United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 8
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver. Colorado 80295
«EPA Grazing Nonpoint Source
Control Strategy

-------
, ,	A °io
^^oh-o^abb	| (j\
c< I
GRAZING NONPOINT SOURCE
CONTROL STRATEGY
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Prepared Under an Interagency Agreement
by
Royal G. Ho 11
Natural Resource Specialist, IAG/BLM
U.S.EPA REGION 8
Technical Library 80C-L
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
September, 1982

-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared at Region VIII Environmental Protection
Agency, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado, under an interagency agreement
between the U.S.D.I., Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
A technical advisory committee, composed of the following members,
assisted in the development of an outline and reviewed drafts of the document.
Gene R. Reetz, Physical Scientist, EPA Region VIII
Richard T. Claggett, Environmental Protection Specialist, EPA Region VIII
Ronnie D. Clark, Watershed Specialist, BLM, Denver Service Center
F. Rhio Jackson, Range Conservationist, BLM, Colorado State Office
R. Gordon Bentley, Jr., Range Conservationist, BLM, Montrose District
David P. Green, Physical Science Administrator, IAG/EPA, Washington, D.C.
i

-------
CONTENTS
P§S£
I.	Purpose 		1
II.	Scope 		2
III.	Background 				2
1.	Historic perspective 		2
2.	Acreage of grazing land 		3
3.	Economic importance of grazing 		3
4.	Clean Water Act relationships 		3
IV.	Current Situation 		6
1.	Range condition 		6
2.	Range land pollutants 		9
V.	Components 		12
1.	Problem area identification 		12
2.	Problem area priority setting 		13
3.	Best Management Practices (BMP's) 		14
4.	Application to federal, state and private lands .	16
5.	Management agencies 		16
6.	Technical and financial assistance 		17
7.	Actions 		18
a.	State Water Quality Management Agencies	18
b.	Federal Agencies	18
c.	EPA Region VIII	19
VI.	References 		21
ii

-------
TABLES
Area Grazed by Domestic Livestock, Region VIII
Value of Agricultural Products Sold, Region VIII
Rangeland Condition, Region VIII
Sheet and Rill Erosion on Cropland and Nonfederal
Rangeland, Region VIII

-------
Grazing Nonpoint Source Control Strategy
Region VIII
I. PURPOSE
This Grazing Nonpoint Source Control Strategy provides guidance for the
prevention and control of nonpoint source water quality degradation resulting
from livestock grazing of range land. It describes procedures for identifying
problem areas and those remedial measures which generally maintain water
quality or reduce water pollution. It envisions appropriate water quality
improvement programs carried out voluntarily at the local level by private
land owners and land management agencies responsible for grazing management on
federal and state grazing lands.
The Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217, 1977), Section 208(b)(2)(F), requires
that various nonpoint sources of water pollution, including runoff from lands
used for livestock production, be identified and, to the extent feasible, be
controlled. Section 101(d) of the Clean Water Act designates the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the administering federal agency for
the Act. In this capacity EPA gave direction and funding support to the
States in the development of area-wide or state-wide nonpoint source water
quality management plans required by Section 208 of the Act. These plans have
been completed and approved for all states in EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Utah,
Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota) except for one area-wide
plan in Colorado which is under litigation.
Section 208 also provides for a continuing planning process by the States
which documents existing problems arising from point and nonpoint sources of
water pollution. Management procedures to eliminate problems and proper
review to insure that remedial actions are carried out are an intergral part
of the process.
Section 305(b) directs the states to report biennially to EPA on current
water quality conditions, including a description of the nature and extent of
nonpoint sources of water pollution and recommendations for control of each
category of such sources.
Grazing was not a primary concern or a primary target in water quality
management plans prepared to date. Therefore, water quality problems arising
on grazing lands need to be addressed in the continuing planning process and
the biennial updates as information becomes available and problem areas are
identified.

-------
Within this framework a viable, well-managed grazing program on private,
state and federal lands is consistent with the goals of the Clean Water Act.
II.	SCOPE
This strategy is applicable to management of range lands in EPA Region
VIII and applies to improved non-irrigated perennial grassland as well as
native range land. Irrigated grazing lands are included as crop land in the
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control Strategy developed earlier. (Copies of
that document are available from EPA Region VIII.)
Rangeland can be described as land producing native forage for animal
consumption including land that has been revegetated naturally or artificially
to produce a plant cover that is managed like native vegetation. Plant cover
on these lands consists principally of grasses, grasslike plants, forbs and
shrubs. It includes natural grasslands, savannahs, and certain shrub and forb
lands and may be interspersed with scattered timber or woodlands. Except for
brush control, rangeland is managed primarily by regulating grazing and
protecting plant cover. Generally it is not cultivated, drained, irrigated or
mechanically harvested.
III.	BACKGROUND
1. Historic perspective
Domestic livestock were introduced to the southwestern United States by
the Spanish in the 1600's and throughout the West with the coming of
settlement in the mid-1800's. The early settlers found the western rangelands
to be ideal, ready-made pasturage for their herds and flocks. Rangeland
vegetation had evolved under the foraging of wild herbivores native to the
region and was capable of withstanding a moderate amount of grazing.
Therefore, foraging by domestic livestock was not a new component in the
ecosystem, but heavy competitive grazing use over several decades, generally a
concentration of use for too long and often at the wrong season of each year,
did result in widespread deterioration of western rangeland in the late 1800's
and early 1900's (U.S. Senate Document No. 199, 1936; Council for Agricultural
Science and Technology, 1974). Basically, the problem was a general lack of
understanding of the physiological requirements of forage plants under arid
and semi-arid western conditions and the intensity of grazing that could be
tolerated before serious damage to the vegetation occurred. Rangeland forage
is a remarkable resource that grows back each year if range plants are not
subjected to continuing physiological stress.
- 2 -

