Royce LarsenUC Cooperative Extension

The Cattle, The Stream & The Fish

Ranching and Riparian Corridors WorkshopApril 10, 2007

There is a massive environmental debt to repay in California, which is reflected in the degraded nature of so many of our streams, lakes, and estuaries. We can fix things now, or we can wait until conditions get worse and we experience even more strongly the loss of benefits provided by healthy ecosystems. (Peter B. Moyle)

Watersheds

USDA NRCS

Degradation can come from many sources.

Some impacts cattle can cause are:

•Bank Erosion•Down Cutting•Wider/Shallower Streams•Higher Water Temperature•Decreased Fish/Aquatic Value

Cattle Are Just One Possible Source

Kenneth W. Tate, Edward R. Atwill, David F. Lile, Don L. Kenneth W. Tate, Edward R. Atwill, David F. Lile, Don L. Lancaster, Neil McDougald, Sheila Barry, Roger S. Ingram, Lancaster, Neil McDougald, Sheila Barry, Roger S. Ingram, Holly A. George, Wayne J. Jensen, William E. Frost, Royce Holly A. George, Wayne J. Jensen, William E. Frost, Royce Larsen, Ralph Phillips, Mark Horny, John Harper, Larsen, Ralph Phillips, Mark Horny, John Harper, Gary G. Markegard, Stephanie Larson, Rick Delmas, James Gary G. Markegard, Stephanie Larson, Rick Delmas, James Farley, Larry ForeroFarley, Larry Forero

UCCE Rangeland Watershed GroupUCCE Rangeland Watershed Group

Riparian Grazing StrategiesRiparian Grazing Strategies

Theresa A. BecchettiTheresa A. Becchetti

Grazing and Riparian Health?Grazing and Riparian Health?

Review of literature base (Review of literature base (Allen-Diaz et al. 1999, Allen-Diaz et al. 1999, Belsky et al. 1999, Larsen et al. 1998, Rinne 1999Belsky et al. 1999, Larsen et al. 1998, Rinne 1999).).

No stocking rates, physical characteristics, or No stocking rates, physical characteristics, or grazing system defined.grazing system defined.

Experiments compare “grazing” to “no grazing”.Experiments compare “grazing” to “no grazing”.

Sparse information on direct links of “grazing” Sparse information on direct links of “grazing” and fisheries.and fisheries.

BackgroundBackground

Lacking in literature:Lacking in literature:Toolbox of tested, site-specific grazing Toolbox of tested, site-specific grazing

recommendations.recommendations.

Needs:Needs:Data driven, management scale project to identify Data driven, management scale project to identify

feasible grazing management that enhances feasible grazing management that enhances riparian resources.riparian resources.

BackgroundBackground

Objectives:Objectives: Cross-sectional survey of California’s rangeland Cross-sectional survey of California’s rangeland

riparian areas.riparian areas. Identify grazing management and site Identify grazing management and site

characteristics associated with high and low characteristics associated with high and low “riparian health”.“riparian health”.

Synthesize data for site specific recommendations.Synthesize data for site specific recommendations. Publish and extend information.Publish and extend information. Utilize sites to develop set of case studies.Utilize sites to develop set of case studies.

Riparian Grazing Project

Study SitesStudy Sites

Survey ToolsSurvey Tools

Management Survey

NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Site:_______________________________Channel condition

tural channel; nouctures, dikes. Nodence of down-cuttingexcessive lateralting.

Evidence of past channel alteration,but with significant recovery ofchannel and banks. Any dikes orlevies are set back to provide accessto an adequate flood plain.

Altered channel; <50% of the reachwith riprap and/ or channelization.Excess aggradation; braided channel.Dikes or levees restrict flood plainwidth.

Channel is actively downcuttingor widening. >50% of the reachwith riprap or channel-ization.Dikes or levees prevent access tothe flood plain.

10 7 3 1Hydrologic alteration

ooding every 1.5 to 2 years. dams, no waterhdrawals, no dikes or other

uctures limiting the stream'scess to the flood plain.annel is not incised.

Flooding occurs only onceevery 3 to 5 years; limitedchannel incision.OrWithdrawals, althoughpresent, do not affectavailable habitat for biota.

Flooding occurs only onceevery 6 to 10 years; channeldeeply incised.OrWithdrawals significantlyaffect available low flowhabitat for biota

No flooding; channel deeply incised orstructures prevent access to flood plain ordam operations prevent flood flows.orWithdrawals have caused severe loss of lowflow habitat.OrFlooding occurs on a 1-year rain event orless.

10 7 3 1Riparian zone

tural vegetationends at least twoive channeldths on each side.

Natural vegetation extendsone active channel widthon each side.OrIf less than one width,covers entire flood plain.

Naturalvegetationextends half ofthe activechannel widthon each side.

