use
points; (d) in order to achieve any degree of statistical significance in
the sampling procedure a number of samples will be required. In addition,
it may not be possible to utilize this technique in certain instances.
Many small watersheds, where monitoring is desirable, occupy a position in
the upper reaches of a drainage system. It may not be possible to estab-
lish a station upstream and downstream of an activity in such a situation
where a stream originated within the activity area.
It is essential to understand the limitations and applications of any
monitoring approach prior to its use. Recognizing its limitations, the
paired station approach is still appropriate for monitoring livestock
grazing and related practices in many instances.
The technique of paired watershed analysis may also be used in monitoring
livestock grazing activities. This method entails concurrent climatologi-
cal and hydrologic measurements on two similar (but not necessarily iden-
tical) small "experimental" watersheds for pretreatment and post-treatment
periods. Five years is often cited as the minimum length of the pretreat-
ment calibration period. This time is necessary to show that differences
in evaporation, storage changes, and leakage between the two basins are
constant, but not necessarily equal. Following treatment, runoff levels
on the treated basin are computed based upon the control watershed's
mearsured runoff, and observed differences in precipitation, and the
constant sum of evaporation, storage and leakage differences. This
estimation then allows a series of statistical hypothesis testing on the
differences between the treated watershed's observed vs predicted response
values. Thus, the control element of the pair is employed to estimate
what the true runoff would have been on the treated basin in the absence
of the treatment, and in consideration of any differences between the two
in precipitation, storage changes, evaporative and leakage losses.
This method has received criticism over the years by university and agency
researchers. However, the alternatives proposed (e.g., modeling) are
often aids rather than substitutes for watershed experiments, as pointed
out by Hewlett, Lull and Reinhart in 1969. The technique is more
applicable to assessing water quantity rather than quality conditions.
The effects of land uses such as grazing and rangeland treatments on water
quality may be approaced via several analytical techinques. These
include: similar area comparisons, "before and after" analysis, "above and
below" analysis and graphical plotting techniques.
Good information can provide a more defensible basis of identifying
problems and assessing the effectiveness of various water pollution
control measures, including the application of Best Management Practices
for range management.
- -64 -
-------
Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling
The nature of the problem associated with impact predicting from nonpoint
sources is illustrated by the following quote from a recent report funded
by EPA (1976c) on Loading Functions for Assessment of Water Pollution from
Nonpoint Sources. "The rates and magnitude of discharges of pollutants
from nonpoint sources do not relate simply to source characteristics or
source-related parameters. Evaluation of the severity of this problem is
hampered by lack of tools to quantify pollutant loads, and scarce and
imprecise data on the interrelationships between control measures and
pollutants loads. This is also a deterrent for formulation of control or
regulatory strategies." This is one of the principal limitations in
developing a sound control program for range management practices..
The Loading Function Handbook presents a number of mathematical
expressions that may be used to calculate the discharge of a pollutant
from a nonpoint source into surface waterways. The document also presents
some of the needed data and suggest methods of acquiring data when
available data are inadequate. The document covers a variety of nonpoint
sources with many of the functions having limited or no application to
predicting impacts from range management.
Present concern for quantitative approximations of what happens to the
precipitation which falls on rangeland watersheds cannot be totally
addressed by monitoring and field data collection. Very often constraints
dictate a computational approcach which is dependent upon a mathematical
conceptualization of the actual rengeland environment; i.e., a model. The
whole area of modelling is reviewed in detail in other sources, for
example Riley and Hawkins (1976), Lombardo (1973), Grimsrud et al (1976),
Branson et al (1978) and U.S. Forest Service and EPA (1977).
Before nutrient, sediment and other pollutant transport processes and
outputs from rangeland watersheds can be realistically simulated, the
basic watershed hydrology must be understood and accounted for. A water
quality model which fails to account for these hydrologic processes
(precipitation input, infiltration, slope runoff, deep percolation) is not
sound. These basic hydrologic processes determine the streamflow response
from a source area. Streamflow is the prime carrier of pollutants from
range!ands and is often highly correlated with concentrations and total
discharge of pollutants.
A state-of-the-art document on Nonpoint Water Quality Modeling in Wildland
Management (USFS, EPA 1977) indicates that although surface erosion models
exist, most have originated from the approaches of Musgrave (1947) or the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) of Wischmeir and Smith (1965)
developed for cropland. These basic equations with modifications have
been used to predict erosion of forest and rangelands (Anderson 1969 and
Dissmeyer 1973). The techniques are most useful in comparing before and
after conditions rather than the absolute values obtained.
-------
Phillippi and McCool (1978) have developed a range ecosystem evaluation
method based on the universal soil loss equation (USLE). Modifications of
the "R" factor (rainfall and runoff) and LS (topographic effect) were
necessary to apply the USLE to northwestern rangelands. The USLE has been
applied to rangeland watersheds as a management tool. Results have been
good according to the author's evaluation, but they indicate a need for
further evaluation and research. Research currently in progress should
improve the validation of the USLE for predicting soil loss from ranqeland
ecosystems.
No modelling technique, regardless of type, should be applied until
serious consideration is given to the evaluation objectives, the quality
of data and the model(s) assumptions and limitations. Many users find a
need to modify segments to better correlate output required with available
input data. Users should constantly "tune" the potentially usable model
in view of new research results, new concepts and techniques. A big
advantage to the use of models in rangeland evaluations is their
diagnostic value.
Usable models are very scarce. Many are unrealistic, have large
calibration data requirements, and associated problems. Almost any new
modelling effort on chemical, sedimentation, and bacteriological
characteristics of runoff waters from grazing system trials or ranneland
improvements would be useful, providing that the work is based on a sound
integrated approach to predicting water quality changes associated with
rangeland practices.
Three basic steps for evaluating the impacts of livestock grazing on water
yield and quality have been proposed by Green (1977). The steps which
involve several applications of modelling are:
1. Determine the distribution of livestock within the watershed or
allotment of interest (by acres in given grazing intensity classes and
vegetative types). Grazing intensity is found as a function of forage
production minus utilization biomass. Next, a regression model is needed
which estimates livestock grazing intensity for all pastures within any
grazing system.
2. The second step is to evaluate the statistical relationships of
grazing intensity to infiltration and sediment production within homo-
geneous phase of soil series and vegetative units. The model used in this
step would have a physical component (rainfall simulator) and various
statistical components designed to evaluate probability distributions.
3. Step three is evaluation of the off-site hydrology, based on the
on-site hydrology process analysis of the previous step. This requires a
precipitation-infiltration-runoff model (deterministic).
In summary, the state-of-the-art for using models in range management
suggest: (1) there is a need for baseline data in model development and
validation; (2) the normally high variability or "noise"in the system may
completely mask any measurable statistical impacts that grazing may have;
- 66 -
-------
(3) models should be validated under field conditions; (4) model accuracy,
even with proper validation, may be off by from five to one hundred percent
or more, depending on the time scale and input data; and (5) the user of
any model must be familiar with the assumptions and conditions under which
the model was derived.
Water Quality Assessment Approaches
There are a number of techniques available for assessing resource problems
related to range management. As indicated, most techniques are related to
soil and vegetation conditions. Three water quality assessment approaches
are summarized that may be used in relating livestock grazing and land
treatment to water qual ity management. The approaches are: (1) EPA Region
X's procedure; (2) Panhandle National Forest's Method; and (3) BLM's
Hydrologic Evaluation system.
1. Assessment Approach 1 - EPA Region 10's Water Quality
Assessment
One of the difficulties in developing control programs for nonpoint
sources that meet water quality goals is the lack of quantification or
qualification of the fishable-swimmable concept. Region 10 of EPA
developed a water quality assessment approach to assist EPA planners, land
management agencies, state and local agencies in identifying probable
nonpoint sources of pollution and assessing their general effects upon the
f ishable-swimmable aspect of regional streams.
The approach is based on displaying existing information related to
biological, recreational and water qual ity status of regional streams.
This information is related to land use, land ownership, hydromodifica-
tion, flows and point source discharges. The information is systemati-
cally organized on a summary table for use. A flow chart outlining the
assessment procedure is presented in Figure 5.
STORET basin maps are used as base maps for all evaluations. Biological
status information is obtained from field biologists representing state
and federal fish and game agencies. Their assessment is based upon the
criteria shown in Table 4. The biological and recreational status are
shown in Figures 6 and 7. Recreational status is obtained from field
biologist, recreational specialist, fishermen and swimmers utilizing the
criteria in Table 5.
Water quality station locations in each segment are also displayed during
the assessment. The STORET data system was used as a basis for all water
quality information. Most state and federal agencies and many local
agencies and universities store data in the system in Region X. Data were
retrieved utilizing the STORET standards flagging program with EPA's Water
Quality Criteria (EPA 1976a) as the threshold levels.
- 67 -
-------
Figures 8 and 9 show land use and land ownership of the basin. This
information is from an inventory by the Pacific Northwest River Basin
Commission. All information is summarized on River Basin tables as
illustrated in Table 6. Information is arranged by segments in an
upstream to downstream order beginning at the upper end of each basin.
While the approach in not category specific for assessing only impacts of
grazing, it may be used as a first approximation of problem identifica-
tion. "The information obtained and compiled using this procedure is
general. However, it suggests probable cause and effect relationships
related to land use and ownership. The background information for tables,
figures, STORET printouts and maps allows more detailed evaluations.
However, more specific information gathering investigations in problem
areas would be necessary for a definitive cause and effect assessment.
The assessment may be used as a first step for more refined approaches to
problem indntification, measuring the effectiveness of management
practices., and developing control programs. The advantages and
1 imitations of various approaches must be recognized and kept in
perspective. The biological and recreational adequacy of water bodies
should be a major component in water quality assessments. They are the
barometers for assessing the progress toward achieving the
fishable-swirnmable goal of PL 95-217.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the Region X approach are
summarized below:
Advantages
1. It provides a basin-wide perspective of nonpoint source problems
for major basins, based on the best data in the STORET system.
2. The greatest potential use of the approach is in broad scale
planning as opposed to site specific planning. This is primarily due to
water quality data being from larger streams. With adequate water quality
data the concept would be applicable to smaller geographical areas.
3. Water quality problem significance is based on uses including
biological and recreational status.
4. Available water quality data is assessed on the basis of EPA's
water quality criteria (EPA 1976a).
5. It illustrates water quality data relationships to percent of
land use and ownership for segments.
6. It may be used to develop more specific programs for: (1)
identifying monitoring needs, (2) working with such nonpoint source
categories as grazing or land use, in terms of significance and control
program development, and (3) working with classes of land owners such as
federal, state and private in terms of problem significance.
-------
SCALE OF MILES
•^—1—i^P^—
0 10 20 30 40 50
ACCEPTABLE
OBJECTIONABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
Fig e7
LOWER COLUMBIA BASIN RECREATIONAL STATUS
(GENERALIZED)
-------
SCALE OF MILES
!HH=i^^=
0 10 20 30 40 50
|'\ | FOREST LAND
AGRICULTURAL LAND
| | RANGELAND
ffi/M URBAN/BUILT-UP LAND
FigureS
LOWER COLUMBIA BASIN LAND USE
(GENERALIZED)
-------
NATIONAL-PARK SERVICE
* tj FOREST SERVICE
' INDIAN RESERVATION
PRIVATE-OTHER
B.L.M.
STATE
Figures
LOWER COLUMBIA BASIN LAND OWNERSHIP
(GENERALIZED)
-------
TABLE 6
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN DECEMBER YEAR - 1976
Sub-basin Information
Sob -baun
John
Day
Streams
north
of Col-
umbia
J. DAY
src. to
S. Fk.
conf .
S. FK.
J. DAY
src. to
na ins tin
MD. FK
J. DAY
src. to
N. Fk.
N. FK.
J. DAY
src. to
na ins tm
J. DAY
S.F. to
Butte
Creek
J. DAY
Butte
Cr. to
Col. R.
S«o t
o
1 — 1
ro
4
»— i
CD
1
UD
CM
CO
CD
<£>
CM
Q
t— 1
CD
1
UD
CM
1
O
O
CM
m
o
i
CM
O
CM
Q
A, .a
O
oo
1— (
0
o
I— t
o
CO
UD
0
CM
CO
o
CO
CO
I— 1
0
o
r-H
CM
0
CM
CO
r— 1
cfs
Ho.
xlO1
.24
1.14
.02
.3:
2.3
,02
9.'6£
.09
?.13
12.9
.12
2.31
13.5
.08
R M R ang •
218/
285-
211.8
211.8
60.7-
0
32. 3/
76.2-
0
184.7,
112.5-
0
218/
211.8-
97.3
218/
97.3-
0
i.g
73
61
76
11-
115
97
Environmental Information
a
Ok
£
o
E
1
o
-6
X
1 +
1 +
I
I
i
J+
J+
o>
t
c
N
N
N
A
N
Wal.r Ut.
Ag
Ag
Mun
Rec
F+W
Ag
Rec
F+W
Ag
*1un
Rec
F+W
Ag
•lun
Rec
F+W
Ag
Rec
F+W
Mun
Rec
F+W
WATER QUALITY
I
ss
1
1
1
X »c
S
8
t
• *•
• *•"
'.•
;J;
*•*
:•:
ill
^$^ ^objectionable
milt =nm ncceoiable
T
DO
TP5
Tufb
Phoi
DO
TDG
pH
Turb
Pho,
T
DO
TDG
pH
Turb
Phoi
T
DO
param«l*it
."."."/.•.
* • • • i
* • • • •
N
NH)
Bid
Mel
Cond
OTox
N
NH)
Bid
Mel
Cond
.OJii.
N
NH)
Bid
Mel
Cond
OTo,
N
NH)
TDG 1 JB'C!
~T PrX-P
Cond
OTox
N
DO t- •;;:: NH)
TDG 1 JBltI
eti — (liii«;I;
Phoi K\VV
DO
TDG
pH
urb
'hoi
O
DG
pH
3*ft!
Mel
OTox
N
NH)
Bici
Mec
Cond
OTox
NH)
|Bici
•!«!*"'l Mel
' iii
o
DG
pH
urb
Cond
OTox
N
NH)
Bid
Mel
Cond
OTo,
- - * _1
• * * 4 •
• • * » i
^^^
'V/.V
jwl
•*•**•"•*•"
o
0
0
0
i
0
2
fe.
tt
12
ll'i
19
Doto
Adequacy
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
V. Land
Ownership
0
LL.
D
45
52
60
62
10
2
s
a
1
6
19
1
2
9
5
Indian
1
LA
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
a.
94
4f
28
38
35
a
92
V«. Land Use
c
D
J)
3
3
Oi
36
9
6
4
4
10
47
1
at
44
36
40
29
25
6
43
*
o
17
55
54
67
71
26
10
6
1 W.Hond
c
o
tt
1 Tundra
•4
O
C
-------
Disadvantages
1. Data are inadequate for many of the segments.
2< There is no sound rationale for relating biological and
recreational status (qualitative) to parameter (quantitative)
information. For example, there is no procedure for estimating how much
turbidity or sediment results in how much destruction of habitat,
interruption of food chain and interference with indigenous species.
3. Much of the water quality data for monitoring stations in STORE!
does not include sediment which is one of the major nonpoint source
pollutants.
4. Much of the data have not been adequately validated in the field,
especially water uses, biological and recreational information.
5. Data in STORET is taken from many sources with limited quality
control of sampling and laboratory procedures.
6. STORET data does not differentiate "natural" conditions from man
caused effects.
Assessment Approach 2 - Panhandle National Forest's Technique
The technique is based on a procedure developed by the Northern Region of
the Forest Service for evaluating impacts of increased water yields in
stream bank and channel stability (Pfankuch 1975). With minor modifica-
tions the channel stability assessment has been used to evaluate and
predict the impact of grazing on bank and channel stability. Good
correlations were found between bank channel stability and ungulate
damage. The technique is presented in detail by Cooper (1977). Field
data from Wyoming and Idaho was used to validate the method.
The ungulate damage factor or percent of linear bank damage was estimated
by observer and added to the form for each stream segment evaluated.
Ungulate damage was defined as mass wasting of the upper bank or lower
bank cutting that could be attributed to ungulates. Hoof marks, trail and
excessive trampling were used in estimating damage.
Rating forms are completed during stream surveys. Information is obtained
for the length of the segment. When items rated on the form change
classes, an additional rating is determined. The items rated and found to
be most directly related to grazing impacts are upper bank slope, mass
wasting debris, vegetation cover, lower bank rock content and cutting.
In the areas evaluated bank vegetation and rock content interacted to
reduce grazing damage. The data suggested that by combining the two
variables, a maximum rating figure may be obtained to determine sensitive
areas. For areas evaluated, bank vegetation must rate less than 6 to have
measurable interaction with rock content for preventing significant
damage. Sensitive banks in northerm Idaho rated 11 points or more and 10
or more for Wyoming foothills, as illustrated in Figure 10.
- 77 -
-------
Advantages
1. The technique provides a quick method for evaluating the impact
or potential impact of grazing on stream bank stability.
2. The technique may be useful in predicting impacts of various
levels of grazing management on bank and channel stability and fish
bi on ass.
3. By reversing the technique, recovery rates for excessively
danaged strean channels can be predicted. For example, a 90 percent
ungulate damaged stream would have a stability rating of approximately
45. By removing grazing or otherwise protecting stream banks, it would be
probable that in a few seasons the rating would improve to about 25. A 20
point change can be significant in Northern Idaho (Cooper, 1977).
Disadvantages
1. The method is based on visual estimates of items rated rather
than quantitative data, especially for ungulate damage. Cooper emphasizes
the need for field training for prospective users before attempting use.
2. The technique is based on relatively limited field evaluations
for validation with data from Northern Idaho and Wyoming.
3. There is not a good correlation of ungulate damage and water
quality impact.
Assessment Approach 3 BLM's Hydrologic Evaluation System
Range management proposals (new intensive grazing systems, range
improvements, exclusion of grazing, vegetative manipulation) are made by
the Bureau of Land Management and other public land management agencies.
This approach outlines a comprehensive method for hydro!ogic evaluations
related to livestock grazing.
An analysis involving eight phases of expected effects of range management
in the study area may be used. The successful completion of these tasks
will depend upon the efforts of a well qualified vegetation scientist
range specialist, soil scientist and water quality hydrologist working in
close consultation with each other.
The first phase of the effort should be a literature review of the
published papers and reports available on the subject with specific
emphasis on the application to the area of study. It should be primarily
oriented to locating resource descriptions and interpretive studies
(research results, experiments, cause-effect studies) rather than basic
data files (e.g., USGS streamflow and water qual ity observations).
Locating basic data will occur later, emphasis will be given to conclusive
interpretative studies of the processes involved in this phase. Particular
- 78 -
-------
Bank Vegetation
Bank Rock Conten
"
Mass Wasting
Bank Cutting
15 20
STABILITY RATING
FIGURE 10 MASS WASTING - BANK CUTTING AND BANK VEGETATION - BANK
ROCK CONTENT. STABILITY DECREASES FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. (COOPER
1977)
-------
attention to research of the universities in the study area, Departments
of the Fish and Game, U.S. Forest Service, Science and Education
Administration and others.
Forage modeling should be the second phase. This is an extension of the
information contained in the allotment management plans. The range
science professional is an essential collaborator. They translate the
vegetative resource allocation plan. Basically, the allotment management
plan (AMP) calls for the utilization of the vegetative resource by a
certain class (or classes) of domestic livestock, over certain pasture
areas, in particular sequence of utilization and rest. The vegetation
data of the AMP implementation period, a quantitative scheme must be
developed or modified to allow this type of prediction. Modeling
predictions should be based on the best research knowledge available.