-------
2. Acreage of Grazing Land
Range lands comprise a large proportion of the land area of the states in
Region VIII, ranging from 28% for North Dakota to 33.6% for Wyoming and
averaging 65% for the Region (see Table 1). Because of the acreage involved,
grazing is a major land use activity in Region VIII and a potentially
sigificant contributor to water quality degradation.
3.	Economic importance of grazing
Consumption of plant materials by animals is a natural process that
converts range forage, which is not directly useable by man, into high-quality
meat and fiber suitable for consumptive use. Grazing lands are an important
source of forage for livestock in Region VIII because of the vast size of the
rangeland area. Agricultural statistics do not differentiate between farm
feedlot livestock and range livestock, but a majority of cattle and nearly all
sheep in the Region spend a part of each year foraging on rangeland.
Livestock production is a large part of the income for the agricultural
comrniffn'ty in the Region (see Table 2), ranging from 20% of agricultural
products sold in North Dakota to 79% in Wyoming and averaging 51% for the
Region. Rangeland grazing and ranching activities associated with it, often
attain an importance economically, socially, and culturally that transcends
its importance from a broader aspect.
4.	Clean Water Act relationships
Administratively, nonpoint water quality management is a state and local
responsibility. Section 208 of the Clean Water Act provides that states
develop programs for controlling nonpoint sources of water pollution from all
agricultural activities including lands used for livestock production. The
Environmental Protection Agency is charged with oversight responsibility.
Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
Forest Service are responsible for the lands under their administration. The
Governors of all six States in Region VIII have designated the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service as water quality management agencies for
land under their control.
Ranching is a land use specialization which centers on livestock grazing
of the vast rangeland areas of the Region. As such, individual ranchers are
key participants in any water quality management program involving grazing
lands and their full support is essential.
- 3 -

-------
TABLE 1
Area Grazed by Domestic Livestock
Region VIII
Acreage
Proporti on
State
Non-federal
Range land &/
Federal
Range land b/
*** 1,000
Total
of Acres ***
of
State c/
of Land Area
Grazed
Colorado
23,801
23,739
47,540
66,486
71.5%
Montana
38,834
23,651
62,485
93,271
67.0%
N. Dakota
10,564
1,927
12,491
44,452
28.1%
S. Dakota
22,198
2,281
24,479
48,882
50.1%
Utah
9,385
30,730
40,115
52,697
76.1%
Wyomi ng
26,169
25,936
52,105
62,343
83.6%
Total
130, 951
108,264
239,215
368,131
65.0%
a/ Source: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1980. Soil, Water and Related Resources
in the United States: Status, Condition, and Trends Appraisal, Part 1,
Figure 36, p. 120.
b/ Source: U.S.D.A., Forest Service, 1980. An Assessment of the Forest and Range Land Situation
in the United States, p. 261.
c/ Source: U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, 1979. Public Land Statistics,
1979. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. p. 9. (Does not include water.)
- 4 -

-------
TABLE 2
Value of Agricultural Products Sold ($000)
Region VIII
Total	Cattle	Sheep	Total
Agricultural	&	Lambs	Cattle,
State	Products sold a/	Crops ji/	% Calves b/	%	& Wool b/	% Sheep %
Colorado
$2,599,023
$
575,973
22.2
$1
,720,867
66.2
$ 88,793
3.4
69.6
Montana
1,184,597

490,292
41.4

596,283
50.3
22,531
1.9
52.2
N. Dakota
1,793,590
1,
295,283
72.2

351,895
19.6
9,037
0.5
20.1
S. Dakota
1,906,006

567,418
29.8

874,851
45.9
39,646
2.1
48.0
Utah
468,195

102,608
21.9

165,919
35.4
30,775
6.6
42.0
Wyomi ng
534,434

91,114
17.1

376,205
70.4
46,307
8.7
79.1
Totals
$8,485,845
3,
122,690
36.8
$4
,086,020
48.2
$237,089
2.8
51.0
_a/ Source: 1978 Census of Agriculture Vol. 1, Parts 6, 26, 34, 41, 44, 50.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, p. IX.
b/ Source: ibid. p. 106.
Note: This tabulation does not itemize all agricultural products sold,
therefore line items do not total.
- 5 -