Natural vegetation extendsa third of the active channelwidth on each side.OrFiltering functionmoderately compromised.

Natural vegetation less than a third of theactive channel width on each side.orLack of regeneration.orFiltering function severely compromised.

10 8 5 3 1Bank stability

nks are stable; banks are low elevation of active floodin); 33% or more of erodingface area of banks in outside

nds is protected by roots thatend to the

se-flow elevation.

Moderately stable; banks arelow (at elevation of activeflood plain); less than 33% oferoding surface area of banksin outside bends is protectedby roots that extend to thebaseflow elevation.

Moderately unstable; banks may below, but typically are high (floodingoccurs 1 year out of 5 or lessfrequently); outside bends areactivelyeroding (overhanging vegetation attop of bank, some mature treesfalling into steam annually, someslope failures apparent).

Unstable; banks may be low, buttypically are high; some straightreaches and inside edges of bendsare actively eroding as well asoutside bends (overhangingvegetation at top of bare bank,numerousmature trees falling into streamannually, numerous slope failuresapparent).

10 7 3 1

Water appearancery clear, or clear but-colored; objects visibledepth 3 to 6 ft (less ifghtly colored); no oileen on surface; noticeable film onbmerged objects orks.

Occasionally cloudy,especially after storm event,but clears rapidly; objectsvisible at depth 1.5 to 3 ft;may have slightly greencolor; no oil sheen on watersurface.

Considerable cloudiness most of thetime; objects visible to depth 0.5 to1.5 ft; slow sections may appear pea-green; bottom rocks or submergedobjects covered with heavy green orolive-green film.orModerate odor of ammonia or rotteneggs.

Very turbid or muddy appearance most ofthe time; objects visible to depth < 0.5 ft;slow moving water may be bright-green;other obvious water pollutants; floatingalgal mats, surface scum, sheen or heavycoat of foam on surface.orStrong odor of chemicals, oil, sewage, otherpollutants.

10 7 3 1

Nutrient enrichmentear water along entire reach; diverseuatic plant community includes lowantities of many species ofcrophytes; little algal growth present.

Fairly clear or slightlygreenish water alongentire reach; moderatealgal growth on streamsubstrates.

Greenish water along entire reach;overabundance of lush greenmacrophytes; abundant algal growth,especially during warmer months.

Pea green, gray, or brown wateralong entire reach; dense stands ofmacrophytes clog stream;severe algal blooms create thickalgal mats in stream.

10 7 3 1Barriers to fish movement

barriers Seasonal water withdrawalsinhibit movement within thereach

Drop structures, culverts, dams,or diversions (< 1 foot drop)within the reach

Drop structures, culverts, dams,or diversions (> 1 foot drop)within 3 miles of the reach

Drop structures, culverts,dams, or diversions (> 1foot drop) within the reach

10 8 5 3 1

Habitat Assessments Hydrologic Condition

Site CharacterizationEPA NRCS BLM

Habitat FeaturesHabitat Features

LWD

Clean Riffles

UndercutBanks

Pools

Included measurement of LWD, riffles, pools, etc.

Hydrologic FunctionHydrologic Function

WidthDepth

Bank Stability

HeadcutsEntrenchment

Includes measurement of entrenchment, width/depth ratio, bank stability, etc.

Physical CharacteristicsPhysical Characteristics

Included measurement of width, depth, etc.

Management Practices:Management Practices:Growing Season Grazing (Early, Late, or Entire Season, Dormant Season)

Stock Density (Number of head per acre)

Animal Unit per Acre per Year (No. of animals/acre/year)Rest Provided (Yes/No)

Rest Between Grazing (Days)

Frequency (Number of times per year pasture is grazed)

Herding (Man Days per Year)

Off-Site Attractant Provided (Yes/No)

Off-Site Attractant Time (Man Days per Year)

Fencing (Yes/No)

Fencing Time (Man Days per Year)

AnalysisAnalysis

Examine current management practices at various levels of detail using multivariate regression analyses

Level 1 Level 1 all treatmentsall treatments

n=128n=128

Level 2, summerLevel 2, summern=75n=75

Level 2, winterLevel 2, wintern=55n=55

Level 3, s ABLevel 3, s ABn=8n=8

Level 3, s CELevel 3, s CEn=67n=67

Level 3, w ABLevel 3, w ABn=35n=35

Level 3, w CELevel 3, w CEn=20n=20

A and B StreamsA and B StreamsSteep gradientLimited FloodplainBedrock and Boulder

C and E StreamsC and E StreamsLow Gradient Large FloodplainLots of Meanders

Results:Results:

Level 1- Both seasons and all streams.