Phase three, climatological analysis, overlaps with forage modeling
because of the obvious presence of climate as a dominant factor in
vegetation productivity. This phase initially should focus on a
descriptive narrative and statistical presentation of the climate of the
study area and nearby region as measured by the nearest National Weather
Service climatological stations. The variables of principal interest
are: precipitation totals, monthly average and variation; snowfall
totals, monthly and variation; windspeed and direction; daily shortwave
total solar radiation, air temperature on a mean monthly minimum and
maximum basis, pan evaporation on a monthly basis. In a synthesis of the
above, climatological characteristics should be discussed in terms of how
they relate to such biotic factors as range!and vegetation. This phase
also requires the development of requisite input (precipitation and/or
temperature) to the plant cover and production model. Simulation of a
stochastic series of precipitation events is an example of the type of
information that may be necessary.
Regional hydrologic assessment constitutes phase four. For the study area
involved, this means taking a close look at streamflow, water quality and
stream channel characteristics of the area. The data should be evaluated
from all aspects. Discharge relations compared to suspended sediment and
dissolved solid transport should be examined. Flood frequencies of stream
should be assessed. The precipitation and elevation regression for the
basin should be identified if possible. It is desirable to compare the
variations in total runoff from year to year, the variations of daily
rates throughout the year, and seasonal variation. Basin shape, geology,
and climatic exposure should be understood in data interpretation. These
influences should be compared to land management activities. For distin-
guishing between overland flow and natural ground water discharges to the
river, consider hydrograph separation techniques. The principal emphasis
at this state of regional analysis should be to obtain a better under-
standing of the regional system, so that a more realistic and accurate
model of the smaller tributary basins can be constructed during phase six.
Phase five should be less involved than phase four, because its focus
should be upon the stream receiving most of the "off-site" impacts of land
management practices in the study area. Data availability may be a
limitation in this phase, but the techniques of regional analysis should
-80 -
-------
again be applied to the extent possible. In some instances, water quality
data of the state, U.S.G.S. or EPA may be available for streams within the
study area. These sources should be contacted for information.
The next phase, six, evaluates the on-site, slope hydrology effects of
management. This is a stage where quantitative effects of all proposed
actions are tied down in the best possible fashion. Basically, AMP's
propose some change in livestock distribution and forage utilization in time
and space. This may create direct impacts on vegetal cover and soil water
infiltration rates, and as such, needs to be assessed on an areal basis.
There are three basic processes which must be evaluated on the areal basis.
First, the grazing systems for the study area must be expressed as grazing
intensity (per acre AUM's) (predicted) for any point, as a function of
season of use, class of stock, grazing system, water distribution, slope,
and vegetative type. Second, grazing (AC/AUM) intensity must be mathemati-
cally related to infiltration rate by season. During this process runoff,
infiltration, suspended sediment, total dissolved solids and coliform
bacteria counts per 100 ml must also be interrelated. The infiltration rate
recovery function for rest periods must also be established or assumed based
upon literature reviews. Finally, the information and relationships above,
within phase six, must be all brought together in an infiltration-runoff-
sedimentation computation which computes runoff and sediment response for
certain conditions and design storms.
Phase six requires compartmentalization on the basis of pastures,
vegetation-soil complexes and often, other factors. Each cell then becomes
a more homogeneous hydrologic response unit, which is analyzed independently
and then at the end, integrated into a watershed response. Compartments are
established on a certain number of "representative watersheds," recognizing
that certain uniformity occurs in soils, vegetation and climate in most
resource areas, and that resource constraints are always severe in public
land management.
The seventh phase should be that of establishing the upland hydrology
effects on soil water depletion and soil water levels. The soil water
analysis connot be done before the upland hydrology work is complete. It is
not always possible to assess, nor is it always relevant, depending upon the
upland hydrology. Techniques for assessment of soil water are less well
established than surface runoff routing. Other techniques based on tracking
available waterholding capacity are available. These effects should be
assessed on a point basis for the major soil taxonomic units. The time
period will generally be biweekly or monthly, as opposed to the overland
flow routing which is in response to some assumed precipitation input.
Phase eight should be an interpretive task of relating results from phases
four through seven, in narrative form to existing uses of water, normal
meteoroligic events, stormflow frequencies, existing state water quality
standards, and value of fisheries. Perspective is to be placed in this
section on all previous computations, estimates, assumptions, and
limitations.
- 81 -
-------
A desk top calculator or computer is desirable to do a comprehensive job of
completing the evaluation phases outlined. The phases may be done step by
step concentrating on representative watersheds. Many of the concepts
outlined in the hydrologic evaluation system have their greatest potential
applicability to public lands; however in many instances they may also be
useful for range management planning on private lands.
Advantages
1. It provides a comprehensive system for evaluating the hydrology of
a watershed.
2. It incorporates existing information into a logical format for use
in resource assessments.
Disadvantages
1. A computer is required for best results in using the system. This
limits its utility for many resource managers.
2. Necessary data for the various phases are usually limited. This
usually results in extrapolations, inferences, etc., that increase the noise
or variability in projected results.
- 82 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
WATER QUALITY PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
Anderson, David. 1969. Guidelines for computing quantified soil erosion
hazard and on-site soil erosion. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern
Region, Alburquerque, N.M.
Branson, Farrel A.., Gerald F. Gifford, Kenneth G. Renard, and Richard R.
Hadley, 1977 - Rangeland Hydrology. Range Science Series No. 1, October
1972, Second Edition, 1978. Society for Range Management, Denver,
Colorado.
Cooper, James L. 1977. Technique for evaluating and predicting the impact
of grazing on stream channels. USFS, Idaho Panhandle National Forests,
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. 25pp.
Dissmeyer, G.E. 1973. Evaluating the impact of induvidual forest
management practices on suspended sediment. Proceedings of National
Meeting of SCSA, Hot Springs, Arkansas.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976a. Quality Criteria for Water. Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C. 256 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b. Basic Water Monitoring Program,
Standing Work Group on Water Monitoring. Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials, Washington, D.C. 51 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976c. Loading Functions for Assessment of
Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources. EPA 600/2-76-151. Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C. 445 pp.
Gifford, G.F. 1975b. Inpacts of pinyon-juniper manipulation on watershed
values, ^n Proc., Pinyon-Juniper Ecosystem - A Symposium, Utah State
University, Logan, May 1-2: 127-140.
Green, Patrick. 1977. Rainfall simulation project planning report. USDI
BLM DSC Instr. Memo 77-208. Dec. 13, 1977.
Grimsrud, G.P.; E.J. Finnemore and H.J. Owen. 1976. Evaluation of water
quality models. A management guide for planners. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
176p.
Hewlett, John D.; Howard W. Lull; and Kenneth G. Reinhart. 1969. In defense
of experimental watersheds. Water Resources Res. 5(1): 306-316.
Hyatt, M.L.; J.P. Riley; M.L. McKee; E.L. Israelsen. 1970. Computer
simulation of the hydrologic-salinity flow system within the Upper
Colorado River Basin. Report No. PR WG 54-1, Utah Water Research Lab,
Utah State Univ., Logan.
_ 83 _
-------
Lombardo, Pio S. 1973. Critical review of currently available water quality
models. Hydro Comp, Inc., Prepared for OWRR, USDI. 91 pp. NTIS, PP
222-265.
Phillippi, Dennis R. and O.K. McCool. 1978. Rang ecosystem evaluation and
the universal soil loss equation. Narrative for presentation.
Unpublished. 8pp.
Riley, J. Paul and Richard H. Hawkins. 1975. Hydrologic modeling of
rangeland watersheds, jj^ Heady, Faldenborg and Riley (Editors^.
Watershed management on range and forest lands. Proceedings of the
Fifth Workshop of the U.S./Australia Rangelands Panel, Boise, Idaho,
June 15-22, 1975. pp. 123-138.
Smeins, F.E. 1975. Effects of livestock Grazing on Runoff and Erosion in
Watershed Management Symposium, pp. 267-273. Logan, Utah, August 11-13,
1975.
Soiseth, R.J. 1975. Runoff and reservoir quality for livestock use in
Southeastern Montana. Journal of Range Management 28(5) 334-335.
Streeter, H.W. and E.B. Phelps 1925. A study of the pollution and natural
purification of the Ohio River. U.S. Public Health Bulletin No. 146.
Woolhiser, David A. 1973. Hydrologic and watershed modeling - State of the
Art. Transactions ASAE 1973: 553-559.
- 84 -
-------
RESOURCE PLANNING TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Management Plans
Implementation of land and water management plans (developed on sound
principles of conservation) is the best approach to reduce water quality
impacts from grazing animal management. As indicated in the Introduction
and other parts of the document, the basic framework for land and water
management planning and implementation are established by Federal legisla-
tion. Much information is available on good land use planning related to
range management. Agencies' manuals and handbooks discussed in subsequent
parts of this chapter provide much detail for developing a good range
management plan.
The purpose of this section is to present some of the concepts and
components of good water quality management and allotment management plans
that are essential to reduce impacts from grazing management. The
importance of coordinated resource planning on western rangelands is also
emphasized.
Water Quality Management Plans
The Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations specifying
procedural and other requirements for the preparation of water quality
management plans to achieve the fishable and swimmable goal of the Act.
Water quality management plans and implementing programs are to be
prepared and established by state planning agencies pursuant to Section
208 and 303(e) of the Act and by designated areawide planning agencies.
The water quality management plans will be developed for all lands within
a state. The primary objective of water quality management plans will be
to achieve the 1983 national water quality goal of the Act, where attain-
able. The plans will identify the controls, regulatory programs and the
established best managment practices.
"A water quality management plan is a management document which identifies
the water quality problems of a particular approved state planning area or
designated areawide planning area and sets forth an effective management
program to alleviate those problems and to achieve and preserve water
quality for all intended uses. The value of the water quality plan lies
in its utility in providing a basis for making sound water quality manage-
ment decisions and in establishing and implementing effective control
programs. To achieve this objective, the details of the water quality
management plan(s) should provide the necessary analysis and information
for management decisions. Moreover, there must be a flexible revision
mechanism to reflect changing conditions in the area of consideration . A
water quality management plan should be a dynamic management tool, rather
than a rigid, static compilation of data and material. In addition, the
plan should be as concise as possible, thereby minimizing unnecessary
paperwork. A water quality management plan will provide for orderly water
- 85 -
-------
quality management by (1) identifying problems, (2) assessing needs/estab-
lishing priorities, (3) scheduling actions, (4) defining control programs,
(5) defining management agency responsibilities, and (6) coordinating
planning and management". (40 CFR 131.l(c) and (d)).
The designated areas aspect of the 208 program emphasizes planning by
local governments in a particular planning area. The objective is for
these groups to work together to find and implement solutions to their
common water quality management problems. It gives local planning
agencies a means of solving their problems.
Runoff from land used for livestock production should be part of the water
quality management plan in areas where it is related to water quality im-
pacts. Each category of nonpoint sources of pollutants should be con-
sidered in any specific area as established in the State/EPA agreement.
Identification and evaluation of all measures necessary to produce the
desired level of control through application of best management practices
(recognizing that the application of best management practices may vary
from area to area depending upon the extent of water quality problems)
should be utilized in planning and implementation.
The nonpoint source evaluation shall include an assessment of nonpoint
source control measures applied thus far, the period of time required to
achieve the desired controls, the proposed programs to achieve the
controls, the management agencies needed to achieve the controls, and the
costs by agency and activity, presented by 5-year increments, to achieve
the desired controls, and a description of the proposed actions necessary
to achieve such controls. With the large ownership of Federal lands used
for livestock grazing in the West, and the potential water quality impacts
from these lands, it is essential that Federal land management agencies be
an integral part of the water quality management planning process. The
rules and regulations for the planning process (40 CFR, Part 130.35(b)
contemplate that Federal agencies shall cooperate and give support to
state or designated areawide planning agencies in the formulation and
implementation of water quality management plans relating to Federal
properties, facilities or activities and land areas contiguous with
Federally-owned lands.
Roles and Responsibilities in 208 Planning
a. States and local Agencies
o Development and mangement of 208 plans is the
responsibility of governor designated state and
areawide agencies. The designated state agency acts as
the planning agency for all portions of the state not
covered by areawide planning.
o In the western states, state water quality agencies
(SWQA) are responsible for assuring that each element
of the approved planning process is achieved for
grazing management activities.
. 86 _
-------
o SWQA may delegate the accomplishment of state plans or
tasks under 208 to other Federal or state agencies
or any entity it determines to be qualified
(40 CFR S130.14(a). In some areas state water
quality and land management agencies have negotiated
cooperative planning agreements, with the land
management agencies having primary responsibilities
relative to BMP development and implementation.
b. Federal land management agencies
Federal land management agencies are required to cooperative with and
support the state or state designated agency in the formulation and
implementation of 208 water quality management plans for lands they admin-
ister or that relate to Federal properties, facilities, or activities and
land areas contiguous with federally-owned lands. Moreover, the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) makes it mandatory for the Federal agencies
to meet the official substantive and procedural pollution abatement
requirements of the state.
c. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The EPA has the responsibility of administering funds appropriated to
support the 208 planning process, approving completed plans based on
adequacy for meeting water quality goals, and assisting the state in its
relationship with Federal land managers. The deadline for the initial
submittal of statewide water quality mangement plans was November 1, 1978.
Necessary Parts of an Approvable Livestock Grazing Management Pollution
Control Program.
a. Section 208 plans for grazing practices should cover the
following elements:
o identification of which water quality problems exist now or
need to be prevented in the future (activity related or geographic).
o identification of the sources of those problems (including
natural causes).
o identification of problems and control priorities and
geographic area(s) to be covered.
o description of the technical solution(s) to be implemented
for each problem.
o identification of the action schedule for implementation of
control measures.
- 87 -
-------
o description of the extent to which carrying out identified
controls is expected to eliminate or reduce water quality problems (the
concept of maximum allowable loading).
o estimation of the costs of implementing the proposed
controls consistent with a continuing water quality management planning
process.
o identification of each responsible management agency and its
management relationship with the SWQA in tracking implementation of
control measures.
o description of existing (or needed) legal authorities the
management agency will use to implement each control requirement,
including conditions and situations in which the law or regulation
applies; timing of regulation, notice, hearings; legal form of regulation,
contracts, permits, and legal authority for regulation.
o description of how the implementation program will be
financed.
o description of how the implementation program will be
managed, i.e., (1) the level of staff resources which will be committed to
inspection, technical assistance, administration, education and training,
and enforcement; (2) how the program will be administered-technical
assistance, initiation of inspection, enforcement, etc.; and (3) the
institutional arrangements with other agencies or levels of government
which are or will be established as necessary to fully implement the
control program.
o description of how effectiveness of individual control
practices will be monitored or evaluated in relation to instream water
quality and a description of the continuing process for upgrading
pollution abatement measures, modifying implementation procedures, and
updating the water quality management plan.
b. Public participation.
Public participation in water pollution control program development is
required. The major objectives of such participation include greater
responsiveness of governmental actions to public concerns and priorities,
and improved understanding of official programs and actions.
c. Implementation statement and designation of management agency by
governor.
A completed 208 water quality management plan must contain an
implementation statement prepared jointly and signed by the planning
agency and the proposed management agency. The implementation statement
should contain a description of specific responsibilities and of tasks to
- 88-
-------
be performed by each agency in sufficient detail that all parties have a
thorough understanding of the actions expected of each of the parties to
the agreement.
The governor designates appropriate agencies to carry out the management
responsibilities of the plan. This action is straightforward if the
proposed management agency is a state or local agency. If it is a Federal
agency, the governor's designation must be based on an interagency
agreement that adequately addresses the implementation elements of the
plan.
d. BMP implementation and modification.
o Controls are to focus first on identified priority problems
impeding attainment and maintenance of water quality goals.
BMP's will be implemented through regulatory programs where
those are determined to be the most practicable method assuring effective
implementation.
o BMP's will be assessed as to their effectiveness with the
use of water quality standards in the same manner that standards are used
to assess water quality. The measurement of BMP's involve two monitoring
approaches: (1) compliance monitoring to establish the adequacy and
effectiveness of implemented control practices, and (2) instream pollution
impacts monitoring. Monitoring concepts and approaches are discussed in
other parts of this document. Monitoring procedures need to be spelled
out in interagency agreements. These procedures should result in data,
inspection, and records suitable for periodic formal evaluation to guide
decision making on needed BMP modifications.
o BMP's must be reviewed annually and modified to improve
their effectiveness where nonpoint sources of pollution continue to impede
the achievement of the water quality goals (BMP identified in the planning
process will continue to apply during the course of revision).
o BMP's must otherwise insure that all feasible steps are
being taken to achieve water quality goals.
e. Administration and financing.
The process of monitoring, evaluating, and upgrading specific BMP's for
water quality is a continuing process. The planning and management
agencies must jointly work together throughout this process to assure
coming up with implementable and effective pollution control programs
irrespective of land ownership. Institutional arrangements and agreements
must be periodically reviewed and formally reaffirmed to facilitate this
required upgrading process. Controls will usually be administered by
state or local agencies on state and private land and by the Federal
agencies on Federal lands.
- 89 -
-------
Both the state water quality and the fish and game agencies have a major
role in developing and reviewing water quality management plans and
monitoring water quality. Implementation of controls on Federal lands
will be strengthened by Federal agency administration of special clauses
in grazing leases as appropriate, special use permits, and water quality
monitoring. State and Federal efforts to montior water quality are to be
coordinated to assure consistency in methodology, control compliance and
the mutual understanding of control needs and priorities. States will
assure that adequate administration of controls is taking place through
periodic compliance inspections on all lands.
States and Federal agencies are expected to finance the management
process. Section 304(k) funds under PL 95-217 ($100 million per year for
five years) has been authorized by Congress, but not yet appropriated.
This could help to accelerate Federal agency technical and training
programs to support the development of state and local 208 control
programs and to implement priority pollution control projects on Federal
lands consistent with water qua! ity management plans.
Section 208(j) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) established a
program for financial assistance to private owners and operators of rural
lands for the purpose of installing and maintaining best management
practices. The BMP's must be to control nonpoint sources of pollution for
improved water quality in states or areas that have an approved 208 plan.
The legislation authorized $200 million for fiscal year 1979 and $400
million for fiscal year 1980 to carry out the statutory mandate. The USDA
will be the implementing agency for the program. Rules and regulations
for administering the program are developed. This program should provide
some economic incentives to range managers to apply best management
practices.
In summary, water qua! ity management plans should be the broad umbrella
under which othertypes of land use planning with water quality implica-
tions fall. It is recognized that many aspects of the planning discussion
are most applicable and appropriate for Federal, state and local units of
government involved in land mangement or planning. However, basic range
conservation plans developed in water quality problem areas for individual
land owners and operators should be prepared with an awareness of Federal,
state and local water quality requirements and goals. It is essential
that broad scale planning such as allotment management planning of Federal
1 and management agencies be consistent with the water quality management
pi an for their areas .