-------
The objective of good grazing management is a maximum forage cover on the
rangeland for production of meat and other useable products. Maximum forage
usually translates into maximum vegetative cover which in turn means reduced
runoff, increased soil stability, and improved water quality. This conforms
to goals of the Clean Water Act.
IV. CURRENT SITUATION
1. Range Condition
Rangelands provide water, energy, minerals, recreational opportunities,
and habitat for wildlife in addition to grazing for domestic livestock. When
properly managed, the renewable vegetative resource provides economical forage
for the production of cattle and sheep and a protective soil mantle that holds
the land in place. If misused and overgrazed, productive rangeland can become
a wasteland where accelerated runoff may create massive erosion and turn dry
channels and streams into silt-laden torrents, carrying tons of sediment to
the lowlands and increasing flood damage to adjacent farm lands and urban
areas. Plant physiologists are in general agreement that removal of plant
tissue by grazing or other means is a physiologically destructive process to
plants. Loss of leaf tissue disrupts the photosynthetic process which causes
a decline in plant growth. Continued excessively heavy grazing depletes food
reserves stored in plant tissue, the root system is weakened and dies back
from the tips toward the root crown and eventually the plant dies. On the
other hand, moderate grazing use (usually about 50% of current annual growth)
is not damaging to range forage plants.
Grazing is a natural element of the ecosystem and, range plants which
have evolved over the centuries under grazing have marvelous recuperative
powers. When grazing use is managed to accommodate the physiological
requirements of plants, a vigorous vegetative cover can be maintained. The
above ground parts of plants give protection to the soil surface by reducing
raindrop impact and overland flow, and their root systems serve as binders of
the soil mantle. Plant litter and small fragmented rock (desert pavement)
also protect the soil surface, and the addition of organic matter improves
infiltration and decreases overland flow.
Erosion is a function of the amount of exposed soil and is further
strongly influenced by the intensity and duration of rainfall and steepness of
topography. Raindrop impact is the initiating force in surface movement of
soil. Maintenance of a vigorous perennial plant cover, then, is vital to soil
stability and becomes increasingly important as slope steepness increases.
Soil texture is also a factor. Soils with a high content of fine sand or silt
erode most readily.
- 6 -

-------
With severe over-grazing, plant density and plant cover are diminished,
runoff increases and soil losses accelerate because of exposure of the soil
surface. Sediments produced are carried to streams and lakes causing
turbidity and sedimentation and general degradation of the aquatic habitat.
Much of the semi-arid rangeland in Region VIII has shallow, poorly developed
soil. If this thin topsoil is lost, serious deterioration of the land and
reduced productivity occur. Much of the native rangeland in the West has been
damaged to some extent. But most rangelands have not deteriorated to the
point where improved grazing management, modern revegetation technology, and
land treatment for erosion control can not restore them to a semblance of
their original productivity. Much progress has been made during the last half
century in improving vegetative cover and stabilizing soil conditions on
western rangelands, but efforts need to be expanded and accelerated for the
accrual of greatest benefits to watershed stability and water quality
improvement and to the individuals dependent on these lands for their
li velihood.
The technology for revegetating depleted rangeland and controlling
excessive runoff and erosion is well-established, but application of these
measures is costly. By far the most cost effective alternative is a
preventative program of maintaining rangelands in good or improving condition
by good grazing management.
Range condition is commonly considered to be the state and health of
rangeland compared to what that rangeland is naturally capable of producing,
taking into account existing climate, physiography and soils, Stated another
way, it is an estimate of the degree to which the present vegetation and
ground cover depart from that which is presumed to be the natural potential
for the site, discounting natural catastrophies and man's impacts.
Range condition classification is based principally on density and
quality of plant cover and the degree of soil stability. A range in good
condition is producing all or nearly all of the high value perennial plants
that it is capable of producing and the soil is stable and fully productive,
showing little or no evidence of erosion. A range in poor condition has lost
much of its vegetative cover and erosion is active because of the exposed soil
surface. Much topsoil has been lost, rills and gullies are evident, and very
few high value perennial plants remain. Low value annuals and perennial are
dominant on the area. Even ranges in fair condition have begun to lose some
vegetative cover and some active erosion is occurring. Only good condition
rangelands are essentially free of serious erosion.
- 7 -

-------
TABLE 3
RANGELAND CONDITION REGION VIII l/
***thousand acres***

Total y





Very


State
Good
%
Fair
%
Poor
%
Poor
%
Col orado
35,228
4,085
11.6
10,615
30.1
14,536
41.3
5,992
17.0
Montana
54,156
8,687
16.0
22,127
40.9
18,735
34.6
4,606
8.5
N. Dakota
12,296
4,048
32.9
4,253
34.6
2,837
23.1
1,159
9.4
S. Dakota
23,402
3,405
14.6
11,050
47.2
7,233
30.9
1,715
7.3
Utah
39,615
7,586
19.1
10,170
25.7
14,149
35.7
7,711
19.5
Wyomi ng
47,608
8,550
18.0
17,228
36.2
17,338
36.5
4,442
9.3
Totals
212,305
36,361
17.1
75,443
35.5
74,878
35.3
25,623
12.1
jj/ Source: USDA, Forest Service, 1980. An Assessment of the Forest
and Rangeland Situation in the United States.
Table 5.1, p. 255.
b/ Total acreages do not agree with acreage of rangeland in Table 1
because range condition information was not available for all rangeland.
- 8 -