Model = 15.73 – 0.248(Stock Density) – 0.332(Frequency) + 0.003(Rest Between Grazing) +0.024(Herding) + 0.046(Off-Site Attractant Time) + 0.111(Frequency*Stock Density)

n=128, R2 = 0.20

Results:Results:

Level 2, summer growing season

Model = 14.04 + 0.006(Rest Between Grazing) + 0.043(Herding) + 0.066(Off-Site Attractant Time)

n=75, R2 = 0.19

Results:Results:

Level 2, winter growing season

Model = 16.63 – 0.353(Stock Density)

n=55, R2 = 0.10

Results:Results:

Level 3, summer growing season CE-stream types

Model = 13.85 + 0.007(Rest Between Grazing) + 0.043(Herding) + 0.088(Off-Site Attractant Time)

n=67, R2 = 0.24

Results:Results:

Level 3, winter growing season CE stream types

Model = 15.70 – 0.030(Stock Density)n=20, R2 = 0.18

ConclusionsConclusions

Underlying factors interact with management regimes.Underlying factors interact with management regimes.

However- we are identifying feasible grazing However- we are identifying feasible grazing management practicesmanagement practices

Treatments

NG = No GrazingDSM = Dry Season ModerateDSC = Dry Season ConcentratedWSM = Wet Season ModerateWSC = Wet Season Concentrated

Treatment targetConcentrated = RDM < 600 lb/acModerate = RDM ~ 1000 lb/ac

SJER

Intermittent, Annual Grassland Dominated Streams

Conclusions

Depth most important parameter for statistical analysis.

Max. depth increased in reaches protected from grazing.

Livestock impacts were small and hard to detect and difficult to separate from other effects.

Each stream reach responded differently to grazing treatments.

? Riparian Health?

Art? – Science? – Both?

Domestic Livestock vs Other Ungulates?Perceptions

Example: Buffalo in Yellowstone Park.

Bank damageOver grazingEtc.

They are native and in the park so it is accepted?

Is it the cow? Or the stream?Or the management?

Are domestic animals accepted?

The real question should be:

Bear Creek, Oregon Aug 1977Bear Creek, Oregon Aug 1977

Bear Creek May 1977Bear Creek May 1977

Season long grazed 100+ years, Currently 25 cows/calves Jun, Jul, AugWillows sprayed in 50’s100+ year event 1964

2 years rest, changed grazing to Feb, Mar, Apr.

Baltic rush

Bear Creek May 1983Bear Creek May 19836 years6 years

Increase in rushes, sedges beginning. Wet and dry year cycles needed to build banks, etc.

Bear Creek Aug 1986Bear Creek Aug 19869 years9 years

Flood plain continued to develop. Nebraska sedge, small-fruit bullrush, beaked sedge, spike rush, brook grass, three square bulrush, reed canarygrass

Bear Creek Oct 1988Bear Creek Oct 198811 years11 years

Vegetation and banks continued to improve, increased water storage, improved energy dissipation capabilities

Bear Creek Feb 1996Bear Creek Feb 199618.5 years18.5 years

75 year event.

Bear Creek Sept 1997Bear Creek Sept 199720 years20 years

Small storm events bring sediment, help shape the channel floodplain.

Bear Creek Dec. 2000Bear Creek Dec. 200022.5 years22.5 years

Banks and vegetation continued to improve, narrower and deeper. Aquatic thermal environment improved, both winter and summer. It was 15 degrees F, no ice when picture taken. Summer water temp was 20-25 degrees cooler.

Bear Creek May 2003Bear Creek May 200326 years26 years

Drought year, but stream still flowing.

1977

Bear Creek : Change In Channel Profile (1977 – 2001)Bear Creek : Change In Channel Profile (1977 – 2001)

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

105

115

125

135

145

100

155

175

185

195

200

205

210

215

220

225

165

230

235

240

198319831977197720012001

1983

2001

Bear Creek(3.5 Miles)

Data from C. Rasmussen (1996) and W. Elmore

1978 1994

Wetted Area 7.8 acres 15.9 acres

Bank Erosion 12,448 feet 799 feet

Water Storage 500,000 gal/mi 1.5 mil gal/mi

Production 200 lbs/acre 2000 lbs/acre

Grazing increased from 75 AUM’s to 250 AUM’s

June , 1804 Lewis & Clark ExpeditionConfluence of the Missouri And Kansas Rivers.

June 17, Clark wrote “The party is much Aflicted with boils and several have the decissentary which I conrtribute to the water which is muddy… The surface was full of scum, mud and debris; if the men dipped deep they would get cleaner water.

June 24, Lewis weighed the water of the two rivers and found the Missouri’s to be heavier, meaning it carried more mud.

Stephen E. Ambrose; Undaunted Courage

Lewis & Clark Expedition1804 – 1805 Nebraska - Montana

The Indians used fire to burn the old dry grass to encourage the new grass to feed their horses and entice the buffalo. Immense herds of buffalo, elk, deer, and antelope were noted many times.

Stephen E. Ambrose; Undaunted Courage