Allotment Management Plans
Policy and management direction is well established under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (1976) which mandates resource planning, includ-
ing domestic livestock grazing, for the Bureau of Land Management and
Forest Service the two principle Federal land and resource management
agencies. Management planning is accomplished with the Allotment
Management Plan (AMP) for livestock grazing on these public lands. The
A ct s t at es:
- 90
-------
"An allotment management plan means a document prepared In
consultation with the lessees or permittees involved, which applies to
livestock operations on the public lands or on lands within National
Forests in the eleven contiguous Western States and which:
(1) prescribes the manner in, and extent to, which livestock
operations will be conducted in order to meet the multiple-use,
sustained-yield, economic and other needs and objectives as
determined for the lands by the Secretary concerned; and
(2) decribes the type, location, ownership, and general
specifications for the range improvements to be installed and
maintained on the lands to meet the livestock grazing and other
objectives of land mangement; and
(3) contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and
other objectives found by the Secretary concerned to be
consistent with the provisions of this Act and other applicable
laws."
Although some variations may occur, an AMP normally contains:
1. General Information concerning an analysis of the present
resource values and uses, including problems and conflicts;
2. Identification of objectives to be achieved which are
specific and quantifiable and which resolve or mitigate
resource problems and conflicts;
3. Design of a grazing system which will achieve the objectives;
4. Necessary range improvements to implement the grazing plan;
and
5. Methods and techniques to monitor and evaluate whether the
objectives are being achieved.
Forest Service guidelines and policy for preparation of Allotment Manage-
ment Plans are provided in the Range Environmental Analysis Handbooks
issued by the Regional Offices in conformance with the Forest Service
Manual 2212. The Rocky Mountain Regional Handbook (Forest Service, 1968)
states—"Range analysis is a program concerned with the systematic collec-
tion, evaluation and mapping of data on range resources; the end result is
a workable management plan in operation on each indivdually mapped allot-
ment. The analysis includes: the classification and mapping of range
types, determination of range suitability and condition, and the periodic
measurement of trends in range condition. It also provides for collection
of information on production and utilization, range improvements, range
readiness, season of use, and their combinations into an updated management
plan. The system of management used should: (1) ensure the optimum use of
- 91 -
-------
the range resource, (2) maintain ranges in good condition, and (3) improve
ranges in fair and poor condition. The action resulting from the program
described shall conform with the multiple-use principle."
The Bureau of Land Management guidelines and policies for preparation of
allotment management plans are provided within the Bureau Range Management
Practices Manual 4112.15 (BLM, 1968a). The Bureau manual may be supple-
mented by each of the respective State Offices to provide more specific
details for local situations. Allotment Management Plans are the live-
stock grazing activity plans developed with the objectives, guidelines,
and constraints as determined through the Bureau's Management Framework
Planning Manual 1608 (BLM, 1975). Objectives of specific AMP's generally
are to establish a grazing management program which obtains and sustains
stable soil and watershed conditions, maintains or improves wildlife
habitat, and provides a dependable supply of forage in balance with other
multiple uses. However, each AMP has specific quantifiable objectives
tailored to each individual allotment. Allotment Management Plans provide
continuity to the range management program. The long term objective is to
complete allotment management plans on BLM lands to be retained for
management.
The Soil Conservation Service includes livestock grazing management with
the Resource Conservation Plan. These plans are developed for private
lands of Soil Conservation District Cooperators. The National Range
Handbook (SCS, 1976) provides guidelines and policy for planning, imple-
mentation and evaluation. Conservation plans for native grazing land
include decisions for establishing and maintaining a cover of vegetation
to protect the soil and permit efficient use of available moisture. Major
planning objectives are proper grazing use and maintenance of sufficient
cover to keep soil loss below the tolerable limits specified in local
technical guides. This cover provides forage for livestock and wildlife;
enhances watershed conditions; and provides shade, ornamental and esthetic
or screening facilities. When properly implemented, conservation plans
for ranches and farms benefit the individual operator, community, and the
nation. Well-managed native grazing land, along with the livestock and
wildlife it supports, makes a major contribution to the natural beauty of
the landscape and the maintenance of a quality environment.
Other Federal and State agencies, such as Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense, National Park Service, State
Departments of Fish and Game, etc., also manage grazing use on substantial
acreages of rangelands. These agencies also apply basic principles of
range management in the administration of livestock grazing on the lands
to comply with appropriate laws cited previously in this document, such as
FWPCA.
Most of the western states have operational allotment management plans,
many of which, when properly designed and followed, show remarkable
effective- ness of scientific grazing management planning. Many examples
exist of successful operating coordinated plans in many combinations of
private,
- 92 -
-------
state, and Federal agency cooperation. A viewpoint was expressed by
Fulcher (1973) that properly designed grazing systems, developed in con-
junction with the agency's overall action plans for an area, are the least
cost alternative of meeting the major objectives and responsibilities of
government agencies in managing public rangeland resources.
There are several examples of the resource management benefits of good
allotment management planning throughout the West. Coordination and
cooperation between involved public agencies and the allottee(s) is
essential for success in allotment planning. A good example of effective
allotment planning and implementation is the Middle Mesa AMP in New Mexico
(BLM, 1968). The Plan was developed with the BLM and New Mexico
Department of Fish and Game as public agencies working with the land
users. It involved considerable land treatment (pinyon-juniper chaining
and seeding) as well as livestock management planning.
The objectives of the AMP were to (1) develop a grazing system, (2) comply
with the inter-agency agreement, (3) improve the vigor and increase the
density of desirable vegetation, (4) stabilize and improve the watershed
conditions, and (5) protect archeological sites. The improvement which
has taken place since 1968 is impressive but is not unusual when compared
to other properly designed grazing management plans with appropriate land
treatment practices. Cool season grasses, an important item for deer,
have increased primarily from seeding. Cover patterns for deer have
improved due to chaining practices so that deer can move through the area
for food and water. There is more browse for wildlife primarily released
by chaining. The amount of vegetation cover increased, which has resulted
in less soil erosion. Many areas are healing. The amount of forage has
increased from about 100 pounds per acre to 400 pounds per acre in the
seeded areas. The average plant density has increased from fifteen to
forty percent. Calf weaning weight has increased about 85 pounds per head
and the calf crop has doubled. Periodically, the rancher is allowed to
graze additional cattle because of the increase in forage.
This is but one example, typical of others, where coordinated planning and
application of grazing management and range improvement practices have
been beneficial, to resources involved and the economic well-being of the
rancher.
A major precept for allotment management planning is acknowledgment of the
fact that the primary basis for sound land use must lie in a determination
of the land's capabilities and suitabilities as limited by climate, soil,
and topography, and recognition that range is a kind of land producing a
multitude of different resource values and subject to a variety of uses
(Colbert, 1977). Proper land use is further recognized as a major goal
for range management in Range Research (Utah State University, 1977).
"Range management really has no product to produce or sell. It is a
science, spiced with art, that has as its major goal proper land use,
especially for those wildlands grazed by domestic livestock and wild
animals."
- 93 -
-------
Putting rangeland (allotment) planning into practice is discussed by Heady
(1975). Goals of each rangeland manager differ; some managers may aim^for
large profits, while others may give first preference to a good life with
little concern for accumulating wealth, and still others may aim for
protection of the rangeland ecosystem. Good livestock grazing management
practices are not in conflict with any of these views. Each range site,
pasture, and ranch will respond to several management techniques. Change
of animal numbers, fencing and water development to improve distribution
of animals, planning of the sequence of grazing and deferment, and
altering of the mixture of animal species are some of the major tools for
providing beneficial results and mitigating adverse impacts of the
animals. Noxious plant control, seeding, and fertilization have many
variations and may be combined to supplement livestock grazing plans to
expedite range improvement. In essence, each grazing plan and
supplementary range improvement practices must be specifically tailored to
each unique area of land to resolve problems, to the extent practical and
feasible, with planned livestock grazing management.
The concern to include more complete ecological considerations in land
management planning was further discussed by Volland (1975). Plant and
animal ecology provides a valuable tool in land management if for no other
reason than it can provide some order to the complexity of things. Some
order is necessary so that we may (1) comprehend the diversity represented
within an area, (2) communicate with others, (3) remove variation and
improve our predictability. Ecological information provides a basis for
management planning and evaluation, but in itself cannot be the only
source of input. Management objectives will govern what other information
is necessary.
Allotment management plans provide the framework for planning livestock
grazing use of rangelands. Stoddart, Smith and Box (1975) indicated:
"there are principles of scientific management that can be applied to
improve the range resource and insure a sustained yield of goods and
services from rangeland. In order to apply these principles, grazing use
must be planned and the plan executed. The first consideration in
planning range use is to ensure that the basic plant and soil resources
are used in such a way that they continue to be productive under the
grazing system explored. The selection of a particular system will depend
upon the kind of vegetation, the physiography of the range, the kind of
animals, and the management objectives. New facts have been uncovered,
basic concepts have been refined and tested by experience, and investiga-
tive techniques have been perfected. But even more important than the
technical changes are the shifts in emphasis among the various rangeland
products. Nonconsumptive uses, though not new, have become even more
important. With increased human populations and greater demands for
rangeland products, the need for clear understanding and greater knowledge
of range ecosystems remains as vital as before. Nevertheless, no new
conceptual framework differentiates the field of range management now from
before. Basically, range management deals with the use of lands of low
potential productivity maintained under extensive systems to produce
water, red meat, wildlife, timber, and recreational opportunities in such
a way that the basic resources, soil and vegetation, remain unimpaired."
- 94 -
-------
Roads on Rangelands
In addition to erosion and sediment directly associated with livestock
grazing, many miles of roads have been and are being constructed on
rangelands to provide access to grazing lands and to maintain range
improvements. These roads may contribute substantially to the production
of sediment from rangelands.
An EPA (1975) publication on Logging Roads and Protection of Water Quality
discuss many of the principles related to minimizing impacts from roads.
Although logging haul roads are the primary focus, most of the principles
and techniques described have wider application and can be extended to
include all wildland watershed access roads which are similar in standard,
but are constructed for different purposes such as mining, fire protection
and grazing or for multi-purposes.
Coordinated Resource Planning
In some of the western states, land and other resource management agencies
and land users have combined efforts for cooperative planning and implemen-
tation. Coordinated planning is based on soils, water quality, wildlife
and other resource needs for the area planned. The planning process is
based on the concept of addressing and resolving potential resource
conflicts by those responsible for plan implementation. Plans are
developed by several parties with a commitment by everyone involved to
implementing the plan. The coordinated planning process involves both
public and private lands.
A good description of effective coordinated planning with some examples
was presented in a series of papers at the 27th Annual Meeting of the
Society for Range Management in 1974. The process has worked especially
well in Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Soil
Conservation Service, Soil Conservation Districts, State Wildlife
Commission, private land owners and permittees on public lands worked
together in cooperative resource planning. Coordinated plans dealt with
not only grazing aspects of the rancher's economic unit, but also
identified management prescriptions for other resources (wildlife,
fisheries, and water quality) within the area.
Schlapfer (1974) used the Murderers Creek area in Grant County, Oregon as
an example of an effective total resource plan. This plan was completed
in March of 1973 and covered an area of approximately 100,000 acres. The
overall objective of the plan was to prepare one document from which the
cooperating agencies and livestock permittees could operate in harmony.
The specific objective of the Murderers Creek Plan were idenitified as:
(1) to improve the quantity and quality of forage and habitat for domestic
and wild animals; (2) to offer for harvest the maximum amount of forest
products compatible with the other resource values; (3) to offer recrea-
tional opportunities and development of a transportation system; (4) to
maintain a high quality fisheries habitat; and (5) to provide sanctuary
for a herd of 100 free-roaming horses. Land management prescriptions were
- 95-
-------
designed to enhance the resources and land use while providing the maximum
protection to resource values. Plans identified in detail what was to be
done on the land to meet the management objectives.
Anderson (1975) discussed coordinated resource planning from a historical
perspective, emphasizing that it is not a new concept. He points out, it
has only recently been effectively used as an operating procedure.
Anderson identified some of the principles that have guided and resulted
in effective coordinated resource plans. Some of the key concepts are:
(1) There is a great need for resource planning to give full consideration
to the second and third order of consequences that likely will take place
as the result of a planned activity; (2) There is no substitute for a
sound ecologically based resource inventory as the foundation for deci-
sions including all major resources of the planned area such as water,
wood, wildlife and forage. Their use and management should not be planned
independently but coordinated; and (3) A resource management system or
combinations of practices or treatments instead of piecemeal applications
may be necessary to impact management objectives.
Water quality considerations are an essential part of effective
coordinated resource planning. This is especially true in areas with
problems or potential problems associated with water uses. The
fundamental concept of effective coordinated resource planning is that
agencies, groups or land users with resource management responsibilities
can be brought into the process as appropriate to offer input and
participate in plan devlopment and implementation. Water quality
management plans on rangelands discussed earlier should be closely tied to
well prepared and implemented coordinated resource plans for the rangeland
area.
95 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
RESOURCE PLANNING TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Anderson, E. W. 1975. Agency coordination, state and public involvement in
resource planning, summary of significant points. Journal of Range
Management 28 (3) 171.
Colbert, Francis T. 1977. Land use planning—a summary from the rangeman's
point of view. Rangeman's Journal 4:74-76.
EPA, 1975. Logging Roads and Protection of Water Quality, Region 10, Water
Division, Seattle, Washington 312pp.
EPA, 1978. Silvicultural nonpoint source pollution control expectations
and requirements. EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington 15p.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1977. 1976 Public Law. 94-579,
43 USC 1701-1711, October 21, 1976.
Fulcher, Glen D. 1973. Grazing systems; a least cost alternative to proper
management to the public lands. J. of Range Management 26:385-387.
Heady, Harold F. 1975. Rangeland Management. McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Schlapfer, T. A. 1974. Agency coordination, state and public involvement
in resource planning. Journal of Range Management 28(3) 167-170.
Stoddart, Laurence A., Arthur D. Smith and Thadis W. Box. 1975. Range
Management, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
USDA Forest Service. 1968. Range Environmental Analysis Handbook.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1976. National Range Handbook.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1968. Middle mesa allotment management
plan. New Mexico State Office and State of New Mexico Game and Fish
Department.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1968. Part 4112.15—Range Management
Practices.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1975. Part 1608—Management Framework
Planning.
Utah State University. 1977. Range Research. 67p.
Volland, Leonard A. Plant ecology as a land management tool. Range
Multiple Use Management Program. Cooperative Extension Service,
Washington State University, Oregon State University, University of
Idaho, p. 9-18.
- 97 -
-------
APPENDIX I
SELECTED SMALL WATERSHEDS AND EXPERIMENTAL RANGES
Much of the available information on land and water quality management is
from small watershed studies. An experimental basin is one that has been
chosen and instrumented for the study of hydrological phenomena. A repre-
sentative basin is one that has been chosen and instrumented to represent
a broad area, rather than making measurements in all basins of a compara-
tively homogeneous region.
The major physiographic regions of the Western United States are
illustrated in Figure A-l. The experimental and representative basins for
rangeland research are identified in Table A-l for the physiographic
regions.
TABLE A-l
SELECTED SMALL WATERSHEDS AND EXPERIMENTAL RANGES
Province
Northern Pacific
Border
Representative Basins Experimental Basins
Casper Creek Exp.
Basin, CA. (Tilley
and Rice, 1977)
Ranges
Cascade Mountains Antioch Watershed,
Wenatchee N. F., WA
(Johnson 1978)
Clackamas River Water-
shed, Mt. Hood N. F.,
OR (Johnson 1978)
Entiat River Watershed,
WA (Dortignac and
Seattle, 1955)
Green River Watershed,
Snoqualamie N.F., WA
(Dortinac and Beattie,
1965)
H. J. Andrews Experi-
mental Forest, OR
(Rothacher, Dryness
and Fredriksen, 1967)
Coyote Creek Basins,
OR (NRC, 1969)
HI-15 Basins, OR
(NRC, 1969)
Southern Pacific
Border
Upper Sauk River Water-
shed, WA (Johnson, 1978)
Santa Ynez Watershed,
Los Padres N. F.
Hop!and Watersheds
(Burgy, 1958)
San
Joaquin
- 99 -
-------
Province
Representative Basins Experimental Basins
Ranges
Sierra Mountains
Big Creek Watershed,
Sierra N. F. (Dortignac
and Beattie, 1965)
Columbia Plateau
Columbia Plateau
Upper Basin and
Range
Rock Springs Basin, NV
(NRC, 1969)
Churchill Canyon, NV
(NRC, 1969)
Coils Creek, NV (NRC,
1969)
San Dimas Experi-
mental Forest
(Hill and Rice,
(1963)
Central Sierra Snow
(Anderson and Gleason
1960)
North Fork Watersheds,
CA (Rowe, 1941)
Teakettle Basins, CA
Ward Valley Watershed,
CA (Leonard and Coats.
1974)
Dog Creek, NV
Entiat Basins, WA
(NRC, 1969)
Reynolds Creek, ID
(Johnson and Hanson,
1976)
A and B Basins, Great
Basin Experimental
Range, UT (Meeuwig,
1960)
Harvey
Valley,
N.F.,
CA (Rat-
liff,
Reppert
and
McConnen,
1972)
Starkey
Experi-
mental
Forest and
Range, OR
(Skovlin
and Harris
(1974)
Desert Ex-
perimental
Range, UT
(Hommgren,
1974^
Great Basin
Experimen-
tal Range,
UT (Keck,
1972)
- too
-------
Province
Representative Basins Experimental Basins
Ranges
Upper Basin and
Range
Lower Basin and
Range
Northern Rocky
Mountains
Middle Rocky
Mountains
Cow Creek, NV (NRC,
1969)
Crane Springs, NV
(NRC, 1969)
Crowley Basin, NV (NRC
1969)
Duckwater Basin, NV
(NRC, 1969)
Eastgate Basin, NV
(NRC, 1969)
Mill Creek, NV (NRC
1969)
Steptoe Watershed, NV
(NRC, 1969)
Pine and Mathews
Canyon, NV (Blackburn
and Skau, 1974)
Cornfield Wash, NM
(Burkham, 1966)
Rio Puerco Watersheds,
NM
Walnut Gulch, AZ
(Renard, 1970)
Meadow Creek, Nez
Perze NF, ID
South Fork of Smith
Creek, Wasatch NF, UT
Straight Canyon, Manti
La Sal NF, UT
Corduroy Creek Basin
AZ (Ceilings and
Myrick, 1966)
Priest River, ID
(Kline, Haupt and
Campbell, 1977)
Davis County Water-
sheds, UT (Johnston
and Doty, 1972)
Tintic Pas-
tures, UT
Winnemucca
Experiment
Station, NV
(Dylla and
Muckel, 1964)
Jornada Ex-
perimental
NM
Santa Rita
Experimental
Range, AZ
101 -
-------
Province
Representative Basins Experimental Basins Ranges
Wyoming Basin
Southern Rocky
Mountain
Colorado Plateau
Stratton Study Site,
WY (Sturges, 1975)
Wayne's Creek Basins,
WY (Tabler, 1968)
Encampment River,
Routt NF WY and CO
(Johnson, E. A.,
1978)
Lake Creek Basin,
Pike - San Isabel NF,
CO (Lonberger, 1965)
Little South Fork,
Cache La Poudre Basin,
CO (Kunkle and Meiman,
1967)
Boco Mountain Water-
sheds CO (Shown,
Lusby and Branson,
1972)
Black Mesa, Gunnison
NF, CO (Frank, Brown
and Thompson, 1975)
Fraser Experimental
Forest CO (Alexander
and Watkins, 1977)
Tesque Watershed, Santa Manitou Experimental
Fe NF, NM (Gosz, 1977) Forest CO (Dortignac
and Love, 1961)
Wagon Wheel Gap, Rio
Grande NF, CO (Bates
and Henry, 1928)
Black River, AZ.