-------
In the 1980 assessment of the forest and rangeland situation, the Forest
Service used a range condition classification of good, 61-100% of the
potential; fair, 41-60%; poor, 21-40%; and very poor,'20% or less 1/. Table
3 shows the percentage of rangeland in each condition class for the six states
in Region VIII. About half is in the poor and very poor condition categories
and less than 20% is in good condition. This would indicate that serious soil
losses are occurring on about 100,000,000 acres of rangeland in the Region and
that runoff is carrying sediments, dissolved solids and ether contaminants
into adjacent streams, lakes and reservoirs.
Table 4 lists the comparative soil losses from sheet and rill erosion in
tons per acre per year for cropland and non-federal rangeland for the six
states in Region VIII. These statistics were calculated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture by use of the universal soil loss equation. No
comparable data is available for federal rangeland.
The Soil Conservation Service has established soil loss tolerance values
for all soils. These range from 2 to 5 tons per acre per year. The soil loss
tolerance value is the maximun average annual soil loss that can be tolerated
indefinitely without interfering with sustained high production. (U.S.
Department of Agriculture 1980. Soil, Water, and Related Resources in the
U.S., 1980 appraisal Part 1, p. 39).
Table 4 shows that an average of 72% of the cropland and 79% of the
non-federal rangeland in Region VIII are losing less than 2 tons of soil per
acre per year, and that 7.7% of the cropland and 10.7% of the rangeland lose
more than 5 tons per acre per year. The rate of soil loss does not differ
substantially between crop and rangeland, but acreage of all rangeland
(including federal) is three times greater than cropland acreage in the
Region. Thus runoff from rangeland becomes an important consideration in
water quality management.
2. Rangeland Pollutants
It is generally recognized that sediment produced by runoff is the most
significant pollutant from rangeland, but chemical or bacteriological
pollutants may originate on grazed lands also. These include dissolved
minerals, alkalinity, nutrients (phosphates and nitrates), and fecal coliform
and streptococcus organisms. Salt loading occurs in runoff from saline soils
and may be intensified by excessive grazing during the spring period.
Pesticides can become attached to sediments and be carried into stream
channels.
1/ USDA, Forest Service, 1980. An Assessment of the Forest and Rangeland
Situation in the United States, p. 254.
- 9 -

-------
TABLE 4
Sheet and Rill Erosion on Cropland and Nonfederal Rangeland
Region VIII
Cropland
***thousand acres***
Erosion, tons per acre per year
State
Total
Less
than 2
%
2-4.9
%
5-13.9
%
14+
%
Colorado
11,093
6,942
62.6
3,115
28.1
805
7.2
231
2.1
Montana
15,355
13,351
86.9
1,440
9.4
503
3.3
61
0.4
N. Dakota
26,913
18,962
70.5
5,855
21.8
1,924
7.1
172
0.6
S. Dakota
18,156
11,617
64.0
4,605
25.4
1,580
8.7
354
1.9
Utah
1,815
1,721
94.8
73
4.0
21
1.2
	
	
Wyomi ng
2,970
2,347
79.0
435
14.7
125
4.2
63
2.1
Totals
76,302
54,940
72.0
15,523
20.3
4,958
6.5
881
1.2
- 10 -

-------

TABLE 4 (con1t)

Sheet and Rill Erosion on Cropland and Nonfederal Rangeland

Region VIII
***thousand acres***
Nonfederal Ranqeland b/


Erosion, tons per acre per year
Less
State Total	than 2 %	2-4.9	%	5-13.9	%	14+	%
Colorado
23,801
15,659
65.8
3,867
16.2
2,586
10.9
1,689
7.1
Montana
38,834
32,088
82.6
3,609
9.3
2,110
5.4
1,027
2.7
N. Dakota
10, 564
9,736
92.2
394
3.7
229
2.2
205
1.9
S. Dakota
22,198
19,496
87.8
1,489
6.7
947
4.3
266
1.2
Utah
9,385
7,271
77.5
1,090
11.6
646
6.9
378
4.0
Wyomi ng
26,169
19,547
74.7
2,670
10.2
2,779
10.6
1,173
4.5
Totals
130,951
103,797
79.3
13,119
10.0
9,297
7.1
4,738
3.6
ji/ Source:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1980.
Soil, Water,
and Related
Resources



in the United States: Status, Condition, and Trends, 1980 Appraisal
Part 1, Table 22, p. 82 and 83.
b/ Source: ibid., Table 23, p. 84 and 85.
- 11 -

-------
Indiscriminate use of streams by livestock on rangelands in Region VIII
has caused serious deterioration of the riparian habitat in many instances.
Cattle in particular prefer streamside areas for shade, more succulent
vegetation, and drinking water and tend to congregate in these areas. Heavy
streamside grazing results in breakdown of streambanks, cropping and trampling
of shrubs that shade the stream, and disturbance of stream bottoms. The
effects are streambank erosion, increased sedimentation, compaction of soil,
reduced density of vegetation and quality of forage, increased width and
decreased depth of channels, higher water temperatures, and direct deposition
of animal waste. This is especially damaging to aquatic ecosystems.
V. COMPONENTS
1. Problem area identification
While grazing has been recognized as contributing to nonpoint source
pollution in Water Quality Management Plans for all states in Region VIII, the
degree of impact generally has not been determined nor have specific problem
areas been identified in the management plan for each state. All existing
legislation requires state water quality management agencies and federal land
management agencies to identify nonpoint source water pollution problems and
to develop and implement a water quality management plan for each state.
Identification of specific range!and areas causing water quality
degradation is the basic step in the development of remedial measures. These
may be a watershed, portions of a watershed, or stream segments. The
determination of principal cause, including natural conditions, and type or
types of contaminants are important also. Sediment and salt yields and
bacteria levels are most likely to be affected by livestock grazing.
Criteria that can be used include:
impairment of use of receiving waters for specific purposes, e.g.,
municipal water supplies, fisheries.
failure of receiving waters to meet established water quality
standards.
sediment loading that is widely disproportionate to land area of the
drainage.
fragile areas having erodible soils and steep slopes (badlands)
where natural (geologic) erosion is occurring.
All states in Region VIII have water quality standards for dissolved
solids and all except Colorado have standards which limit suspended solids and
sediment or turbidity. Refer to individual state water quality standards for
specific parameters.
- 12 -

-------
Problem areas on federal range lands are identified by federal land
management agencies (SLM and Forest Service) in the course of ongoing resource
inventories and the development of land use plans, which are required by the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Information so developed should be
provided annually to state water qua!ity management agencies who have the lead
in describing the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants and in
making recommendations for control (Sec. 305(b)(1)(E) of the Clean Water
Act). On federal lands as land use plans are developed, the federal agencies
should identify the site, describe the problem and known causes and recommend
a control program, including estimated costs and a time schedule for
implementation.
2. Problem Area Priority Setting
Because funding and human resources are limited, statewide priorities
need to be established for correcting water quality problems on rangelands so
that resources can be used efficiently as they become available. Priority
schedules should become a part of the water quality management program
developed by each state.
Nearly half of the rangeland in Region VIII is under federal
administration (see Table 1), and consultation and coordination between
federal land management agencies and state water qua!ity management agencies
is a necessity in setting priorities and developing a remedial program. As
land use plans are developed and problem areas are identified on federal
rangelands, the BLM and the Forest Service can develop a remedial program
within the framework of their overall program responsibilities and available
funding and suggest priorities for implementation to state water quality
agencies. The state can then meld these into the statewide plan.
Many ranch operations in the Region are dependent on both public and
private rangelands. Therefore, the input and full cooperation of the land
user is essential in a water quality management program for these lands.
The follcwing criteria are suggested for establishing priorities for
rangeland nonpoint problem areas:
a. Severity of the water quality impact and degree of water use
impairment. Consider the extent to which receiving waters violate
state or federal water quality standards, public health is
endangered, or water uses are impaired. Comparative quantification
among sites may be difficult, and relative indices based on
professional judgment may be the best information available. In
some cases, such as salinity, the costs of each added increment of
pollution can be quantified in dollar terms.
- 13 -

-------
b.	Technical effectiveness of available Best Management Practices
(Biff's). Are Bfff's availaole that would significantly correct or
mitigate the identified problem? Are they economically feasible?
c.	Relative cost-effectiveness of Bfff's. Cost-effectiveness is
expressed as cost per increment of improvement in some water quality
parameter where costing analysis are available. In actual practice,
such figures are seldom available and it is necessary to make
relative estimates of cost-effectiveness based on professional
judgement.
d.	Readiness to go. Federal agencies have mandated management
responsibilities on federal rangelands that involve actions not
directly related to water quality control. It is conceivable that
the BLM or the Forest Service could be planning a management action
on an area which in itself or with minimal supplemental funding
could alleviate an otherwise low priority water quality problem.
This could be true on private lands as well. Situations involving
readiness to take action should be given special consideration.
e.	Public and landowner support. The degree of local enthusiasm and
general support is an important consideration. A remedial program
for rangelands often involves both federal and private grazing lands
and in some instances state lands. Because of the dependence of
grazing use on lands in several ownerships, it is highly desirable
that all actions be supported by all parties, but downstream
considerations could be overriding.
3. Best Management Practices (Biff's)
Best Management Practices are those measures which, together or singly,
mitigate the adverse affects of livestock grazing on rangeland vegetation,
maintain or enhance watershed stability, or reduce or eliminate water quality
degradation originating on grazed rangeland. In most situations a number of
alternatives or combinations of alternatives are available for correcting
water quality problems. All would have some effect, direct or incremental, on
water quality. The single most important grazing management objective
relating to water quality control is the maintenance or development of optimum
vegetative ground cover to protect the watershed from excessive runoff and
erosion.
Selection of BMP's is guided by management objectives, water quality
requirements and specific site conditions relating to soils, vegetation,
geology, topography, climate and proximity to receiving water bodies.
Economic considerations may be important also. A discussion of best
management practice for rangeland is treated in more detail in Livestock
Grazing Manqement and Water Qua!it.y Protection (EPA Doc. 910/9-79-67, 1979)
pages 13-19.
- 14 -