Apache-Sitegreaves NF
(Stewart, 1975)
Badger Wash, CO
(Lusby Reid and
Knipe, 1971)
East Fork Sevier River, Beaver Creek,
Dixie NF, UT (Johnson Coconino SF, AZ
1978) (Brown, Baker,
Rogers, Clary,
Kovner, Larson,
Avery and Campbell,
1974)
Castle Creek,
Apache-Sitgreaves
NF, AZ (Rich, 1972)
Cibeque Ridge, AZ
(Ceilings, 1966)
Cresent Wash. UT
(Peterson, 1962)
102-
-------
Province
Representative Basins Experimental Basins Ranges
Rock Mountain
Piedmont
Upper Missouri
Basin
Piceance Basin,
CO (Frickel, Shown
and Patton, 1975)
Price River Basins,
UT (Ponce et al, 1975)
Alamogordo Creek,
AZ
Central Ex-
perimental
Range, CO
(Rauzi and
Smith, 1973)
Pawnee Intensive
IBP, Pawnee National
Grassland, CO
(Striffler, 1974)
Pole Mountain Basins,
NY (Tabler, 1971)
Willow Creek, MT
~\
Physiographic
Regions
of the
Western
United States
Figure A-I
9cALt I1 T 500,000
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, Robert R. and Ross K. Watkins. 1977. The Fraser Experimental
Forest, Colorado. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report
RM-40:32p.
Anderson, W. H. and C. H. Gleason. 1960. Effects of logging and brush
removal of water runoff. Commission of Surface Waters General
Assembly of Helsinki. International Assoc., of Scientific Hydrology
51:pp 478-489.
Bates, C. G. and A. J. Heney. 1928. Forest and streamflow experiment at
Wagon Wheel Gap, Colorado. U. S. Weather Bureau. Monthly Weatehr
Review. Supplement 30. WB No. 946, IV plus 78pp.
Bentley, R. G., and K. 0. Eggleston. 1978. The effects of surface
disturbance on the salinity of public lands in the Upper Colorado
River Basin. Status report, USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Denver,
Colorado. 180 pp. plus appendices.
Blackburn, W. H. and C. M. Skau. 1974. Infiltration rates and sediment
production of selected plant communities in Nevada. Journal of Range
Management 26(6): 476-480.
Brown, Harry E., Malchus B. Baker, Jr., James J. Rogers, Warren P. Clary,
J. L. Kovner, Frederic R. Larson, Charles C. Avery, and Ralph E.
Campbell. 1.974. Opportunities for increasing water yields and other
multiple use values on ponderosa pine forest lands, USDA For. Serv.
Res. Pap. RM-129, 36 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ft
Colling, CO 80521.
Burcham, L. T. 1957. California range land - an historic-ecological study
of the range resource of California. Calif. Dept. of Nat. Resources.
Sacramento, Calif. 261p.
Burkham, D. E. 1966. Hydrology of Cornfield Wash area and effects of land
treatment practices, Sandoval County, New Mexico, 1951-60. U. S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1831. 87p.
Collings, M. R. 1966. Throughfall for summer thunderstorms in a juniper
and pinyon woodland, Cibecue Ridge, Arizona. USGS Prof. Paper 485B.
13p.
Collings, M. R. and Myrick, R. M. 1966. Effects of juniper and pinyon
eradication on streamflow from Corduroy Creek Basin, Arizona, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 491-B, 12p., illus.
Cramption, B. 1974. Grasses in California. University of California
Press, California Natural History Guide No. 33, Berkeley. 178p.
_ 104
-------
Dortignac, E. J. and L. D. Love. 1961. Infiltration studies on pondersosa
pine ranges of Colorado. USDA, Forest Services, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Co. Station Paper 59, 34pp.
Dortignac, E. J. and Byron Beattie. 1965. Using represenative watersheds
to manage forest and rangelands for improved water yield. Publication
66, International Symp. of Scientific Hydrology. Budapest, Hungary.
pp:480-488.
Dylla, A. S. and Dean C. Muckel. 1964. Evapotranspiration studies on
native meadow grasses, Humboldt Basin, Winnemucca, Nevada. U.N.
College of Agric. and A.R.S., R9, Reno. 29p.
Frank, Ernest C., Harry E. Brown, and J. R. Thompson. 1975. Hydrology of
Black Mesa watersheds, western Colorado. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RM-13, 11 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins,
Colorado.
Frickel, D. G., L. M. Shown, and P. C. Patton. 1975. An evaluation of
hillslope and channel erosion related to oil-shale development in the
Piceance Basin, northwestern Colorado. Colorado Water Resources
Circular No. 30. 37pp.
Gosz, James R. 1977. Effects of ski area development and use on stream
water quality of the Santa Fe Basin, New Mexico. Forest Sci. 23(2):
167-179. 19p.
Heady, H. F. 1956. Changes in a California annual plant community induced
by manipulation of natural mulch. Ecology 37: 798-812.
Heady, H. R. 1958. Vegetational changes in the California Type. Ecology
39:402-416.
Heady, Harold F. and James Bartolome. 1977. The Vale rangeland rehabili-
tation program. USDA, Forest Service, Resource Bulletin PNW-70,
Portland, Oregon.
Holmgren, Ralph C. 1974. The Desert Experimental Range: description,
history, and program. Reprinted from Arid Shrublands - Proceedings of
the Third Workshop of the US/Australia Rangelands Panel, Tucson, AZ,
March 26 - April 5, 1973, p. 18-22.
Janes, Eric B. 1969. Botanical composition and productivity in the
California annual grassland in relation to rainfall. MS Thesis,
University of California, School of Forestry and Conservation.
Berkeley, California.
Johnson, Clifton W. and Clayton L. Hanson. 1976. Sediment sources and
yields from sagebrush rangeland watersheds. IN Proceedings of the
Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Denver,~Tolorado, March 22-25,
1976.
- 105 -
-------
Johnson, E. A. 1978. Personal Communication. U. S. Forest Service,
Washington, D. C.
Johnston, Robert S., and Robert D. Doty. 1972. Description and
hydrologic analysis of two small watersheds in Utah's Wasatch
Mountains, USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-127, 53 p.
Keck, Wendell M. 1972. Great Basin Station - sixty years of progress in
range and watershed research. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap. INT-118,
48p.
Kline, R. 6., H. F. Haupt and G. S. Campbell. 1977. Potential water
yield response following clearcut harvesting on north and south slopes
in northern Idaho. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-191, 16 pp.
Kunkle, Samuel H. and James R. Meiman. 1967. Water Quality of Mountain
Watersheds. Colorado State University Hydrology Papers No. 21.
Leonard, Robert and Robert Coats. 1974. Precipitation and water quality
in the Ward Valley watershed, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. Presented
at the Third National Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology of the
American Meteorological Society and the Society of American Foresters,
April 1974, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.
Lonberger, T. E. 1965. National forest water yield management in alpine
and subalpine zones: Western Snow Conf. Proc., Colorado Springs,
Colorado, 1953-1966. USGS Water Supply Papers, 1532-D.
National Research Council, U. S. National Committee for the International
Hydrological Decade - 1969. Decade representative and experimental
research basins in the United States. Working Group on Representative
and Experimental Basins of IHD, Denver, CO. 267p.
Peterson, H. V. 1962. Hydrology of small watersheds in western states.
U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1475-1.
Pitt, M. D., R. H. Burgy, and H. F. Heady. 1978. Influences of brush
conservation and weather patterns on runoff from a Northern California
watershed. Journal of Range Management 31(l):23-27.
Ponce, S. L., R. H. Hawkins, J. J. Jurinak, G. F. Gifford, and J. P. Riley.
1975. Surface runoff and its effects on diffuse salt production from
Mancos shale members. Proceedings of the ASCE Watershed Management
Symposium: 140-168. Logan, Utah.
Ratliff, R. D. and H. F. Heady. 1962. Seasonal changes in herbage weight
in an annual grass community. J. Range Management 15:146-149.
Ratliff, Raymond D., Jack N. Reppert, and Richard J. McConnen. 1972.
Restrotation grazing at Harvey Valley...range health, cattle gains,
costs. Berkeley, Calif., Pacific SW. Forest and Range Exp. Sta. USDA
Forest Serv. Res. Paper PSW-77. 24 p.
- 106 -
-------
Renard, Kenneth G. 1970. The hydrology of semi-arid rangeland waterseds.
Agricultural Research Service ARS 41-162.
Renard, K. G., and Lane, L. J. 1975. Sediment yields as related to a
stochastic model of ephemeral runoff. Proceedings of Sediment Yield
Workshop, USDA-ARS-S-40, pp 253-263.
Rich, L. R. 1959. Watershed management research in the mixed conifer type.
lr\_ Watershed Management Research in Arizona, Progress Report, 1959.
USFS Rocky Mtn. FRES 7-16.
Rich, Lowell, R. 1972. Managing a ponderosa pine forest to increase water
yield. Water Resources Research 3(2): 442-428.
Rowe, P. B. 1941. Some factors of the hydrology of the Sierra Nevada
Foothills. Amer. Geophys. Union Trans. 22(11:90-100.
Sampson, A. W. and B. S. Jespersen. 1963. California range brushlands and
browse plants. California Agricultural Experiment Station, Manual 33,
162 p.
Shown, L. M., G. C. Lusby and F. A. Branson. 1972. Soil-moisture effects
of conversion of sagebrush cover to bunchgrass cover. Water Resources
Bulletin 8(6):1265-1272.
Skovlin, J. M., R. W. Harris, G. S. Strickler, George A. Garrison. 1976.
Effects of cattle grazing methods on pondersoa pine-bunchgrass range
in the Pacific Northwest. USDA, Forest Service, Tech, Bulletin 1531,
40 pp.
Stewart, Peter T. 1975. Black River barometer watershed in relation to the
resource manager. Proceedings of a Watershed Management Symposium,
ASCE, Logan, Utah, p 207-215.
Striffler, W. D. 1974. Hydrologic cycles in a grassland ecosystem. Paper
presented during the 16-21 June meeting of the American Institute of
Biological Sciences, Tempe, Arizona.
Sturges, David L. 1975. Hydrologic relations on undisturbed and converted
big sagebrush lands. USDA, Forest Service, Research Paper RM-140. 23
pp.
Tabler, R. D. 1968. Physical and economic design criteria for induced snow
accumulation projects. Water Resources Research 4(3):513-519.
Tabler, Ronald D. 1971. Design of a watershed snow fence system, and
first year snow accumulation. Western snow conference Proceedings
39:50-55, Billings, Montana, April 1971.
- 107 -
-------
Til ley, F. B. and R. M. Rice. 1977. Caspar Creek watershed study - A
current status report. State Forest Notes 66, Calif. Dept. of
Forestry, Sacramento, Calif. 15 p.
U.S.D.I., Bureau of Land Management. 1977. An evaluation of the Neveda
Watershed study program. Denver Service Center, Administrative Report.
- 108 -
-------
APPENDIX II
GRAZING MANAGEMENT
Livestock Management
Water quality can be protected and/or enhanced through application of the
present knowledge of scientific and technical principles of livestock
management on rangelands. Entrapment of pollution particulates is provided
by vegetative cover and through soil infiltration (Dixon et al. 1977).
Grazing systems prescribed for a specific rangeland area and incorporation
of appropriate livestock distribution practices provide the principle means
for management of livestock grazing. Single management practices including
system of grazing, season of use, rate of stocking, or distribution of
livestock, may, when used alone, improve rangelands and minimize water
quality impacts. However, it is more appropriate to include all necessary
management practices into a well planned, integrated livestock management
program to achieve specific management objectives identified for that
particular rangeland area. This is essential for success in obtaining the
most efficient use of the range without significantly adversely impacting
water quality and other rangeland resources.
Grazing Management System
Grazing systems are specialization of grazing management which defines
systematically recurring periods of grazing and deferment for two or more
pastures or management units (Kothmann, 1974). The type of system selected
depends on the resources involved, objectives to be achieved and production
requirements, all properly planned and integrated to allow proper management
of the land and resources, including water quality. The basic purpose of
any grazing system is to promote the most efficient range management
practicable which maintains or improves basic resource values, (Driscoll,
1969). Range conditions can often be improved through better distribution
of livestock by using several different practices, either singly or in
combination, such as salting, water development, fencing, herding, grazing
system, etc.
Grazing is either continuous throughout the grazing season, or specialized
and intensified by dividing a range area into a number of units and
periodically moving livestock during the grazing period. The degree and
kind of specialization must be designed specifically for each range area.
Some factors to consider in selection include resource values, problems, and
objectives to be achieved; phenological development and productive potential
of the vegetation; growth and maintenance requirements and grazing habits of
the livestock; amount and location of forage; and potential land, resource
and water quality impacts.
Although the literature commonly refers to several basic grazing systems
such as rotation or alternate grazing, deferred grazing, rest-rotation
grazing etc., there are in reality an almost infinite number of specialized
grazing systems if each system is individually tailored to a specific area
- 109 -
-------
of grazing land. However, all specialized systems are based on concepts of
rotation of grazing use and deferment or rest from grazing use.
Advantages and disadvantages of specialized grazing systems were discussed
by Driscoll (1969). Besides those of Driscoll (1969), some additional
advantages of specialized grazing systems are that use of the same area at
the same time in successive years is avoided especially when the grazing
season includes all or part of the growing season; vegetation over the
entire area being used may be maintained with good plant vigor; excessive
soil disturbance with an increase in potential soil erosion and sedimenta-
tion is minimized with most specialized grazing systems; opportunity for
ripening of seed, seedling development, and establishment of important
desirable plants is increased; provides more complete use of the vegetation
resource with better livestock distribution; and seeding and control of
undesirable species may be integrated into a grazing plan without additional
fencing for grazing control. Other advantages may accrue to the livestock
resource by better concentration and birth rate, and increased weaning
weights resulting from improved vegetation condition and production. Some
disadvantages of specialized grazing systems are that investment cost of
range improvements such as fencing and water developments increases with
number of grazing units used in a livestock operation; many of the special-
ized systems may require relatively large land areas to have a viable
management unit; herding and moving requirements are increased with asso-
ciated increased labor cost; animals may be forced to graze less palatable,
less nutritious forage on some parts of the range when specialized systems
are used; and livestock grazing patterns may be disrupted with movement from
one area to another that may result in depressing weight gains in the short
term.
There has been considerable research done comparing livestock and vegetation
responses with continuous grazing versus specialized grazing systems. Dris-
coll (1969) reviewed fifty reports related to these subjects. This review
summary of twenty-nine studies indicated no constant relationship between
livestock responses in terms of weight gains and specific grazing systems
and particular kinds of vegetation. Site specific factors as quantity and
quality of vegetation, management of animals, and the season of use were
responsible for differences rather than grazing systems alone. His review
of thirty-nine studies that compared the responses of vegetation, measured
by increases or decreases of desirable species, under continuous grazing
versus some other some indicated: (1) in three studies, vegetation condition
improved under continuous grazing, (2) in thirty-one studies, vegetation
condition declined under continuous grazing as compared to specialized
system, and (3) in five studies, there was no appreciable difference in
vegetation condition under continuous as opposed to a specialized grazing
system.
Hickey (1966) did a comprehensive review of pertinent literature published
between 1895 and 1966 related to grazing management systems. The information
wsas compiled into a handbook to provide land managers with easy access to
information on grazing management.
Based on the review of available literature, it is evident there is no magic
formula that will identify the type of grazing system or management plan
that will be the best, from the standpoint of achieving livestock management
- 110 -
-------
objectives and minimizing soil, vegetation and water quality impacts. The
degree of water quality impact associated with any system wsill be closely
related to soil erosion and sedimentation, associated with vegetation
density and the concentration of livestock in and near water bodies. The
grazing system must be designed on the basis of soil and vegetation
capabilities, water quality considerations and livestock requirements.
The design of any grazing system must be based on a comprehensive inventory
of the resources available on a particular area of land, and the diligent
sue of experience, knowledge, and professional judgment in application of
the principles of range management to meet specific management objectives,
to provide beneficial results and mitigate adverse impacts. Livestock must
have access to water. Although the literature is quite incomplete concerning
effects of livestock grazing on riparian/aquatic ecosystems, there are many
obserable examples where grazing has appeared to adversely affect stream
banks, riparian vegetation, and water quality. There is considerable
question whether rotational grrazing schemes will provide the necessary
protection to riparian/aquatic ecosystems. In some cases, total exclusion
of grazing by fencing water bodies and portions of streams may be necessary,
particularly where fishery resources and water use values are high, provided
that other grazing animals (wildlife and wild horses and burros) are not
duly restricted from obtaining water.
Wild Free-Roaming Horse ane Burro Management
Western rangelands have supported a substantial population of feral horses
and burros for several hundred years. Passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in
1934 result in the first broadscale attempts to control oversue and
destruction of grazing lands and provide for conservation of the natural
resource values inherent in these lands. Well into the second half of the
20th century, undomesticated horses and burros running at large on the range
were considered as undesirable tresspass animals subject to partial or
complete elimination in the interest of providing more water and forage for
livestock and wildlife. They were not recognized as wildlife and were
generally considered as estrays or abandoned animals under laws of the
various states. The Wild Horse and Burro Act, Public Law 92-195, enacted
December 15, 1971, has completely changed past practices. The Act defines
wild horses or burros as all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on
public lands administered by the Secetaries of Agricultural and Interior.
The Act also states that "it is the policy of Congress that wild free-roam-
ing horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment
or death and to accomplish this, they are to be considered in the area where
presently found as an integral part of the natural system of the public
lands." Cooperative agreements for the protection and management of wild
horses and burros are authorized between the Secretaries of the Interior of
Agriculture and state and local government agencies and with other landowners
(Zarn et a!., 1977). The Act was amended by the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (1976) authorizing the use of helicopters and motor vehicles
by the authorized officer in administration of the Act.
The management of wild horses and burros presents a new challenge to public
land management agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
Forest Service (FS). Prior to 1971, management responsibilities of these
-111-
-------
agencies were limited to management of the habitat for animal species rather
than actual management of animals. With the enactment of the Wild Horse and
Burro Act (1971) the BLM and FS became responsible for managing wild horse
andburro populations as well as the habitant on which the animals roam.
Both agencies have developed plans for protection, management and control of
wild horses. Both agencies have land use planning systems that evaluate the
resource and then develop integrated planning and management for all the
multiple uses of land area under consideration. These include the vegeta-
tive and watersheds conditions, wildlife needs, livestock use, recreational
use, and other legitimate demands (Zarn et al., 1977). The Act provides
that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be managed in a manner
designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on
the public lands. Thus, land use plans must make provisions for recognized
wild free-roaming horse and burro populations as a part of the biological
community subject to management under the principle of multiple use.
Planning efforts must analyze the competitive impacts of all grazing animals
on the rangeland resources and associated ecological condition and resultant
water quality.