-------
On public range lands the required grazing environmental impact statement
will analyze the resource base and consider management alternatives. The
subsequent land use plan will develop the site specific grazing management
program (grazing system or allotment management plan) including selection of
BMP's and an implementation schedule.
Application technology for best management practices for rangelands is
well known and understood by professional range managers and range
conservationists and will not be discussed in great detail here. If needed,
assistance on private lands is available from the Soil Conservation Service
and state extension range management specialists.
BMP's for range!and fall into three general categories: grazing
management, installation of management facilities, and land treatment.
a.	Grazing management. Good animal distribution and control of the
amount, intensity and season of grazing is basic to any grazing
management system. Grazing management includes the use of any one
or any combination of the following practices to fit a given
situation and meet management objectives:
-	Adjustment in numbers of livestock.
-	Adjustment in season of use, frequency or intensity of livestock
use.
-	Improved distribution of livestock use.
-	Deferment of livestock use.
-	Rotation of livestock use.
-	Rest from livestock use.
-	Changing class of livestock, i.e. sheep, cattle, horses.
-	Removal of livestock, temporarily or permanently, where livestock
grazing is or has been detrimental to the site, e.g., steep, fragile
sites where disturbance of the surface produces excessive soil
erosion and sedimentation; critical watersheds used for miaiicipal
and domestic water supply; critical riparian zones; highly saline
sites adjacent to watercourses.
To be successful, a system of grazing management must	be designed for a
specific site and provide for the continuing physiological	needs of the
desired vegetation on that site, giving full consideration	to limitations of
climate, soils and topography.
b.	Installation of management facilities. Supportive facilities for
management of livestock are essential for achieving control and
distribution of livestock on the area to be grazed. These include:
-	water developments
-	fencing
-	corrals
-	stock trails
-	distribution of salt
-	shelters.
- 15 -

-------
c. Land Treatment. Land treatment measures are designed to improve
vegetative cover, induce infiltration, and control or reduce runoff
to acceptable levels. These include:
-	range!and seeding
-	control of undesirable brush
-	prescribed burning
-	fertilization
-	pitting, ripping, chiseling, deep plowing
-	contour furrowing, plowing, trenching
-	waterspreading
-	water and erosion control structures.
Land treatment measures are effective only in combination with good
grazing management and a comprehensive watershed management plan.
4.	Application to federal, state and private lands
The principles of good grazing management and best management practices
apply equally well to rangelands in all ownerships, but management objectives
may differ. Federal lands involve a multiplicity of uses as directed by law,
state lands are generally managed to derive maximim revenues as directed by
state constitutions, and the private land owner is perhaps most interested in
net economic returns. Generally the paramount consideration is sustained
forage yield consistent with watershed stability. Because of intermingled
ownerships of rangelands in Region VIII, the importance of consultation and
coordination in all actions can not be overemphasized.
5.	Management agencies
Generally Conservation Districts, the State Conservation Commission, or
counties have been designated as management agencies for private sector
lands. Conservation Districts are implementation agencies at the local
level. Conservation Districts have the authority, commitment, access to
technical expertise, and knowledge of local conditions to carry out an
effective voluntary erosion control program on private lands.
In accordance with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, the state
governors have designated the BLM and the Forest Service as official water
qua!ity management agencies for lands under their jurisdiction. Interagency
agreements between the states and the federal agencies addressing program
responsibilities have been consumnated in Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and South
Dakota. Litigation has delayed completion of the interagency agreement with
Colorado, and the minor acreage of scattered federal land in North Dakota has
been included in the state water quality management program.
- 16 -

-------
Federal agencies have the staff resources, technical expertise, knowledge
of lands under their administration, and legislative authority to implement a
water quality management program within the framework of their land use
planning. Action programs are in place that include water quality mangement
as part of a larger total resource management program for federal range lands
and commitment is strong to carry out the program. Where indicated, water
qual ity monitori ng has been initiated in the overall watershed management
program. Additional components can be added as funding becomes available.
Furthermore, the Clean Water Act Section 313(a) requires that all actions on
federal lands meet the substantive and procedural water pollution control and
abatement retirements of the state in the same manner and to the same extent
as nongovernmental entities. Consultation and coordination among all agencies
and individuals is vital to a successful water quality management program for
rangelands.
6. Technical and financial assistance
Nonpoint implementation programs in all states in Region VIII are heavily
dependent on limited federal cost-share and technical assistance programs.
These generally relate to cost-share funds from the Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP), Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) and Great Plains Conservation
Program (GPCP). But federal aid to these programs is being reduced or
eliminated. Identified needs far exceed available resources and state funding
sources should be encouraged.
Federal agencies are expected to finance remedial measures to correct
water quality problems originating on federal rangel ands. Generally these
best management practices would be part of an allotment management plan
developed in consultation with the range user following preparation of a
grazing environmental statement and a land use plan. Funding for specific
items is included in the annual budget submitted for the administrative unit.
Section 304(k) of the Clean Water Act authorizes funding to implement
priority water pollution control projects on federal lands consistent with
state water quality management plans. To date no funds have been appropriated
under this authority.
The private land owner is reluctant to finance a practice for his land
that is not economically feasible. If public values are involved, cooperative
programs will be necessary. Technical assistance on private lands is
available through the Soil Conservation Service, and Extension Services can
provide information on grazing management through the Extension Range
Management Specialist in each state.
- 17 -

-------
7. Actions
It is of paramount importance that all actions be coordinated among
federal, state and private entities, because of the highly interdependent
nature of grazing activities in Region VIII on lands of mixed ownership.
a.	State water quality management agencies
Within the framework of the state water quality management plan:
Identify water quality problem areas on rangelands throughout the
state.
Establish control priorities statewide among identified water
quality problem areas.
Establish a list of best management practices suitable for
application on rangelands.
Consult and coordinate with federal land management agencies and
other interested parties on relevant phases of water quality
management programs.
Coordinate water quality monitoring statewide.
Incorporate input from federal land management agencies into the
state water quality management plan.
Develop and update interagency agreements for implementation of
water quality management plans where needed.
Report biennially to EPA on water quality conditions within the
state, including the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of
pollutants, recommendations for control and estimated costs (305(b)
report).
b.	Federal agencies
On federal rangelands:
In the course of land use planning, identify water quality problem
areas stemming from grazing activities.
Set priorities for implementing remedial measures for identified
water quality problem areas.
Select best management practices for correcting water quality
problems and a schedule for application including estimated costs.
- 18 -

-------
Include water quality considerations where appropriate in site
specific management plans, e.g., allotment management plans.
Consult and coordinate on an ongoing basis with state water quality
management agencies and other interested parties on relevant water
quality management planning and implementation activities.
Monitor rasults to meet water quality management objectives and
modify program if water quality objectives are not being achieved.
Provide input to the biennial water quality progress report of the
state water qual ity management agency.
Provide information as it becomes available to the state water
quality management agency for use in the continuing planning process
for water quality management.
Update interagency agreements as needed.
EPA Region VIII
Give direction to the identification of water quality problem areas
on rangelands in each state.
Give direction to the setting of priorities for identified problem
areas in each state.
Assist state water quality management agencies and federal land
management agencies in the development and updating of interagency
agreements for implementation of water quality management plans
where needed.
Assist state water qual ity management agencies in obtaining funding
for implementation of water quality management plans.
Assist state water qual ity management agencies in correcting program
deficiencies and implementing water quality management plans for
water quality problem areas on rangelands.
- 19 -

-------
Processes Flow Chart, State Water Quality
Management Program for Range!ands
- 20 -

-------
VI.. References
Alderfer, R.B. and R.R. Robinson. 1974. Runoff from pastures in relation to
grazing intensity and soil compaction. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 39:948-958.
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.
	. and G. Garcia. 1973. Seventeen-year sediment production from a
semiarid watershed in the Southwest. USDA, Forest Service Research Note,
RM-248. 4p.
All is, J. A. and A.R. Kuhlman. 1962. Runoff and sediment yield studies on
rangeland watersheds. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 17:68-71.
Anderson, R. 1981. Advance of the barren earth and Technology for reversing
desertification. Range!ands 3(2):47-50.
Armour, C.L. 1977. Effects of deteriorated range streams on trout. US Bur.
Land Manage. Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho. 7p.
Branson, F.A., G.F. Gifford, K.G. Renard, and R.F. Hadley. 1981. (Editors)
Rangeland Hydrology, Second Edition. Soc. for Range Manage., Denver, Colo.
352p.
	, R.F. Miller, and I.S. McQueen. 1966. Contour furrowing, pitting
and ripping on range!ands of the western United States. J. Range Manage.
19:182-190.
Buckhouse, J.C. and G.F. Gifford. 1976. Water quality implications of cattle
grazing on a semi-arid watershed in southeastern Utah. J. Range Manage.
29(2):109—113.
Busby, F.E. 1979. Riparian and stream ecosystems, livestock grazing, and
multiple-use management. Pp. 6-12 vn Proceedings of the Forum - Grazing and
Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Denver, Colo. 94p.
	. and G.F. Gifford. 1979. Impact of management on watershed values.
_In Sagebrush Ecosystem Symposium. Utah State Univ. Logan. 251p.
Coltharp, G.B. and L.A. Darling. 1973. Livestock grazing - a nonpoint source
of water pollution in rural areas. Pp. 344-358 _in Rural Environmental
Engineering Symposium, Univ. of Vermont, Burlington.
- 21 -