The key to managing wild horse or burro populations and their habitat, is a
determination of the number of animals to be managed in any particular
area. This determination must be based upon the ability of the land to
produce forage for all animal species, including horses or burros, plus the
compatability of use by horses or burros with other animal species and/or
resource value. In some cases tradeoffs may be necessary for best multiple
use management. Once the number of horses or burros to be managed on each
area has been determined through the planning process, the first management
action undertaken is actual reduction or addition of animals to obtain the
"desirable number". Management of wild horse and burro populations differs
from management of big game populations in that they are not huntable as a
game species. Shooting of wild horse by persons other than officials of the
Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service is prohibited by Federal law and
is socially unacceptable. As a result, management of populations at the
present time involves the live capture of wild animals. This is usually an
expensive and time-consuming process. Captured animals are adopted out to
private parties through a cooperative agreement for humane care and
maintenance. As of May 1978, approximately 7,600 of these animals had been
adopted by private parties. It is not possible within the purview of the
Act to transfer title to wild horses and burros. As a result, some are
reluctant to maintain wild horses or burros without the customary ownership
rights. Animals not accepted for adoption may be destroyed in the most
humane manner possible with customary disposal of the remains according to
state sanitation standards. It is against Federal law to convert the
remains of wild horses or burros into commercial use.
The first step in population management is to analyze those factors which
have molded the population into what it is at present. Before management of
horse or burro population can begin, the factors of population dynamics
(productivity, mortality, sex ratio and age structure) must be collected and
understood. These factors can then be analyzed to determine the forces
which have shaped the population and to predict the numerical abundance of
horses or burros in the future. As a result, a primary objective of wild
- 112-
-------
horse or burro population analysis is to determine if the population is
stable increasing or decreasing. The following formula represents one
method for determining the stability of a horse or burro population:
A = Estimated number of adults in population (1 year and older)
B = Foal/100 adults (percent)
F = Number of foals
Zf = Mortality of foals (percent)
Nf = Mortality of foals (number)
Za = Mortality of adults (percent)
Na = Mortality of adults (number)
Y = Total population estimate adults and foals
P = Projected population
I = Population increase or decrease
(A) (B) = F
(F) (ZF) = Nf
(A) (Za) = Na
A + F = Y
Y - (Nf + Na) = P
P - A = I (increase or decrease). If P is less than A, reverse
P and A on formula. Values will be decreased in
population.
l_ = Population increase where P A
P
l^ = Population decrease where P A
A
Once the stability of a wild horse or burro population has been determined
it is necessary to analyze other population data prior to actual management
of the population. For example, if the population is determined to be
increasing in total numbers and it is undesirable to maintain such an
increase, an analysis can be made as to the ratio of male animals to female
animals in the total population. It may be possible to decrease the
productivity of wild horses by increasing the number of male animals in
relation to the number of female animals. In another example, if the
population is determined to be stable, it is important to understand the
reasons why. It may be that births are equaling deaths or that the popula-
tion is on the brink of disaster. In this example, an analysis can be made
as to the age structure of the population. If the age structure is balanced
(i.e., all age classes adequately represented), it may not be necessary to
perform anything additional in the way of management. However, if one or
more age classes are lacking or totally missing, it may indicate that the
missing age classes must be restored if the population is to survive (Zarn
et al., 1977).
The extent, nature and degree of competition between wild horses and other
domestic or wild animals for habitat components such as food, water, space
and cover or other requirements has not been adequately investigated and a
certain amount of controversy has existed over competition between feral
-113-
-------
horses and burros and other domestic and wild animals. Cook (19681, writing
on the nutritive content of range forage for domestic ruminants, state that
the most critical period for grazing animals that inhabit seasonal ranges
are those months between December and April when inclement weather and
perhaps poor range conditions cause animals to lose weight excessively.
When range conditions are poor, the degree of utilization of the forage
increases and the digestibility and nutrient content decreases because
animals are forced to eat the less nutritious parts of the plants. Thus
nutritional deficiencies are common on winter ranges of the Intermountain
Region. The above would also apply to wild horses and burros in varying
degrees over much of their range. It is inevitable that at some point in
time, wild horses and burros will occupy the range during the same season as
livestock, elk, deer, antelope. If, during these periods, forage is in
short supply the various classes of herbivores will compete, and it is
likely that the less dominant animals will suffer the most. Hansen (1975)
does not think that wild horses compete strongly with mule deer or antelope
on most ranges, but he would expect them to compete with cattle since their
diets appear to be 60 to 98 percent similar. They may compete moderately
with domestic sheep, bighourn sheep and elk.
The most important relationship between wild horse and burro grazing
management and water quality is maintenance of population densities at
levels which do not adversely affect range condition. Excessive numbers of
grazing animals, including wild horses and burros, will have a short-term
impact by overgrazing rangelands to the point that runoff is increased and
water quality affected. Continued overgrazing will result in long-term
deterioration of range condition which likewise affects runoff and
associated water quality over a long period of time. As a result, it is
imperative that wild horses and burros, as well as other grazing animal, be
maintained at levels which do not contribute to overgrazing either in the
long or short term.
A key factor in preventing overgrazing by wild horses and burros is the
control of excessive numbers. The method most frequently used for wild
horse and burro populations has involved a direct reduction in density by
live caputre of animals. This control technique is not without compli-
cations. The reduction in density occasioned by the control measures leaves
the quality of resources intact while increasing the quality available to
each remaining animal (Caughley 1977). The result is that survival of the
remaining animals is increased and the control program is inadvertently
converted into one of sustained yield harvest. In other words, a
never-ending cycle of capturing excess animals is created.
As better data is obtained and more experience gained, it is becoming more
and more doubtful whether wild horse and burro populations are increasing at
the phenomenal rates frequently ascribed to them in previous years. However,
it is also highly probable that their rate of increase will be accelerated
under programs involving direct reduction of numbers. As a result, it
appears inevitable that at some point in time, control measures will have to
be initiated which minimize the capture of excess animals. One such program
involves the selective manipulation of the population's demographic struc-
ture with the objective of reducing productivity and enhancing natural
mortality. This could be accomplished by altering sex ratios in favor of
- 114 -
-------
male animals and adjusting age structures to favor older animals. The
result would be a reduction in foal production and accelerated mortality of
older animals thereby minimizing the need for direct harvest of animals.
Additional information is needed in all aspects of wild horse and burro
management. However, of particular concern is basic data relative to
population dynamics, habitat use and competitive relationships among animal
species. Much of this information can be obtained through basic inventory
procedures but research is needed for more complex data requirements. An
example would be the impact on the soil and vegetative resources and inherent
features of water quality in the management of all large herbivores on
western range!ands.
The management of wild horse and burro habitat is a controversial subject.
Basically, this controversy centers around the question of whether horses
and burros should be managed within their habitat similar to wildlife or
similar to livestock. One primary question involved is whether wild horses
and burros should be cycled through grazing management system in the same
sequence as livestock or whether the animals should remain free-roaming as
are most wildlife species. If horses or burros are managed similar to
livestock, they would have to be manipulated to change their distribution
patterns in a manner designed to prevent excessive forage consumption in any
one area. If they are managed the same as wildlife, it would be necessary
to assure that population levels do not exceed the number required to pre-
vent excessive forage consumption in any one area. It may very well be that
the answer to this question is contained in Public Law 92-195 and the regula-
tions which implement that law. These documents contain very little discus-
sion relative to the number of animals to be maintained in any particular
area but give considerable emphasis to intensity of management for the
animals with particular attention on free-roaming behavior as it relates to
both management practices and facilities.
The literature concerning wild horses and burros and water quality relation-
ships is even more deficient that that for livestock grazing effects on the
riparian/aquatic ecosystem. Horses and burros, too, require water as part
of their habitat needs but it is probably safe to assume that their impacts
on the riparian/aquatic ecosystem are different than those of domestic live-
stock. (And because of their "free-roaming nature" and an "integral part of
the natural system" such impacts may be more difficult to mitigate.) Wild
horses particularly are generally not as likely to congregate in large herds
around water sources and remain or "camp" for long periods of time such as
domestic livestock are prone to do. They may consume less than domestic
livestock of the woody shrub species which help provide stream bank
stability and overhand shade for the water.
Since it is unlikely (and probably illegal) to manage wild horses and burros
in specialized grazing systems to provide rest and rejuvination for stream
bank vegetation, the most promising method for protecting streams and other
water resources is to maintain horse and burro numbers at levels which miti-
gate adverse impacts to water quality. Another possible method for providing
this protection could involve fencing certain segments of streams and other
water sources to exclude use of these areas by horses and burros. However,
horses are extremely wary animals and depend on keen senses of sight, smell
-115-
-------
and hearing, and speed of movement to avoid dangers. Protective fencing may
not only impede the free-roaming nature of horses and burros, cause uneasi-
ness and insecurity, limit accessibility to traditional water sources, but
also may block traditional migratory patterns. A minimum of fencing,
strategically and carefully located, might therefore be considedred. Other
traditional livestock management techniques such as herding, salting, and
grazing systems to protect water quality are clearly out of the question.
Alternative water sources might be developed to lure horses and burros away
from higher value water sources.
It might be concluded that the literature is woefully deficient concerning
impacts of horse and burro grazing on water quality and present research
efforts are almost nil. However, with foresight and planning, it should be
possible to adequately mitigate adverse impacts on water quality resulting
from horse and burro grazing by maintaing horse and burro numbers at
appropriate levels, minimal fencing, and developing alternative water
sources.
116-
-------
LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldous, A. E. 1935. Management of Kansas Permanent Pastures. Kansas Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bull. 272:1-44
Anderson, E. W. 1975. Grazing Systems. Technical Note—State of Washington
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Anderson, Kling L. 1940. Deferred Grazing of Bluestem Pastures. Kan. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bull. #291, 27pp.
Arizona Interagency Range Committee. 1972. Proper Use and Management of
Grazing Lands.
Arizona Interagency Range Committee. 1973. Grazing Systems for Arizona
ranges.
Black, W. H., A. L. Baker, V. I. Clark, and D. R. Mathews. 1937. Effect of
Different Methods of Grazing on Native Vegetation and Gains of Steers in
Northern Great Plains. USDA Tech. Bull. 547, 19 pp, Illus.
Black, W. H., and V. I. Clark. 1942. Yearlong Grazing of Steers in the
Northern Great Plains. USDA, Circ. 642, 16 pp, Illus.
Bohning, John W. and S. Clark Martin. 1956. One Rancher's Experience—In
the Grassland Range of Southern Arizona. Jour. Range Mgmt.
9(6):258-260, Illus.
Buwai, Malami. 1975. Effects of Defoliations and Rest Periods. Rge. Sci.
Dept., CSU, Ft. Collins, CO, 173 pp, Illus.
Buwai, M. and Trlica, M. J. 1977. Multiple Defoliation Effects on Herbage
Yield, Vigor and Total Nonstructural Carbohydrates of Five Range
Species. Journal of Range Management. 39(3):164-171.
Campbell, J. B. 1961. Continuous Versus Repeated Seasonal Grazing of Grass-
Alfalfa Mixture at Swift Current, Saskatchwan. Jour. Range Mgmt.
14(2):72-77, Illus.
Campbell, J. B., R. W. Lodge, A. Johnston, and S. Smoliak. 1962. Range
Management of Grasslands and Adjacent Parklands in the Prairie
Provinces. Canada Dept. of Agri., Research Branch, Pub. 1132., 32 pp,
Illus.
Canfield, Roy H. 1939. (Revised 1940). Semi-Deferred Grazing as a
Restorative Measure for Black Grama Ranges. S. W. For. & Range Exp.
Sta., Res. Note #80, 4 pp.
Clark, S. E. E. W. Tisdale, and N. A. Skoglund. 1943. The Effects of
Climate and Grazing Practices on Short-Grass, Prairie Vegetation in
Southern Alberta and Southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada Dominion Exp.
Sta. Pub. #747, Tech. Bull. #46, 53 pp.
-117-
-------
Cole, John S., F. L. Kelso, E. Z. Russell, J. B. Sheppard, Duncan Stuart,
and R. R. Granes. 1927. Work of the U.S. Dryland Field Sta., Ardmore,
S. D., 1912 to 1925. USDA Tech. Bull. #17, 68 pp, Illus.
Cook, C. Wayne. 1971. Effects on Season and Intensity of Use on Desert
Vegetation. Utah Agr. Exp. Sta., Utah State U. Bulletin 483, 57 pp,
Illus.
Craddock, G. W., and C. L. Forsling. 1938. The influences of Climate and
Grazing on Spring-Fall Sheep Range in Southern Idaho. USDA, Tech. Bull.
No. 600, 43 pp, Illus.
Cosby, Hugh E. 1975. Range Ecosystem Management for Natural Areas. U.S.
F&Ws, Region 6, Denver, CO.
Dary, David A. 1975. The Buffalo Books. Avon Books, Hearst Corp. 959 8th
Ave. NY, NY 10019, 374 pp.
Dickson, R. E., C. E. Fischer, and P. T. Marion. 1948. Summer Grazing
Experiments on Native Grassland at Spur, 1942-1947. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Prog. Rept. 1123, p 8.
Dill ion, Claude C. 1958. Benefits of Rotation—Deferred Grazing on North-
west Ranges. Jour. Range Mgmt. 11(4):278-281, Illus.
Dillion, Claude C., and Daniel Wallenmeyer. 1966. A Rancher's Success with
Continuous Deferred Grazing in Washington State. Jour. Range Mgmt.,
19(6):380-382, Illus.
Douglas, L. H. 1915. Deferred and Rotation Grazing, Hayden National Forest,
Wyoming. Nat'l Woolgrower, 5(10):11-14, Illus.
Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1949. Deferred and Rotation Grazing. The Cattleman,
35(12):21, 60, Illus.
Fischer, C. E., and P. T. Morion. 1951. Continuous and Rotation Grazing on
Buffalo and Tobosa Grassland. Jour. Range Mgmt. 4(1):48-51. Illus.
Forest Service, USDA. 1962. Rotation Grazing Management. USDA, FS, Reg.
2., processed, 11 pp, Illus.
Freeman, John D. 1961. Society Members Develop Grazing Plan. Jour. Range
Mgmt., 14(2):70-71, Illus.
Freeman, P.V.R. 1964. Report of Administrative Study on Demonstration
Allotment-Main Pasture. USFS, R-2, 7 pp.
Frischkneck, Neil C., Lorin E. Harris, and Harry K. Woodward. 1953. Cattle
Grains and Vegetal Changes as Influenced by Grazing Treatments on
Crested Wheatgrass. Jour. Range Mgmt. 6(3):151-158, Illus.
Hafenrichter, A. L. 1957. Management to Increase forage productions in the
West. USDA, SCS, Tech. Pub. #128, 16 pp, Illus.
-118-
-------
Hamilton, J. G., Grover F. Brown, Harold E. Tower, and Wilkie Collins Jr.
1954. Irrigated Pastures for Forage Production and Soil Conservation.
USDA, Farmers Bull. #1973, 30 pp 111 us.
Hanson, H. C., L. D. Love, and M. S. Morris. 1931. Effect of Different
Systems of Grazing by Cattle upon Western Wheatgrass.
Heady, Harold F. 1975. Rangeland Management. McGraw-Hill, 460 pp, Illus.
Herbel, Carlton H. and Kling L. Anderson. 1959. Response of True Prairie
Vegetation on Major Flint Hills Range Sites to Grazing Treatment.
Ecological Monographs, 29:171-186, April, 1959. Illus.
Herbel, Carlton H. 1971. A Review of Research Related to Development of
Grazing Systems in Native Range of the Western United States. Jornada
Exp. Rge. Report No. 5.
Hickey, Wayne C., Jr and George Garcia. 1964. Changes in Perennial Grass
Cover Following Conservation from Yearlong to Summer-Deferred Grazing in
West Central New Mexico. USDA For. Service, Rocky Mt. For. & Range Exp.
Sta. Res. Note RM-33, 3 pp.
Hickey Wayne, C., Jr. and George Garcia. 1964. Range Utilization Patterns
as Affected by Fencing and Class of Livestock. USDA, F.S., Rocky Mt.
For. & Rge. Exp. Sta., Res. Note RM-21, July 1964. 7 pp, Illus.
Hickey Wayne, C. 1966. A Discussion of Grazing Management Systems and Some
Pertinent Literature, (Abstracts and Excerpts); 1895-1966 F.S., USDA,
Denver, CO.
Hodgeon, R. E., M. S. Grunder, J. C. Knott, and E. V. Ellington. 1934. A
Comparison of Rotational and Continuous Grazing of Pastures in Western
Washington. Wash. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bull. 294, 36 pp.
Hormay, August L. 1956. How Livestock Grazing Habits and Growth Require-
ments of Range Plants Determine Sound Grazing Management. Jour. Rge.
Mgmt. 9(4):161-164, Illus.
Hormay, A. L. and A. B. Evanko. 1958. Rest-Rotation Grazing—A Management
System for Bunchgrass Ranges. USDA, F. S. California For. & Rge. Exp.
Sta., Misc. Paper #27, 11 pp, Illus.
Hormay, A. L. and M. V. Talbot. 1961. Rest-Rotation Grazing—A New Manage-
ment for Perennial Bunchgtass Range. USDA F. S., Prod. Res. Report #51,
43 pp, Illus.
Hormay, August L. 1970. Principles of Rest-Rotation Grazing and Multiple
Use Management. USDI, USDA.
Hubbard, William A. 1951. Rotational Grazing Studies in Western Canada.
Jour. Rge. Mgmt. 4(l):25-29.
-119-
-------
Hyder, Donald N., and W. A. Sawyer. 1951. Rotational Deferred Grazing as
Compared to Season-Long Grazing on Sagebrush-Bunchgrass Ranges in
Oregon. Jour. Rge. Mgmt. 4(l):30-34.
Jardine, J. T. 1912. Range Improvement and Improved Methods of Handling
Stock in National Forests. Proc. Soc. Amer. For. VII:160-167.
Jardine, J. T. 1915. Improvement and Mangement of Native Pastures in the
West. USDA, Yrbook of Agri. 1915, pp 299-310.
Jardine, James T. and Mark Anderson. 1919. Range Management on the National
Forests. USDA Bull. #790. 98 pp, Illus.
Johnson, W. M. 1965. Rotation, Rest-Rotation, and Season-Long Grazing on a
Mountain Range in Wyoming, USDA, F.S. Rocky Mt. For. & Rge. Exp. Sta.,
Res. Paper RM-14. 16 pp, Illus.
Keng, E. B. and Leo B. Merrill. 1960. Deferred Rotation Grazing Does Pay
Dividends, Sheep and Goat Raiser, June, 1960, pp 12-13, Illus.
Klipple, Graydon E. 1964. Early and Late Season Grazing Versus Season-
Long Grazing of Short-Grass Vegetation on the Central Great Plains.
Rocky Mt. Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Co.
Kothmann, M. M. (Chairman). 1974. A Glossary of Terms Used in Range
Management. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado 36 p.
Lang, R. and 0. K. Barnes. 1942. Range Forage Production in Relation to
Time and Frequency of Harvesting. Univ. of Wyo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.
#253, p 32.
Laycock, William A. 1961. Improve Your Range by Heavy Fall Grazing. Re-
printed from the Nat'l Woolgrower, June 1961.
Lewis, J. K., W. R. Trevillyan, and M. Haferkamp. 1970. Grazing Studies at
Antelope Range, a Progress Report 1964-69. S. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Sheep
Day Res. Rep. p. 64-72.
Martin S. Clark. 1966. The Santa Rita Experimental Range. A Center for
Research on Improvement and Management of Semi desert Rangelands. USDA,
F. S., Rocky Mt. For. & Rge. Exp. Sta. Res. Paper RM-2, pp., Illus.
Martin S. Clark, 1975. Ecology and Management of Southwestern Semidesert
Grass Shrub Ranges: The Status of Our Knowledge. Rocky Mt. For. & Exp.
Sta., F. S. , USDA Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521, Res. Paper RM-156, 39 pp
McMillen, W. N. and 0. Williams. 1944. Range and Pasture Studies and
Grazing Recommendation for Southern Great Plains. Panhandle Agr. Exp.
Sta. (Oklahoma) Bull. 67, 48 pp.
_120-
-------
Mcllvain, E. C. and D. A. Savage. 1951. Fourteen-Year Summary of Range
Improvement Studies at the U.S. Southern Great Plains Field Station
Woodward, Okla. 1937-1950. USDA, Bur of Plant Industry, 50 pp, Illus.
Menke, J. W. 1973. Effects of Defolitation on Range Plants. Rge. Sci.
Dept., CSU, Ft. Collins, CO., 283 pp, Illus.
Merrill, Leo B. 1954. A Variation of Deferred Rotation Grazing for Use
Under Southwest Range Condition. Jour. Range Mgmt. 7(4):152-154.
Morris, M. S. 1934. Deferred-and-Rotation System of Grazing. American
Cattle Producer, 16(5):3-5, Illus.
New Mexico Inter-Agency Range Committee. 1970. Agriculture Research
Service, USDA, P. 0. Box 698, Las Cruces, N. M. 88001.
Paulsen, Harold A., Jr., and Fred N. Acres. 1962. Grazing Values and
Management of Black Gama and Tobosa Grasslands and Associated Shrub
Ranges of the Southwest. USDA, Tech. Bull. #1270, 56 pp, Illus.
Paulsen, Harold A., Jr. 1975. Range Management in the Central and Southern
Rocky Mountains. USDA Research Paper RM-154, Rocky Mt. For. & Rge. Exp.
Sta., FS, Ft. Collins, CO 80521.
Rader, Lynn. 1961. Grazing Management Pays on Perennial Grass Range During
Drought. USDA, FS, Pacific SW For. & Rge. Exp. Sta. Res. Note #179.
Raguse, C. A., J. A. Young, and R. A. Evans. 1977. Germination of
California Annual Range Plants in Response to Summer Rain. Agron.
Jour., Vol. 69 pp 327-329.
Ratliff, Raymond D., and Lynn Rader. 1962. Drought Hurts Less with Rest-
Rotation Management. USDA, FS, Pac. S. W. For. & Rge. Exp. Sta. Res.
Note #196, 4 pp, Illus.
Reardon, Patrick 0. and Leo B. Merrill. 1976. Vegetative Response Under
Grazing Management Systems in the Edwards Plateau of Texas. J. Range
Management 29:195-198.
Reynolds, Hudson C. 1959. Managing Grass-Shrub Cattle Ranges in the South-
west. USDA, FS, Agri. Handbook 162, 40 pp, Illus.
Rodgers, Richard S. 1961. Rotational Deferred Grazing as Applied to
Nebraska Sandhill Ranges. Abstracts of papers presented at the 19th
Annul a Meeting ASRM, pp 50-51.
Roguler, George A. 1951. A Twenty-Five Year Comparison of Continuous and
Rotational Grazing in the Northern Plains. Jour. Range Mgmt.
4(1):35-41, Illus.
Sampson, Arthur R. 1952. Range Management Principles and Practices, John
Wiky & Sons, Inc., N.Y., 570 pp, Illus.
-121-
-------
Sampson, Arthur W. 1913. Range Improvement by Deferred and Rotational
Grazing. USDA Bull #34, 16 pp, Illus.
Sampson, Arthur W. 1914. National Revegetation of Range Lands Based Upon
Growth Requirements and Life History of the Vegetation. Jour, of Agr.
Res., USDA, 111(2) :93-148, Illus.
Smoliak, S. 1960. Effects of Deferred-Rotation and Continuous Grazing on
Yearlong Steer Gains and Shortgrass Vegetation of Southeastern Alberta.
Jour. Range Mgmt. 13(5):239-243.
Steger, Robert E. 1970. Grazing Systems for Range Care. N. M. State Univ.,
Cooperative Extension Service Circular 427.
Sturges, David L. 1977. Soil Moisture Response to Spraying Big Sagebrush:
A Seven-Year Study and Literature Interpretation., USDA, FS, Rocky Mt.
For. & Rge. Exp. Sta., Ft. Ceilings, CO 80521. Res. Paper RM-188, 12 pp.
Sylvester, Donnell D. 1957. Response of Sandhill Vegetation to Deferred
Grazing. Jour, of Range Mgmt. 10(6):267-268. Illus.
Talbot, N. W. 1961. The 40-Year Story of the Gila River Grazing Capacity
Test Area. Abstracts of paper presented at the 14th Annual Meeting,
ASRM, p 40.
Thomas Gerald W. and Vernon A. Young. 1954. Relation of Soils, Rainfall
and Management to Vegetation—Western Edwards Plateau of Texas. Tex. A
& M College, Tex. Agri. Exp. Sta., Bull. 786, 22 pp, Illus.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1968. Management Practices Manual 4112.16.
Wilcox, E. V. 1911. The Grazing Industry. Hawaii Agr. Exp. Sta.,
(Unnumbered) Separate, 91 pp.
Williams, Ralph M., and A. H. Post. 1945. Dry Land Pasture Experiments.
Montana State College, Agr. Exp. Sta., Bull. 431, 31 pp, Illus.
Woolfolk, E. J. 1960. Rest-Rotation Management Minimizes Effects of
Drought, USDA, F. S., Pac. S. W. For. & Rge. Exp. Sta., Res. Note #144,
3 pp.
Dixon, J. E. Et. al. 1977. Non Point Pollution Control for Wintering Range
Cattle. Paper No. 77-4049. American Society of Agricultural Engineers
1977 Annual Meeting. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. C.
Driscoll, Richard S. 1969. Managing Public Rangelands: Effective Livestock
Grazing Practices and Systems for National Forests and National
Grasslands. AIB-315.
-122-
-------
San Luis Watershed Research Study. 1972. Cooperative Project of the Bureau
of Land Management and Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station.
Sarvis, J. T. 1923. Effects of Different Systems and Intensities of
Grazing Upon the Native Vegetation at the Northern Great Plains Field
Station. USDA Bull 1170, 45 pp, Illus.
Sarvis, J. T. 1941. Grazing Investigations on the Northern Great Plains.
N. D. Agri. College, Agri. Exp. Sta., Bull #308, 110 pp, Illus.
Sheppard, J. H. 1939. The Mandan Grazing Trail. North Dakota Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bimonthly Bulletin, (111)1:7-9.
Shiflet, Thomas N. and Harold Heady. 1971. Specialized Grazing Systems:
Their Place in Range Management.
Sims, Phillip L., B. E. Dahl, and A. H. Denham. 1976. Vegetation and Live-
stock Purpose at Three Grazing Intensities on Sandhill Rangeland in
Eastern Colorado. Colo. State Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, Tech. Bull. 130,
48 pp, Illus.
Skovlin, Jon M., Robert W. Harris, Gerald S. Strickler, and George A.
Garrison, 1976. Effects on Cattle Grazing Methods on Pondersoa
Pine-Bunchgrass Range in the Pacific North Northwest. USDA For. Ser.
Tech. Bull. #1531, 40 pp, Illus.
Smith, Dixie R., Herbert G. Fisser, Ned Jeffries and Paul 0. Stratton, 1967.
Rotation Grazing on Wyoming's Big Horn Mountains. Aq. Exp. Sta., Univ.
of Wyoming, Laramie, Res. Jour. 13, 26 pp, Illus.
Smith, Jared G. 1899. Grazing Problems in the Southwest and How to Meet
Them. USDA., Division of Agrostology, Bui. #16, 47 pp, Illus.
Sparks, Richard. 1977. Building Topsoil in the Shortgrass Country.
Rangemans Journal 4:180.
-123-
-------
WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cook, C. W. and L. F. Harris. 1968. Nutritive Value of Seasonal Ranges.
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 472. Logan, Utah. 55 p.
Cook, C. W. 1975. Wild Horses and Burros: A New Management Problem.
Rangeman's Journal. 2:19-21.
Caughley, Graeme. 1977. Analysis of Vertebrate Populations. John Wiley &
Sons. 234 p.
Dobie, J. E. 1952. The Mustangs. Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
376 p.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 1976 Public Law 94-579,
43 USC 1701-1771, October 21, 1976.
Frei, Milton. 1975. Personal Communication. U. S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.
Hansen, R. M. 1975. Personal Communication. Department of Range Science.
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
McKnight, T. L. 1959. The Feral Horse in Anglo-America. Geographical
Review. 49:506-525.
Mosby, Henry S. Editor. 1963. Wildlife Investigation Techniques. The
Wildlife Society, Washington, D. C. 2nd ed.
Ryden, Hope. 1970. America's Last Wild Horses. E. P. Dutton, New York
311 p.
Stoddart, L. A., A. D. Smith, T. W. Box. 1975. Range Management. Mcgraw-
Hill, New York. 532 pp.
Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971. 1971. Public Law 92-195. 16 USC 1331-
1340, December 15, 1971.
Zarn, Mark, Thomas Heller, and Kay Collins. 1977a. Wild, Free-Roaming
Burros - Status of Present Knowledge. USDI and USDA TN 296. 65 p.
Zarn, Mark, Thomas Heller, and Kay Collins. 1977. Wild, Free-Roaming
Burros - Status of Present Knowledge. USDI and USDA TN 294. 7? p.
-124-
-------
APPENDIX III
RANGELAND TREATMENTS
Mechanical Rangeland Treatment
Overview
Vallentine (1971) has published a rather comprehensive treatise on rangeland
development and improvements. Much of the material to follow has been taken
from this book.
A basic premise of rangeland management is that vegetation can be harvested
in perpetuity by grazing animals while simultaneously providing society with
high quality air, water, open space, recreation, and other resource values
and uses. Rangeland improvements are special treatments, developments, and
structures used to improve range vegetation resources or to facilitate their
forage use by grazing animals. Rangeland seeding, control of undesirable
plants, fertilization, and pitting, contour furrowing, and waterspreading
are direct means of developing and improving rangeland vegetation and forage
resources. Rangeland improvements such as water developments, fences, and
roads and trails provide more effective management of grazing and thus
indirect improvement and more efficient utilization of the forage resources.
Rangeland improvements must be based on ecological principles of competition
and succession. A first step in improving rangeland vegetation and forage
resources is providing the desirable forage species with a competitive advan-
tage for water, sunlight, and soil nutrients. The reduction of competition
from undesirable plants through biological, mechanical, or herbicidal con-
trol induces plant succession in the desirable direction. Man, as part of
the complex rangeland ecosystem, has a directing influence capable of
manipulating the productivity of the ecosystem to his advantage. Rangeland
improvement is principally involved in manipulating factors leading to
increased productivity from rangelands.
Numerous reports suggest that the productivity and biological efficiency
presently being obtained from rangeland ecosystems can be substantially
increased. Rangeland improvement cannot be increased indefinitely because
the controlling factors, which man either connot or should not manipulate
because of environmental or economic constraints, place ceilings on produc-
tivity obtainable from rangeland ecosystems. The rate of induced succession
is quite variable and determined by (1) the kind of rangeland ecosystem, (2)
its extent of depletion, (3) climatic fluctuations, (4) the improvement plan,
and (5) the efficiency of subsequent management of grazing animals (Lewis,
1969). Rangeland improvements are not limited to restoration or rehabilita-
tion of depleted ranges. Fertilization and waterspreading can increase
productivity beyond natural climax conditions by modifying controlling
factors in rangeland ecosystems.
Rangeland improvements have many management implications. It is imperative
that rangeland improvements be an intergral part of the planning and
directing of rangeland use rather than being considered separately.
-125-
-------
Rangeland improvements are best considered as supplementary aids available
for achieving objectives of resource management. For example, only slight
improvement can be expected on some brush and woodland-dominated ranges even
after prolonged periods of good grazing management unless special brush-con-
trol treatments are applied (Pechanec et al., 1965). On the other hand, the
full potential benefits expected from rangeland treatments, developments,
and structures are realized only when accompanied by good grazing management.
Benefits from Rangeland Improvements
Although one primary objective may be sought in a rangeland improvement
program, there are usually one or more secondary benefits to the rangeland
resources. For example, a single rangeland improvement practive, such as
contour furrowing, -may increase water infiltration and forage production but
also decrease water runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Possible benefits
from rangeland improvements include:
a. Increased quantity of forage. Problems that increased forage production
could solve include balancing seasonal grazing capacity, reducing pressure
on overstocked ranges, or replacing grazing capacity lost through land
transfer, reduction in Federal grazing privileges, etc. Increased forage
production must consider seasonal use. Is increased forage necessary on
spring-fall ranges? Or is improvement of winter forage supplies most
critical for mule deer?
b. Increased quality of forage. Providing forage of greater palatability,
higher nutritive content, or longer green growth period may be desirable. A
balance of browse for winter grazing and herbaceous secculent forage for
early spring use may be the goal of big game rangeland management.
c. Increased animal production. The primary objective may include
increased numbers of animals, increased numbers of offspring, increased
weaning weights, increased condition, and reduce death losses. Removal of
undersirable brush may reduce wool damage in sheep, and lamb losses from
straying and predation.
d. Facilitate handling and caring for range animals. This is accomplished
by brush control, fencing, corrals, water development, and trails.
e. Control poisoning of grazing animals by poisonous plants. This is
accomplished by selectively removing poisonous plants, replacing existing
poisonous species with non-poisonous species, or providing alternative
sources of palatabel forage. Injury and associated diseases and parasites
can be reduced by removing mechanically injurious plant species.
f. Reducing fire hazard. Possibilities include replacing flammable
species, such as big sagebrush and cheatgrass, with less flammable species;
and constructing and planting fire guards with plant species which deter
fire movement and reduce heat intensity.
g. Increased water yields on watershed by replacing woody species with
herbaceous plants. Replacement of chaparral on deep upland soils in
California (Bentley, 1967) and on canyon-bottom brush-woodland by grasr
-126-
-------
(Hill and Rice, 1963) increased water yields. Brush control often activates
springs or increases spring flows (Biswell, 1954). Busby and Schuster (1971)
calculated annual use of 43,770 and 7,200 acre-feet of water by saltcedar
and mesquite, respectively, on a portion of the Brazos River flood plain in
Texas. Several springs began to flow for the first time in memory following
conversion of brush to grass on a portion of the Rocky Creek Watershed near
San Angelo, Texas (Thomas, 1975).
h. Control of pests and diseases. The primary purpose is the control of
insects and plant diseases by replacing host plants with others. An example
is the replacement of certain weeds which host the beet leafhopper which is
a carrier of curly top, a disease of sugar beets and tomatoes.
i. Control erosion by stabilizing erosive soils. In some cases, soil
stabilization may justify restoration with secondary consideration given to
forage production for grazing animals.
j. Reduce conflicts amoung multiple uses of range resources. Access roads
and trails can provide better distribution and management of livestock as
well as proper harvesting of big game animals by hunters. Reseeding denuded
watersheds can provide necessary forage for grazing animals and clear water
for fishing streams. Williamson and Currier (1971) indicate that applied
landscape management enables natural beauty to be retained and even enhanced
while accomplishing basic objectives of mechanical brush and woodland
control projects.
Selecting Range!and Improvements
The type of rangeland improvement must be carefully considered and properly
located and utilized to provide maximum benefits. Guidelines to consider in
selecting and locating rangeland improvements include:
a. Use only proven methods.
b. Rangeland improvements must be compatible with the goals of land
ownership.
c. Consider availability of local or contract labor, necessary equipment,
and supervisory or consultative assistance needed.
d. Evaluate rangeland improvement practices which can be most effectively
utilized in the herd or land management plan.
e. Consider changes in management practices that will be required and
maintenance that will be necessary.
f. Analyze cost efficient methods and evaluate cost-benefit ratios.
g. Apply rangeland improvement practices at appropriate time to achieve
desired objective but, at the same time, avoid unnecessary disruption to the
ecosystem.
-127-
-------
h. Amount and character of residual vegetation cover and composition will
influence choice of rangeland improvement practice.
i. Locate rangeland developments on areas of greatest potential for
increasing range productivity and/or decreasing soil erosion.
j. Plan animal handling facilities that are practical and beneficial both
to the rangeland and to range animals.
k. Carefully evaluate the environmental impacts, both beneficial and
adverse, of proposed rangeland improvement practices.
Economic Aspects
Rangeland improvements provide many opportunities for increasing vegetation
production, forage, and cover for livestock, wildlife, wild horses and
burros; reduction of runoff and sedimentation; protection and improvement of
aquatic/riparian ecosystems; and herd management
The economic benefits from rangeland improvements should be carefully
evaluated before funds are invested. Expected rates of return, risk of
failure, maintenance costs, and availability of capital must be considered.
Governmental cost-sharing funds for rangeland improvements on private lands
is available through various programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
to encourage conservation practices on private lands. Since funds, labor,
and equipment for rangeland improvements are also limiting factors on public
lands, the cost-benefit ratio is equally important here as on private
lands. However, non-market public benefits receive more consideration on
public lands. Benefits to society, such as maintaining environmental
quality, protecting the watershed, providing scenic vistas, are difficult to
evaluate in terms of monetary value but are nevertheless real values.
Objectives and Planning
Rangeland treatments include mechanical and chemical means of vegetation
control, seeding, soil tillage, contour furrowing, root plowing, earth fill
and detention structures, or similar work that is performed to improve
rangeland conditions that cannot be effectively corrected by livestock or
wildlife herd management alone. Rangeland treatment practices are applied
to bring about the most rapid improvement consistent with needs of the site
and its potential for improvement. (Practices to be applied must be consis-
tent with management objectives included in the land use plan.) Specific
objectives usually are to: (a) control rate of overland and channel flow,
water and wind erosion, and resultant soil losses; fb) improve soil develop-
ment, infiltration rates, and moisture capacity, dilute soluble salts, and
provide proper plant nutrients; (c) improve quality and quantity of the
renewable vegetative resources; and (d) protect on-site and off-site values
from sediment and flood damages.
Selection of treatment practices to meet the site depends on the objectives
to be attained, benefits and limitations of individual practices, site
suitability, local water quality criteria, and other considerations. The
- 128 -
-------
application of more than one practice on the same area often results in the
greatest overall improvement. Site conditions may require the use of water
control structures in addition to rangeland treatment practices. Most sites
require specific analysis on which to base final practice selection and
design. Analysis must be made of rangeland sites to determine if conditions
exist that can best be corrected or improved by the application of treatment
practices.
Physiographic and biological conditions to consider are vegetation and soil
associations; erosion, water quality, channeling and water flow evidence;
livestock, wildlife, and cultural values needing protection; and downstream
values. Consider existing site conditions and proposed practice benefits,
limitations, or requirements with respect to the potential of the site. The
same items which caused the existing unfavorable site condition(s) or that
indicate the need for improvement, may also limit favorable response to
treatment, i.e. topography may be too rough to allow any kind of tillage
practice, seasonal precipitation may not warrent seeding, or big game
concentrations may exist that cannot be controlled.
Current rangeland use is an important factor to consider when selecting site
and treatment practices. Temporary elimination or curtailment of uses may
be necessary to prevent serious damage to new work and to permit existing
vegetation to recover, or for seedings to become established. Areas subject
to mining activities, geophysical explorations, oil and gas well drilling,
and recreational development are questionable sites for treatment unless
required protection can be assured. Special consideration must be given on
public lands to areas containing archeological, historical, geological, or
scientific sites to provide protection of the site and the natural
surroundings.