-------
Cook, C.W. 1971. Effects of season and intensity of use.on desert
vegetation. Utah Agri. Exp. Sta., Utah State University Bulletin 483. 57p.
Cope, O.B. 1979. (Editor) Proceedings of the Forum - Grazing and
Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Denver, Colo. 94p.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1974. Livestock grazing on
the federal lands in the eleven western states. 20p.
Dixon, J.E. et al. 1977. Nonpoint pollution control for wintering range
cattle. Paper No. 77-4049. Amer. Soc. of Agric. Engineers 1977 Annual
Meeting. North Carolina State, Univ., Raleigh.
Dunford, E.G. 1949. Relation of grazing to runoff and erosion on bunch grass
ranges. US Forest Ser. Rock Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Sta. Research Note 7.
2p.
Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1949. Deferred and rotation grazing. The Cattleman,
35(12):21, 60, 111 us.
Frickel, D.G. 1972. Hydrology and effects of conservation structures, Willow
Creek Basin, Valley County, Montana 1954-68. USGS Water Supply Paper 1532-G.
34p.
Fulcher, G.D. 1973. Grazing Systems: A least cost alternative to proper
management of the public lands. J. of Range Manage. 26:385-387.
Gifford, G.F. 1975 a. Impacts of pinyon-juniper manipulation on watershed
values. Pp. 127-140 in Proceedings, Pinyon-Juniper Ecosystems - A Symposium,
Utah State Univ., Logan.
	. 1975. 8eneficial and detrimental effects of range improvement
practices on runoff and erosion. Watershed Management Symposium, Pp.
216-248. ASCE, Logan, Utah.
	. and H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic impact of grazing - a critical
review. 1978 Volume of Water Resources Research.
Hastings, J.R. and R.M. Turner. 1965. The Changing Mile. Univ. of Arizona
Press, Tucson. 317p.
Heady, H.F. 1975. Rangeland Management. McGraw-Hill 8ook Co., New York. 460p.
	. and J. Bartholome. 1977. The Vale rangeland rehabilitation
program: the desert repaired in southeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service
Resource Bulletin PNW-70. 139p.
- 22 -

-------
Herbel, C.H. 1971. A review of research related to development of grazing
systems on native range of the western United States. . Jornada Exp. Range
Report No. 5.
Hormay, A.L. 1970. Principles of rest-rotation grazing and multiple use
management. USDI and USDA (TT-4) (2200). 26p.
	. 1956. How livestock grazing habits and growth requirements of
range plants determine sound grazing management. J. Range Manage. 9(4):
161-164.
Kothman, M.M. 1974. A glossary of terms used in range management. Second
Edition. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colo. 36p.
Leopold, A. 1974. Ecosystem deterioration under multiple use. Pp. 96-98 in
Proceedings Wild Trout Management Symposium, US Fish and Wildlife Ser. and
Trout Unlimited, Denver, Colo. 103p.
Lusby, G.C. 1979. Effects of grazing on runoff and sediment yield from desert
rangeland at Badger Wash in western Colorado, 1953-73. USGS Water Supply
Paper 1532-1. 134p.
Packer, P.E. 1961. The effects of grazing on soil erosion, water quality and
sedimentation. Pp. 1-24 i_n_ Proc., Watershed Management Study Conference,
McCall, Ida. Sept. 11-14.
Sampson, A.R. 1952. Range Management Principles and Practices. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York. 570p., Illus.
Satterlund, D.R. 1975. The water resources in range ecosystems management.
Pp. 19-26 j_n Range Multiple Use Management. Washington State Univ., Oregon
State Univ., Univ. of Idaho.
Shiflet, T.N. and H. Heady. 1971. Specialized grazing systems: their place
in range management.
Smeins, F.E. 1975. Effects of livestock grazing on runoff and erosion. Pp.
267-264 1_n Proc. of Watershed Management Symposium, ASCE Logan, Utah.
Soiseth, R.J. 1975. Runoff and reservoir quality for livestock use in
southeastern Montana. J. of Range Manage. 28(5): 334-335.
Stoddart, L.A., A.D. Smith and T.W. Box. 1975. Range Management. McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York. 532p.
- 23 -

-------
Strickler, G.S. and W.B. Hall. 1980. The Standley Allotment: a history of
range recovery. US Forest Ser. Pacific NW For. and Range Exp. Sta. Research
Paper PNW-278. 35p.
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. 261p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDI, Bureau of Land Management.
1979. Livestock grazing management and water quality protection.
EPA-910/9-79-67. 147p.
USDA, Forest Service. 1980. An assessment of the forest and rangeland
situation in the United States. FS-345. 631p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Soil, water and related resources in
the United States: status, conditions and trends. 1980 Appraisal Part I.
328p.
USDA, USDI. 1965. Range Seeding Equipment Handbook. 150p.
USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1978. The effects of surface disturbance
(livestock) on the salinity of public lands in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. 1977 Status Report. 208p.
USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Control of salinity from point sources
yielding groundwater discharge and from diffuse surface runoff in the Upper
Colorado River 3asin. 1978-79 Status Report. 37p.
USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1975. Range condition report. Prepared for
the Senate Ccmmittee on Appropriations. January. 134p.
U.S. Senate 1936. The western range. 74th Congress, 2nd Session. Document
199. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 620p.
Valentine, J.F. 1980. Range Development and Improvements. Brigham Young
University Press, Provo, Utah. Second ed. 545 p.
Wright, H.A., F.M. Churchill, and W.C. Stevens. 1972. Soil loss, runoff, and
water quality of seeded and unseeded steep watersheds following prescribed
burning. J. of Range Manage. 35(3): 382-386.
- 24 -

-------