Livestock grazing and wildlife and wild horse and burro habitat management
plans should be completed on all areas proposed for treatment. When manage-
ment plans are already in operation, treatment practices should complement
the plans currently in effect, unless plan revision is appropriate. Defer-
ment from livestock grazing in necessary when increasing vegetation cover is
a primary objective of treatment. Deferment periods are based on plant
ecological-physiological principles. Soils must be adequately firm and the
plants well enough established so that damage does not occur under grazing
use. Coordinate plans with other land managers when any part of the treat-
ment will involve their interests in the lands or resources, including
Section 208 water quality planning coordination.
Planning for rangeland treatment practices must be initiated well in advance
of work plan schedules. Planning includes preparation of management plans
in conjunction with other uses, arrangements for nonuse or other site protec-
tion, job design and specifications. The Range Seeding Equipment Handbook
(USDA, USDI 1965) describes most of the specialized equipment currently used
to accomplish rangeland treatment practices.
Good planning is imperative in order to meet total rangeland improvement
construction needs. All plans should be checked before work is done to
assure adequate protection of watershed values and coordination with other
resources and uses. Constructed improvements should be field checked to
-129-
-------
assure compliance with standards and plans. The range!and rehabilitation
program is an integral part of resource management. Rangeland development
work is directed by coordinating requirements of multiple-use management
(USDA, Forest Service 1968).
Selected References
Rauzi, Lang, and Becker (1962) found in Wyoming on sandy loam soils that
pitting shortgrass ranges did increase infiltration rates, even after five
years following pitting. They fould during a second 30-minute period of
one-hour test, that the test plots on the pitted pastures absorbed almost
twice as much water as did the test plots on the pastures treated with the
Wyoming range seeder, and almost four times as much as the pastures
moderately grazed or as those treated with the sod drill. Rauzi (1956) also
reported higher water infiltration on pitted range!and in Wyoming.
Branson, Miller and McQueen (1966) discussed implements and general
procedures used in pitting. They found pitting in Wyoming to be of limited
value on course textured soils. They cited work that indicated the practice
in some areas may have less value on some fine textured soi!s. Life of pits
vary from less than six years to more than ten years. Consequently, the
effectiveness and application of pitting depends to a large extent on the
specific soil and site characteristics.
Branson et al., (1966) also found contour furrowing to be the second most
productive treatment for increasing perennial grass yields on some sites
used in evaluating various mechanical treatments in the Western United
States. Broadbase furrows where earth was pushed down drainage to form a
series of low dikes 45 to 60 centimeter height (1.5 to 2 feet) produced the
highest yields of perennial grass. This treatment was applied to areas
having medium to course textured soils, annual precipitation about 22.5
centimeters (9 inches) with native vegetation of saltbush converted to
wheatgrass and Russian wild rye. Contour furrowing advantages outweight the
disadvantages according to personal experience of Montana rancher Frank
Sparks as reported by Sparks (1977) and Ell (1977). An inch of topsoil is
built up every 50 years through decomposition of some plants turned over by
the plowing. This concept is supported by Hormay (1970) and other scien-
tists that soil is renewable and will regenerate if destroyed, but this
process may take hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Land productivity
depends on soil fertility. On rangelands, fertility is lost mainly through
erosion. It is maintained by keeping a maximum protective cover of
vegetation and organic litter on the soil.
Contour trenches sampled by Branson, Miller, and McQueen (1966) ranged from
1.5 feet (48cm) to 2.5 feet (76cm) deep when constructed. They found the
treatment to have limited effectiveness in improving grass procustion but to
be effective in reducing runoff and sediment. The major objective of the
treatment was to contain all water and sediment on site and reduce erosion.
Ripping, chiseling, subsoiling and deep plowing are terms applied to similar
treatments. The objective of the treatment is to fracture the soil,
especially the subsoil, which may have a restrictive layer that inhibits
130 -
-------
root penetration, water infiltration, percolation and storage. Implements
used for the treatment are discussed and evaluated by Branson et al., (1966)
and Gifford (1975).
Hickey and Dortignac (1964) assessed runoff and erosion from ripping during
a three year study in New Mexico on soils derived from shale. For untreated
areas, surface runoff was as high as 89 percent of storm rainfall and annual
erosion as high as 4,640 kilograms per hectar. With ripping (50 to 90 cm
depth, 2.1 m apart ) surface runoff was reduced 96 percent and erosion 85
percent the first year after treatment. Three years after treatment reduc-
tions were 85 percent for runoff and 31 percent for erosion. However,
attempts to seed forage species during three successive years were largely
unsuccessful under these circumstances which would limit the feasibility of
applying the treatment on shale-derived soils. Auger ripping was the only
mechanical treatment that actually decreased perennail grass production in
the evalutaion of several types of treatment by Branson et al., (1966). On
some of their plots runoff decreased annually. These results suggest under
these circunstances that surface soil, not subsoil, modifications are essen-
tial for complete success in retaining water and sediment and also increas-
ing forage production. Erosion and runoff varied with aspect and
topographic position.
In a study on silt loam soils in Southern Idaho, Gifford (1972) and Gifford
and Busby (1974) conducted intensive infiltrometer studies on a plowed big
sagebrush site over a four-year period. Results of the study indicated
there was a natural decay in the absorbtive capacity of surface soils with
plowing. The apparent result of grazing (no grazing for two years following
plowing and seeding) was not to reduce the minimal infiltration capacities
measured on the respective site, but rather to eliminate seasonal trends so
that infiltration rates were at the low end of the scale throughout the
year. Grazing on the sites did not increase sediment production potentials
beyond the increases expected as a result of mechanical disturbances
associated with plowing.
Aro (1971) evaluated chaining (for conversion to grassland) and other
conversion techniques applied to pinyon-juniper vegetation on public lands
in Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico. Burning of debris was found to
be the most effective in terms of conversion to grass. Dozing of trees into
windrows, followed by seeding of grasses in the cleared area was the best
mechanical approach examined, but requires careful site selection and
economic evaluations. This is particularly the case for areas susceptible
to soil erosion with potential water quality impacts. Aro suggested the
technique should only be used on soils sufficiently free of rocks to allow
drilling of grass seed. Slopes should not exceed 15 percent.
Gifford (1975) completed a comprehensive literature review of impacts of
pinyon-juniper manipulations on watershed values related to infiltration,
runoff, and water quality impacts. Suudies completed to date indicate that
infiltration rates have only been slightly affected when comparing chained
sites to the undisturded woodland. Course textured soils probably account
for much of this. If there is a decrease in infiltration rates due to
chaining activities, the decrease will probably occur on chained-with-win-
drowing treatments, this being the result of rather severe mechanical
-131-
-------
disturbance of surface soils during the windrowing process. The mechanical
disturbance may actually increase permeability of surface soils but infiltra-
tion at the soil-air interface is decreased. Because of the variabliity on
pinyon-juniper site characteristics, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly
those factors that consistently influence infiltration rates. The impact of
grazing on infiltration rates appears accumulative (up to some undefined
point), and effects of even a single grazing season can be detected. Com-
plete protection for four years of a grazing site in sandy loam soils
restored infiltration capacities to a maximum. Burning of debris appears to
depress infiltration rates. Given a runoff event due to high intensity
rainfall, least runoff may be expected from sites chained with debris-left-
in-place, followed very closely by the natural woodland and also sites which
have simply been sprayed to kill the vegetation. Greatest runoff will occur
on sites chained with debris windrowed. Where water yield is important,
spraying (but not tree removal) is most effective in the Utah juniper type.
At higher elevations in Arizona where alligator juniper is found, tree
removal may result in a slight increase in water yield. Where only select
areas of watersheds are treated or where tree densities are low, increases
in water yield should not be expected. Indications are that sediment
discharges have not increased on pinyon-juniper sites due to vegetation
manipulation practices. An exception to this is the increased quantity of
sediment produced from debris-windrowed sites during high intensity thunder-
storms in Utah. Factors influencing sediment yields at given points on a
pinyon-juniper site are variable from site to site. Minimum sediment yields
(equal to that from undisturbed woodland) may be expected where surface soil
disturbance is minimized (as with spraying a herbicide) or where debris is
left in place on a chaining project; chemical aspects of water from pinyon-
juniper sites indicate good quality water suitable for irrigation, public
water supply, and for aquatic life. Potential public health hazards of
livestock grazing on semiarid open range on gentle slopes appears to be
minimal. Given a runoff event, during the first year from burned debris-
in-pi ace sites may contain increased amounts of phosphorus and potassium,
but not calcium, sodium or nitrate-nitrogen.
Hibbert, Davis and Scholl (1974) published a report on the chaparral conver-
sion potential in Arizona. Chaparral control methods that have proven effec-
tive in Arizon are not plowing, prescribed burning, chemicals (herbicides),
and chemicals (herbicides) in combination with the others. Stream water
from treated watersheds shows moderate to low contamination by herbicides.
Over the long run, conversion should reduce erosion by reducing or eliminat-
ing the heavy erosion cycle set off by periodic wildfires in unmanaged
chaparral. On areas favorable for treatment, conversion to grass reduces
fire hazard and substantially increases water yield and forage for livestock.
If treatment areas are kept small and interspersed with native chaparral,
protective cover and browse for game animals will always be available nearby,
and the edge effect created by the openings will enhance the overall
environment for wildlife.
Chaparrall in Arizona is used far below its potential (Cable 1975).
Conversions to grass can greatly increase water and grass production, and
improve wildlife habitat. Management options include conversion to grass,
maintaining shrubs in a sprout stage, changing shrub composition, reseeding,
and using goats to harvest shrub forage.
- 132 -
-------
Fisser (1968) found herbage production increased on both arid and mesic
sites in Wyoming following the sagebruch and grazing control treatment wil
the greatest increase occurring on the mesic site. Average annual soil
temperature was greatest at the arid site and was warmest in the shrub-domi-
nated areas at both sites. Soil moisture accumulation during the spring
period was greatest at the mesic site from 24 to 60 inches below the soil
surface and the greatest values occurred in the shrub controlled grassland
area.
Conclusions from the Cornfield Wash Watershed study in New Mexico and the
Boco Mountain Watershed study in Colorado were reported by Shown (1971).
Amount of vegetation plus mulch cover was found to explain 79 percent of the
variance in sediment yield for a set of eight small watersheds that repre-
sented the full range of hydrologic, geologic, and biotic conditions in the
Cornfield Wash area of New Mexico. Vegetation amounts appear to be the
result of the intergrated effects of slopes, soil types, and drainage
densities. Because these same variables also affect runoff and sediment
yield, a high degree of correlation existed between vegetation cover and
runoff and sediment yield. The Cornfield Wash watersheds are essentially
grass-covered, but have patches and stringers of shrubs. Sheet and rill
erosion is most evident in the parts of the watersheds covered by big sage-
brush and juniper, but because these types usually covered less than 10
percent of the watersheds, their effect on runoff and sediment yield at the
reservoirs appeared to be monor. A short record at the Boco Mountain
watersheds in Colorado indicated that sediment yield was greatly reduced
when big sagebrush cover was converted to beardless bluebunch wheatgrass
cover. This was attributed to a significant increase in vegetation plus
mulch cover on the grassed watersheds which reduced runoff during the
April-to-October period, and which appeared to retard overland flow,
decrease soil detachment, and decrease rilling.
Further conclusions were reported by Shown, Lusby and Branson M972) from
the Boco Mountain Study. At the Boco Mountain watersheds in western
Colorado big sagebrush appeared to use slightly more soil water than
beardless bluebunch wheatgrass. The sagegrush extracted water from deeper
in the soil and from the fractured shale beneath the soil and also extracted
water from the soil to a lower soil water potential, thus removing slightly
more water than the beardless bluebunch wheatgrass. The waterpotential data
coupled with root data also suggested that slightly more water was removed
by evaporation from the soils of the sagebrush watersheds which likely was
related to the barren interspaces being about 3 times larger in the sage-
brush than in the grass. The beardless bluebunch wheatgrass used the soil
moisture resource more efficiently than the big sagebrush as about 300
pounds per acre more usable forage was produced annually. The grass pro-
vided about one-fourth greater vegetation cover and the smaller interspaces
among the grass plants protected the soil from erosion better than the
sagebrush.
The status of our knowledge with the ecology and management of southwestern
semidesert grass-shrub ranges was presented by Martin (1975). Mesquite con-
trol was proven beneficeal throughout almost all the semidesert area.
Several mechanical and chemical control methods have been developed; each is
peculiarly suited to certain situations. The average rancher with a
mesquite-infested range can supply forage for additional cattle much more
- 133 -
-------
cheaply by controlling mesquite than by purchasing additional land. The
value of controlling creosotebush, cactus, burroweed, and snakeweed is much
less clear. Acceptable procedures for seeding have been developed for ranges
with annual precipitation of 13 inches or more. The success of seeding of
drier ranges is less certain, but can be enhanced greatly by pitting to
increase infiltration. New seedings must be protected from grazing for at
least one growing season; protection for two seasons is recommended.
Earth structures, diversion dams and gully plugs with water spreaders were
construced on mountain meadows in Nevada to collect sediment and raise the
water table (Eckert 1975). An effective dam can (collect sediment and)
raise the water table. After a channel is cut, an effective dam is neces-
sary to raise the water table to a level required by mesic, productive
meadow species. The height of water table maintained will influence the
productivity of native and introduced species.
Resource conservation areas have been developed by BLM in all the western
states to demonstrate the effectiveness of management planning for rangeland
developments, treatments and implementation of allotment management plans.
One such large scale program is the Vale Project in Oregon. The Vale range-
land rehabilitation program was analyzed by Heady and Bartholome (1977).
The report discusses the initiation, execution, and outcome of an 11-year
program of range rehabilitation on public lands in southeastern Oregon.
Initiated primarily to benefit the livestock industry, the investment of $10
million in range improvements also profoundly affected other multiple-uses.
The analysis of this large and successful program should serve as a useful
guide for monitoring other range programs.
Design and construction specifications for rangeland improvement practices,
treatments and epuipment are included in the Soil Conservation Service's
National Engineering Handbook (1966), the paper by Branson et al., (1966),
Bureau of Land Management Watershed Conservation and Development and Engi-
neering Manuals (1968), Forest Service Structural Range Improvement and
Engineering Handbook (1968), and the USDA-USDI Range Seeding Equipment
Handbook (1965). Principles and practices for range development and
improvement are covered by Valentine (1971) as well as in the above
handbooks and manuals.
Summary Features of Mechanical Rangeland Treatments and Water Quality
Relationship
a. The major objective of most mechanical rangeland treatments is to
improve vegetation production by increasing moisture storage and reducing
soil erosion. This objective is usually consistent with minimizing water
quality impacts on a long term basis or after improved vegetation
establishment.
b. The fact that certain mechanical rangeland treatment practices increase
soil moisture availability has been well documented. The impacts of some of
the practices have been to reduce runoff and possibly reduce erosion,
however, exact quantitative data is lacking.
-134-
-------
:. The most consistent beneficial response to mechanical rangeland
ireatment in terms of vegetation production and reduction of runoff and
irosion in cited research occurred on medium (very fine sandy loam, loam,
;ilt loam and silt) to fine (sandy clay, silty clay, and clay) textured
;oils.
i. With severe soil disturbance resulting from many mechanical rangeland
:reatments, it is essential that sites be conducive to vegetation establish'
lent with seed after the treatment if completed. Since the life of most
lechanical rangeland treatments is relatively short, it is essential to
n'nimize water quality impacts from sediment that a desirable vegetation
:over be established and maintained.
;. Soil characteristics (texture, structure, consistency and moisture
lolding capacity), climate, type of vegetation, and implements used are the
>rincipal variables that determine water quality impacts of any treatment.
\n understanding of these variables is essential to evaluate the potential
lechanical rangeland treatment for or to minimize the water quality impacts
:rom any mechanical rangeland treatment.
-135-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MECHANICAL RAN6ELAND TREATMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aro, Richard S. 1971. Evaluation of Pinyon-Juniper Conversion to
Grassland. J. Range Management 24:188-197
Bentley, Jay R. 1967. Conversion of Chaparral Areas to Grassland. U.S.D.A.
Agric. Handbook 328.
Biswell, H.H. 1954. The Brush Control Problem in California. J. Range
Management 7:57-62.
Branson, F.A., R.F. Miller and I. S. McQueen. 1966. Contour Furrowing,
Pitting, and Ripping on Rangelands of the Western United States. J.
Range Management 19:182-190.
Busby, Frank E., Jr., and Joseph L. Shuster. 1971. Woody Phreatophyte
Infestation of the Middle Brazos River Flood Plain. J. Range Management
24:285-287.
Eckert, Richard E., Jr. 1975. Improvement of Mountain Meadows in Nevada.
U.S.D.I. - M.L.B. Research Report. 45p.
Ell, Flynn J. 1977. Contour Furrowing Drought Weapon, The Billings
Gazette, July 23, 1977.
Fisser, Herbert G. 1968. Soil Moisture and Temperature Changes Following
Sagebrush Control. J. Range Management 21:283-287.
Gifford, G.F. 1972. Infiltration Rate and Sediment Production Trends on a
Plowed Big Sagebrush Site. J.Range Management 25:53-55.
Gifford, G.F. and F.E. Busby. 1974. Intensive InfiItrometer Studies on a
Plowed Big Sagebrush Site. J. Hydro! 21:81-90.
Gifford, Gerald F. 1975. Beneficial and Detrimental Effects of Range
Improvement Practices on Runoff and Erosion. Watershed Management
Symposium, pp 216-248.. Logan, Utah, August 11-13, 1975.
Heady, Harold F. and James Bartholome. 1977. The Vale Rangeland
Rehabilitation Program: The Desert Repaired in Southeastern Oregon.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service Resource Bulletin PNW-70. 139p.
Hibbert, A.R., Edwin A. Davis and David G. Scholl. 1974. Chaparral
Conversion Potential in Arizona—Part 1: Water Yield Response and
Effects on Other Resources. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper
RM-126. 36p.
Hickey, W.C., Jr., and E.J. Dortignac. 1964. An Evaluation of Soil Ripping
and Soil Pitting on Runoff and Erosion in the Semi arid Southwest.
Intern. Assoc. See. Hydrol. Publ. 65:22-33.
-13f-
-------
Hill, Lawrence W. and Raymond M. Rice. 1963. Converting from Brush to Grass
Increases Water Yield in Southern California. J. Range Management
16:300-305.
Hormay, A.L. 1970. Pronciples of Rest-Rotation Grazing and Multiple Use
Management. U.S.D.I. and U.S.D.A. (TT-4) (2200). 26p.
Lewis, James K. 1969. Range Management Viewed in the Ecosystem Framework.
Chapter IV. In The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource Management.
Academic Press. New York and London.
Martin, S. Clark. 1975. Ecology and Management of Southwestern Semidesert
Grass-Shrub Ranges: The Status of Our Knowledge. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service Research Paper RM-156. 39p.
McLean, A. and E.W. Tisdale. 1972. Recovery Rate of Depleted Range Sites
Under Protection From Grazing. J. Range Management 25:178-184
Pechanec, Joseph E., A. Perry Plummer, Joseph H. Robertson, and A. C. Hull,
Jr. 1965. Sagebrush Control on Rangelands. U.S.D.A. Agric. Handbook
277.
Rauzi, F. 1956. Water Infiltration Studies on the Big Horn National
Forest. Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 62. 7p.
Rauzi, F., R. L. Lang, and D. F. Becker. 1962. Mechanical Treatments on
Shortgrass Range!and. Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull 396. 16p.
Reardon, Patrick 0. and Leo B. Merrill. 1976. Vegetative Response Under
Grazing Management Systems in the Edwards Plaueau of Texas. J. Range
Management 29:195-198.
San Luis Watershed Research Study. 1972. Cooperative Project of the Bureau
of Land Management and the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station.
Shown, Lynn M. 1971. Sediment Yield as Related to Vegetation on Semi arid
Watersheds. In: Biological Effects in the Hydrologic
Cycle—Proceedings of the Third International Seminar for Hydrology
Professors, Purdue University, p. 347-354.
Shown, L.M., G. C. Lusby, and F. A. Branson, 1972. Soil-Moisture Effects of
Conversion of Sagebrush Cover to Bunchgrass Cover. Water Resources
Bulletin 8:1265-1272.
Thomas, Edward E. 1975. Rocky Creek Watershed, San Angelo, Texas.
Twenty-second National Watershed Congress. June 1-4, 1975. Portland,
Oregon.
-137-
-------
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1968. FSH 2209 Structural Range Improvement
Handbook and Range Environmental Analysis Handbook. Rocky Mountain
Region.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1966. National Engeneering Handbook.
U.S.D.A., U.S.D.I. 1965. Range Seeding Equipment Handbook. 150p.
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management Manual. 1968. Part 7410. Land Treatment.
Valentine, John F. 1971. Range Development and Improvements. Brigham Young
University Press, Provo, Utah.
Williamson, Robert M., and W.F. Currier. 1971. Applied Landscape Management
in Plant Control. J. Range Management 24:2-6.
-138-
-------
Prescribed Burning
Overview
An important and sometimes controlling factor affecting plant succession in
much of the western United States has been fire. As a result, prescribed
burning can be used as a natural and effective management tool. The use of
this practice varies considerable in the eleven western states. It has not
been tried in some areas and has not reached its maximum potential in
others. This is because of recently developed fear, misunderstanding and
bias toward fire, as well as a general lack of knowledge of the effects of
fire on vegetation, the animal life it supports, and water quality. Factors
associated with human population densities and distribution patterns have
also affected the use of fire. In California for instance, (Bush, 1978)
indicated that high liability insurance rates have significantly reduced the
frequency of burning.
The concept of fire management is becoming increasingly apparent and in may
realms is replacing the restrictive "fire control" approach. Because of
this increased emphasis, prescribed burning is being recognized as an effi-
cient range management tool and is being utilized by land management agencies
and private land owners to obtain management objectives.
The effectiveness of burning as a technique for improving rangeland
conditions has frequently been demonstrated and documented. Beneficial
vegetative changes have been noted and recovery rates studied. Big sage-
brush and grass vegetative types have been successfully restored to more
productive rangeland using prescribed burning practices. More thorough
discussions of burning as a range management practice is included in
(Dillion, 1967), (Pechaenec, et al., 1944 and ]965), and (Wright, et at.,
1965).
Prescribed burning also impacts wildlife habitat. Some wildlife species may
benefit, others will not. (McGowan, 1978) indicated that fire can open mono-
cultures and produce patchy vegetation mix with the newly developing vegeta-
tion being quite nutritious and palatable to wildlife. Large burns that
destory vegetational diversity and are reseeded to provide a large
monoculture will be deleterious to wildlife.
The impacts of water quality as a result of prescribed burning have not been
well documented, and a significant lack of information is apparent.
(Gifford, 1975) pointed out that there is limited documented information
available related to the hydrologic impact of burning as a management tool
for rangeland resources. Collection of water quality data has been
extremely limited and interpretations have restricted value.
Although the documented affects of fire on water quality are not extensive,
it is possible to make some reasonable predictions as to the impacts under
identified conditions. These predictions are based on the experience of
rangeland managers, existing soil, vegetation and runoff studies and
documented observations following natural and prescribed burns.
-139-
-------
(Gifford, 1975) stated that fire will influence infiltration by changing
variables upon which infiltration seems dependent such as characteristics of
accumulated litter, soil surface area, structure, porosity, apparent
liquid-solid contact angle, and solute concentration of the infiltration
water.
Following burning, soil movement is usually related to the intensity of the
fire (Wright et al., 1976). Intense fires increase runoff and may increase
erosion (Connaughton, 1935; Holland, 1953; Rowe, 1955; Hussain et al.,
1969), whereas low intensity fires leave some litter on the soil surface and
have little or no effect on surface runoff and erosion (Biswall and Schultz,
1957; Agee, 1973). Thus it appears that cover is by far the most important
variable related to soil erosion (Packer, 1951; Bailey and Copeland, 1961;
Orr, 1970).
Slope is also a critical factor. Wright et al., 1976 indicated that
erosion, runoff, and water quality were unaffected on level areas, but there
were adverse effects on moderate and steep slopes. With such a wide variety
of conditions in the western states the results from studies on the effects
of burning on water quality have been quite variable. (Gifford et al., June
1976) did not find significant changes in potential sediment production
during a grazing and burning study in Utah. A high natural variability
existed among the study locations and it was concluded that any changes in
potential sediment production due to grazing or burning were masked by this
natural variability. Second year trends, however, indicated an increase in
potential sediment production.
The movement of nutrients to the aquatic system has received limited study.
Even more unclear is the impact such movement may have on water quality. In
certain instances, particularly where water impoundments or lakes may be
involved, the impacts could be significant.
Stored nutrients are released when vegetation is burned and it is possible
for these nutrients to be transported from the site by erosion and overland
flow. Gifford et al. measured phosphorous and potassium in overland flow
following burning on chained with debris-left-in-place sites. They found
significant increases in phosphorus and potassium. Wright et al. concluded
that nutrient and organic matter losses due to erobion following burning,
were relatively low in porportion to the amount available in the upper 6
inches of the soil profile.
The significant water quality impacts from burning would generally come from
poorly exacuted burns which through increased runoff and erosion result in
sediment delivery to water bodies. The degree of pollution would depend
upon the quantity of sediment and the quantity of nutrient and pesticides
the sediment may be carrying.
Prescribed burning is in many cases beneficial to water quality by reducing
the long-term potential for erosion and sedimentation. This is accomplished
when prescribed burning in conjunction with other range management tech-
niques results in changes in type and density of vegetation that provides
greater erosion protection than was originally present. The degree to which
this benefit is being achieved is quite variable and not well documented.
140
-------
In summary, prescribed burning could have both adverse and beneficial
impacts on water quality. In order to control the adverse impacts and
derive maximum water quality benefits the following guidelines are suggested:
All burns must be carried out in accordance with a burning plan which
has been developed to achieve minumum disruption of cover, balanced with
achieving disired vegetatve changes.
Prescribed burning plans should establish the objectives, priorities,
and technical procedures to be used in carrying out the burn and should
conseder the following site and watershed characteristics: litter
accumulations, availablity of fuel, soil type, stability and moisture
content, susceptabilty of soil to water repellency, annual precipita-
tion, slope exposure and steepness, vegetation, recovery potential, and
location of the area in relation to streams and lakes. Other factors
are season of year and wind conditions. Each of these factors affect
the results of burning in a unique manner and vary greatly depending
upon their interaction with other factors and climatic conditions.
Burning plans should consider location of critical wildlife habitat and
distance from aquatic habitat systems.
Burning plans must address the risk of wildfire ignited from the
prescribed burn areas and contain measures to minimize this risk.
Wildfire conditions have potential for severe watershed damage and
quality impairment.
Each of the factors previously mentioned justify a detailed discussion,
but it is the rangeland manager that must understand the effects of each
factor on the burn and prepare a plan that will achieve both rangeland
and water quality objectives.
State and Federal land management agencies with assistance from
researchers and ranchers have developed prescribed burning plans to a
reasonable high level. Persons wishing to practice prescribed burns who
have limited experience with the techniques involved should request
technical assistance from the appropriate agency.
- 141 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRESCRIBED BURNING
Agee, J.K. 1971. Prescribed fire effects of physical and hydrologic
properties of mixed-conifer forest floor and soil. Tech. Completion
Rep., Water Resources Center, Univ. of Calif., Davis, pp 57.
Bailey, R.W., and 0. L. Copeland, 1961. Low flow discharges and plant
cover relations in two mountain watersheds in Utah. Intern Ass. Sci.
Hydro!. Pub. 51:267-278.
Biswell, H.H. and A.M. Schultz, 1957. Surface runoff and erosion as related
to prescribed burning. 0. Forest. 55:372-375.
Bush, R.D. 1978. Personal communications.
Connaughton, C.A. 1935. Forest fires and accelerated erosion. J. Forestry
33:751-752.
Dillion, Claude D. 1967. Controlled burning and reseeding restore big
sagebrush range. Soil Conservation 33:91-92.
Gifford, Gerald F. 1976. Hydrologic impact of burning and grazing on
chained pinyon-juniper site in southeastern Utah. Completion Rep,
Denver for Water Resources Research, Utah State University, Logan, pp
20-21.
Gifford, Gerald F. 1975. Beneficial and detrimental effects of range
improvement practices on runoff and erosion. Watershed management
symposium, pp. 216-274. Logan, Utah, August 11-13, 1975.
Holland, James 1953. Infiltration on a timber and burn site in northern
Idaho. U.S. Forest Service Northern Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Exp. Sta. Res. Note 127. 3p.
Hussain, S.B., C.M. Shau, S.M. Bashir, and R.O. Meeuwig, 1969.
Infiltrometer studies of water-repellent soils on the east slope of the
Sierra Navada, p. 127-131. In: DeBano, L.F., and J.Letey (Eds.)
Water-repellent soils. Proc. Symp. Univ. of Calif. Riverside.
McGowan, Terry. 1978. Modified from written comments.
Orr, H.K. 1970. Runoff and erosion control by seeded and native vegetation
of a forest burn: Black Hills, South Dakota. U.S. Forest Serv. Res. Pap.
Rm-60. 12p.
Packer, P.E. 1951. An approach to watershed protection criteria. J.
Forestry 49:639-644.
Pechanec, J.F., A.P. Plummer, J.H. Robertson and J.C. Jull, Jr. 1965.
Sagebrush control on range!ands, USDA Handbook 277.
-HZ-
-------
Pechanec, Jos.F. and George Stewart 1944. Sagebrush burning --
Good and Bad. USDA Farmers Bulletin 1948.
Rowe, P.B. 1955. Effects of forest floor upon disposition of
rainfall in pine stands. J. Forest 53:342-348.
Wright, Henry A., Francis M. Churchill, and W. Clark Stevens 1976,
Effects of prescribed burning on sediment, water yield, and
water quality from dozed juniper lands in Central Texas. J.
Range Manage. 29:294-298.
Wright, Henry A. and J.O. Klemmedson 1965. Effects of Fire on
Burchgrass of the Sagebrush Grass Region in Southern Idaho.
Ecology 46:680-688.
-143-
-------
Use of Chemicals
Overview
There are number of chemicals used for a variety of purposes in range
management. Some of the major uses are for fertilization, pest control, and
predator control. The various chemical compounds available for use, the
efficacy, and types of chemicals that should be used for various practices
are beyond the scope if this document. The discussion here is intended only
to provide general information related to use of chemicals and some rules of
thumb for protecting the environment if chemicals must be used on range
management.
Pesticides and fertilizers enter water bodies by several means: (1) erosion,
(2) runoff water, (3) escape of chemicals during application, (4) volatili-
zation and redeposition of chemicals, and (5) accidents and incorrect con-
tainer disposal. An obvious but fundamental means of reducing potential
water pollution from pesticides is correct usage. It is essential that
users follow recommended application techniques and not exceed precribed
dosages for specific pest problems and plant and soil needs for fertilizers,
Washington State University (1971).
The major route of pesticides to waterways is via soil erosion. Because of
the tight binding characteristics of pesticide residues and some fertilizers,
especially phosphorus, in many instances pollution of water by these chemi-
cals occurs throught the transport of soil particles to which the residues
are attached. Since most pesticides adhere readily to soil, any range
practice that is likely to cause erosion in areas where chemicals are used
is also likely to facilitate entry of the chemical materials into lakes and
streams. Limiting the use of chemicals on erosion-prone soil will reduce
the pollution potential, EPA (1973).
Nonpersistent pesticides pose only short-term problems from erosion or
runoff. Persistent pesticides are a more serious threat to waterways from
water and wind erosion. Persistence depends primarily on the structure and
properties of the compound and, to a lesser degree, on location in or on the
soil complex. There is wide variation in persistence amoung different
pesticides. The amount of pesticides entering water bodies is influenced by
the method of application and solubility and volatility of the chemicals.
Chemicals incorporated into the soil, rather than left on the surface of
soil or plants, are less subject to movement by runoff water and to evapora-
tion. Most chemicals used in range management are applied in liquid form as
a spray or in solid form as a dust or granule. Most methods of application
are imperfect in that some of the chemicals reach nontarget organisms. The
major reasons are lateral displacement (i.e., wind drift) and volatilization.
Where this process occurs, the chemical material may enter open bodies of
water directly, or after fallout and washout from nontarget areas.
Insecticides used to control livestock pests may be applied by various
means, such as feed additives, backrubs, sprays, pour-ons, liquid dips or
barn fumigation. Pesticide exposure to the environment is minimal with
these type applications with correct use. With the exception of dumping or
accidental spillage, the potential for water pollution is very limited.
-144-
-------
Container Disposal
Pesticides can enter the environment through careless or improper disposal
of containers and unused materials. If these items are deposited or burned,
pollution may result through washout or fallout. The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act as amended in 1972 (Public Law 92-516)
directed EPA to issue procedures and regulations governing the disposal of
pesticide containers. Regulations for acceptance and recommended procedures
for disposal and storage of pesticides and pesticide containers were pub-
lished May 1, 1974 (Federal Register, Volume 39, Number 85). The regulations
should be reviewed prior to disposal of pesticide containers and residue.
Some key features of the rules and regulations are:
As a general guideline, the owner of excess pesticides should first
exhaust the two following avenues before undertaking final disposal:
0 Use for the purposes originally intended, at the prescribed dosage
rates, providing these are currently legal under all Federal, State, and
local laws and regulations.
0 Return to the manufacturer or distributor for potential
re-labeling, recovery of resources, or reprocessing into other
materials. Transportation must be in accordance with all currently
applicable U.S. Department of Transportation regulations.
To provide documentation of actual situations, all accidents or
incidents involving the storage or disposal of pesticides, pesticide
containers, or pesticide-related wates should be reported to the appropriate
EPA or State Office for pesticide regulation.
No person should dispose of or store (or recieve for disposal or storage)
any pesticide container or pesticide container residue:
a. In a manner inconsistent with its label or labeling.
b. So as to cause or allow open dumping of pesticides or pesticide
containers.
c. So as to cause or allow open burning of pesticides or pesticide
containers; except, the open burning by the user of small quantities of
combustible containers formerly containing organic or metallo-organic
pesticides, except organic mercury, lead, cadmium, or arsenic compounds, is
acceptable when allowed by State and local regulations.
d. So as to cause or allow water dumping or ocean dumping, except in
conformance with regulations.
e. So as to violate any applicable Federal or State pollution control
standard.
-145-
-------
The following general guidelines from the Washington State Pest Control
Handbook (1971) if followed will go a long way toward minimizing water
quality impacts of chemicals used in range management:
Do not use pesticides unless there is a definite need for insect,
disease or plant control
Be sure you have a problem that pesticides can correct. Apply them as
specific treatments, not as general remedies.
Use them only on crops or plants that are being attacked by the insect
or disease or that are to be suppressed. Do not apply them to other
plants.
Do not apply more spray or dust than needed. A thorough, light
application is more effective than a heavy, spotty one.
Avoid the need to dispose of pesticides by making up only the amount of
spray you need.
Do not flush surplus pesticides down the drain into sewage or septic
tank systems, for relatively small amounts of material:
-- Select a disposal site on your property where you can dig a hole at
least 18 inches deep.
-- Make sure the site is on level ground and not close to streams,
wells, ditches, or other water supplies. It should not be near the
garden or the roots of trees, shrubs, or grass, Avoid areas where
children or pets might dig or play. Also avoid gravelly soil.
-- Pour the pesticide in the hole. Rinse the container three or four
times and pour the rinse water in the hole. Wear neoprene-coated
gloves. Cover the pesticide with at least 18 inches of soil.
-- Wash off the gloves with soap and water; then wash your hands with
soap and water.
-- Keep from having to dispose of pesticides by buying no more than
you need for the planned pest control job.
There are a number of good references available related to safe use of
chemicals in the environment. Some of these are Washington State University
(1971), Oregon and Washington State Universities (1973), Gratkowski and
Stewart (1973), USDA and EPA (1975) and EPA (1977). In addition to
references, State Agriculture Departments, Extension Services, local county
agents and Soil Conservation offices also have information on appropriate
chemicals and their safe use for range management practices.
- 146-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
USE OF CHEMICALS
Gratkowski, J. and R. Stewart. 1973. Aerial spray adjuvants for herbicidal
control. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PMW-3. Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Oregon State University and Washington State University Cooperative
Extension Services. 1973. Proceedings of a short course—Forest
Pesticides and Their Safe use, February 6-7, 1973, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. 1975.
Apply pesticides correctly, a guide for commercial applicators.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Silvicultural Chemicals and the
Protection of Water Quality.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Methods and Practices for
Controlling Water Pollution from Agricultural Nonpoint Sources. Office
of Water Programs, Washington, D.C.
Washington State University and Washington State Department of Agriculture.
1971. Washington Pest Control Handbook.
-147-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. • 2
EPA 910/9-79-67
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Livestock Grazing Management and Water Qual
Protection - State of the Art Reference Doc
7. AUTHOR(S)
Elbert Moore, Eric Janes, Floyd Kinsinger,
and John Sannsbury
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Div.
Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; EPA, Water Div., 1
Denver, CO 80203; Bureau of Land Management
Center, Denver, CO 80225
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Division
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The report was prepared under a cooperative
and the Bureau of Land Management
3. RECI
5. REPO
ity Nov
J . 6. PERF
ument
8. PERF
Ken Pitney
10. PRO
, 1200 6th
860 Lincoln, n-CON
, Federal
13. TYP
F
14. SPO
agreement between
'lENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
RT DATE
ember 1979
ORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
ORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
N/A
GRAM ELEMENT NO.
TRACT/GRANT NO.
EOF RE PORT AND PERIOD COVERED
inal
NSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA Regions 8 and 10
16. ABSTRACT
The report is a State of the Art Reference of methods, procedures and practices
for including water quality considerations in livestock grazing management activities.
The document identifies existing and potential hazards to water quality, practices
or methods suitable for preventing or minimizing water quality impacts, and
alternatives for the assessment of a rangeland watershed's total runoff and pollution
production.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Livestock Grazing Management
Water Quality Protection
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Grazing and Aquatic Habitat
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDE
Methods, Procedur
Practices for Red
Water Qual ity Imp
Best Management P
19. SECURITY CLASS (This 1
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This [
Unclassified
D TERMS c. COSATI riekl/Group
es
ucing
acts,
ractices
leport) 21. NO. OF PAGES
iagc) 22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |