Front cover photo, and all large-scale inside photos by: NRCS.
 

Back cover photo modified from a photo by: Bob Welling, Ridley Block Operations, Vaughn, MT.
 

Production services provided by:
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

National Science and Technology Center
 

Publishing Services (ST-135)
 

P.O. Box 25047
 

Denver, CO 80225-0047
 

Copies available from:
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

National Business Center
 

Printed Materials Distribution Service (BC-652)
 

P.O. Box 25047
 

Denver, Colorado 80225-0047
 

Fax: 303-236-0845
 

Email: BLM_NCS_PMDS@blm.gov
 

BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737
 
RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT
 

Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian-Wetland Areas
 

By: 

Sandra Wyman 

Rangeland Management Specialist
 

National Riparian Service Team
 

Prineville, Oregon 

Dr. Derek W. Bailey 

Associate Professor 

New Mexico State University 

Las Cruces, New Mexico 

Dr. Mike Borman 

Extension Rangeland Resources Specialist 

Rangeland Ecology and Management 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, Oregon 

Steve Cote 

District Conservationist 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Arco, Idaho 

Jimmy Eisner 

Fisheries Biologist 

Bureau of Land Management 

Prineville, Oregon 

Wayne Elmore 

Riparian Ecologist 

Bureau of Land Management (retired) 

Prineville, Oregon 

Bob Leinard 

Riparian Ecologist/Rangeland Management Specialist 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (retired) 

Whitehall, Montana 

Steve Leonard 

Riparian Ecologist/Grazing Management Specialist 

Bureau of Land Management (retired) 

Midvale, Idaho 

Floyd Reed 

Rangeland Management Specialist 

Forest Service (retired) 

Delta, Colorado 

Dr. Sherman Swanson 

Range Extension State Specialist 

University of Nevada, Reno 

Reno, Nevada 

Dr. Laura Van Riper 

Social Scientist 

National Riparian Service Team 

Prineville, Oregon 

Tim Westfall 

Rangeland Management Specialist 

Consultant 

Lemhi, Idaho 

Ron Wiley 

Team Leader 

National Riparian Service Team 

Prineville, Oregon 

Dr. Alma Winward 

Ecologist 

Forest Service (retired) 

Ogden, Utah 

Technical Reference 1737-20 

2006 


 
Suggested citations: 

Wyman, S., D. Bailey, M. Borman, S. Cote, J. Eisner, W. Elmore, B. Leinard, S. Leonard, F. Reed, S. Swanson, 

L. Van Riper, T. Westfall, R. Wiley, and A. Winward. 2006. Riparian area management: Grazing management 

processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, CO. 105 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006. Riparian area management: Grazing management processes and 


strategies for riparian-wetland areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. BLM/ST/ST-06/002+1737. Bureau of 


Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. 105 pp.
 


 
DEDICATION
 

This publication is dedicated to the livestock operators Their commitment to sustainable resource management 

and land managers who work to solve private and will help maintain rural lifestyles, open space, and 

public land resource issues both now and in the future. properly functioning watersheds. 


 

 

 

 

PREFACE
 

Grazing management in riparian-wetland areas has been 

a major issue facing rangeland managers for more than 

three decades. In the late 1960s, growing concern about 

the environment prompted landowners, land managers, land users, and a highly interested public to take a 

critical look at land management practices, with an eye 

toward reducing adverse environmental consequences 

resulting from use of the land. That critical look 

identified management of livestock grazing in riparian-wetland areas as a significant issue that has assumed 

permanence on both private and public grazing lands. 

To help address this issue, Kinch (1989) developed 

Technical Reference (TR) 1737-4, Grazing Management 

in Riparian Areas. Throughout the 1990s, management 

actions were implemented and monitored in riparianwetland areas. The resilience and quick response of 

riparian-wetland areas to these actions provided new 

information that was subsequently incorporated into 

TR 1737-14, Grazing Management for RiparianWetland Areas (Leonard et al. 1997). The implementation 

of grazing management strategies for riparian-wetland 

areas and the evaluation of their successes and failures 

continue to provide valuable information, emphasizing 

the need to periodically update this grazing 

management reference. 

Accordingly, this technical reference provides the most 

current information to further assist livestock operators 

and land managers in developing successful riparianwetland grazing management strategies across a wide 

array of land types. It is also the core document for the 

Grazing Management for Riparian-Wetlands training 

course. The training course is periodically conducted by 

an interagency, interdisciplinary team for a broad audience that includes ranchers; local, county, State, and 

Federal agencies; and the interested public. 

Because of the complexity of riparian-wetland areas and 

issues, this technical reference does not set forth a specific formula for identifying the type of grazing strategy 

best suited for an area. Rather, it provides information 

to help design appropriate grazing strategies so that soil 

and vegetation aspects, water issues, and wildlife and 

livestock needs are addressed in a collaborative manner. 

Basic topics covered in this technical reference include 

riparian-wetland area attributes and processes, resource 

assessments and inventories of riparian-wetland areas, 

development of good resource management objectives, 

management strategy factors, grazing treatments, and 

collaborative monitoring. Examples of tools, techniques, 

and treatments are provided, but they do not represent 

all of the “tools in the toolbox” that are available to 

resource managers. Although the term riparian is used 

alone throughout this document, riparian-wetland area 

is implied. While examples in this document feature 

running water (lotic) riparian-wetland areas for the most 

part, these principles are applicable to standing water 

(lentic) areas as well. This document is intended to provide the background and information necessary to allow 

managers to develop practices that will help protect 

riparian area resources while maintaining the viability 

and economic soundness of the grazing enterprise. 

Management of the associated uplands can directly 

affect conditions in the riparian area. Consequently, it 

is important to consider the entire watershed and its 

resources when developing a grazing management 

strategy. A successful grazing management strategy 

meets the needs of the operator, livestock, wildlife, and 

upland and riparian resources. Continued success is 

achieved by monitoring how well the strategy meets 

these needs and making timely adjustments as necessary. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 

The authors would like to thank the following people Dr. Tamzen Stringham, Assistant Professor, Rangeland 

for reviewing and providing input into the development Ecology and Management, Oregon State University, 

of this document: Corvallis, OR 

Don Prichard, Fisheries Biologist, BLM, Denver, CO Chance Gowan, Forest Aquatic Biologist, Malheur 

National Forest, John Day, OR 

Robert Goo, Rangeland Management Specialist, EPA, 

Washington, DC Dr. Dave Merritt, Streamside Vegetation Spec., Natl. 

Stream Systems Tech. Center, USFS, Fort Collins, CO 

Alan Bahn, Rangeland Management Specialist, 

NRCS, Baker City, OR Dick Mayberry, Rangeland Management Specialist, 

BLM, Washington, DC 

Cici Brooks, Rangeland Management Specialist, 

NRCS, John Day, OR Dick Lindenmuth, Natural Resource Specialist, 

USFS, Washington, DC 

Mary Kay and Tom Milesnick, Milesnick Ranch, 

Belgrade, MT Robert Bolton, Senior Rangeland Management 

Specialist, BLM, Washington, DC 

Todd Swickard, Five Dot Land and Cattle Company, 

Standish, CA Kenneth Visser, Rangeland Management Specialist, 

BLM, Reno, NV 

Dale Pizel, Rio Oxbow Ranch, Creede, CO 

Travis Haby, Rangeland Management Specialist, 

Joel Bousman, Chairman, Wyoming Stock Growers BLM, Denver, CO 

Board, Boulder,WY 

Karl Stein, Fisheries Biologist, BLM, Redding, CA 

Ray Banister, Banister Ranch, Wibaux, MT 

Dick Holthausen, National Wildlife Ecologist, USFS, 

Carol Evans, Fisheries Biologist, BLM, Elko, NV Flagstaff, AZ 

Ceci Dale-Cesmat, Rangeland Management Specialist, Dr. Warren Clary, Ecologist, USFS (retired), 

NRCS, Susanville, CA Meridian, ID 

Pat Shaver, Rangeland Management Specialist, West Matthew Varner, District Fishery Biologist, BLM, 

Natl. Tech. Support Center, NRCS, Portland, OR Winnemucca, NV 

Leonard Jolley, Rangeland and Pastureland Ecologist, Eric Peterson, Extension Specialist, Pinedale, WY 

Resource Inventory and Assessment Division, 

NRCS, Beltsville, MD Robert E. Lee, Lee Ranch, Judith Gap, MT 

Bryce Bohn, Hydrologist, USFS, Dillon, MT Dr. Bob Ehrhart, Assoc. Prof. of Rangeland Resources, 

Central Oregon Community College, Bend, OR 

Mark Hilliard, Wildlife Biologist, BLM, Boise, ID 

Dr. John Buckhouse, Professor, Rangeland Ecology 

Rick Danvir, Wildlife Biologist, Deseret Land and and Management, Oregon State University, 

Livestock, Woodruff, UT Corvallis, OR 


 
 

 

Dr. Paul Meiman, Rangeland Extension Specialist, Stephanie Gripne, Research Fellow, Boone and 

University of Wyoming, Lander, WY 

Marcus Miller, Wildlife Biologist, NRCS, 

Albuquerque, NM 

Dr. L. Roy Roath, Associate Professor and Extension 

Range Specialist, Department of Forest, Rangeland, 

and Watershed Stewardship, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, CO 

Dick Loper, Consultant, Wyoming Stock Growers 

Board, Lander, WY 

George Peacock, Rangeland Management Specialist, 

NRCS, Fort Worth, TX 

Dr. Kelly Crane, Frontier Natural Resource Consulting, Prineville, OR 

Van Elsbernd, Rangeland Management Specialist, 

USFS, Fort Collins, CO 

Bob Welling, Research Support Manager, Ridley 

Block Operations, Vaughn, MT 

John Christensen, Riparian Program Lead, BLM, 

Washington, DC 

Janice Staats, Hydrologist, National Riparian Service 

Team, Prineville, OR 

Susan Holtzman, Team Coordinator, National Riparian 

Service Team, Portland, OR 

Carol Connolly, Public Affairs Specialist, National 

Riparian Service Team, Prineville, OR 

Brian Pillsbury, Grazing Management Specialist, 

NRCS, Baraboo, WI 

Crockett Cons. Prog., University of Montana, 

Lander, WY 

Pete Husby, State Biologist, NRCS, Bozeman, MT 

Ervin Cowley, Rangeland Management Specialist, 

BLM, Boise, ID 

Holly George, County Director and Livestock/Natural Resources Advisor, University of California 

Cooperative Extension, Quincy, CA 

Dennis Thompson, National Grazinglands Ecologist, 

NRCS, Washington, DC 

Wendell Gilgert, Wildlife Biologist, West National 

Technology Support Center, NRCS, Portland, OR 

Gary McCuin, Program Coordinator, Nevada 


Department of Agriculture, Carson City, NV
 

Mike Lunn, Conflict Management Facilitator, Solutions for Sustainability, Prineville, OR 

Dr. Jeff Mosley, Montana Range Extension Specialist, 

Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 

Rick Swanson, Wildlife, Fisheries, Watershed National 

Partnership Coordinator, USFS, Washington, DC 

Dr. Larry Bryant, Assistant Director, Rangelands 


Management, USFS, Washington, DC
 

We would also like to thank past contributor 

Gene Kinch, BLM. 

In addition, thanks to Lisa Clark, Lynn Starr, and 

Linda Hill for making the document readable, to Janine 

Koselak for layout and design, and to Sherri Hendren 

for helping to get it printed. 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
 

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
 

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
 

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

II. Grazing and Riparian-Wetland Area Attributes and Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

A. Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

B. Channel Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

C. Upland Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

III. Grazing Management Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

A. Assess Resource Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

1. Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

2. Ecological Site Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
 

3. Proper Functioning Condition Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

B. Identify Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

C. Develop Management Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

1. Objectives Based on Riparian Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 

2. Elements of an Objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 

D. Develop and Implement Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

1. Management Strategy Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

2. Management Tools and Techniques Common to All Grazing Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

3. Grazing Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
 

E. Monitor Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 

1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 

2. Implementation Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
 

3. Mid- and Long-Term Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
 

4. Photo Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
 

5. Cooperative Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
 

F. Evaluate Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
 

IV. Cardinal Rules for Planning and Managing Grazing in Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
 

Appendix A: Reference Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
 

Appendix B: Collaborative Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
 

Appendix C: Ecological State and Transition Model Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
 

Appendix D: Proper Functioning Condition of Riparian-Wetland Areas Assessment Checklist (Lotic) . . . . . . . 85
 

Appendix E: Examples of Good Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
 

Appendix F: Grazing Response Index (GRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 

Appendix G: Low-Stress Stockmanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
 

Literature Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
 

x

 

 

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Marshes, wet meadows, shallow swamps, estuaries, and 

land adjacent to rivers, streams, and lakes are typical 

riparian areas. These areas can range in extent from a 

few square feet, such as around small springs, to tens 

of thousands of acres or more, such as in large wetland 

complexes. Riparian areas make up a relatively small, 

but productive and resilient portion of the landscape, 

exhibiting vegetative or physical attributes reflective 

of the influence of water. They are important for the 

ecosystem services they provide, such as floodplain and 

ground-water storage, water transport, improved water 

quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. Riparian areas are 

also economically important, particularly to the livestock industry, because of the water, forage, and cover 

they provide for livestock. No other landscape feature 

connects ecosystems and people as effectively as streams 

and riparian areas. For this reason, all land managers, 

both public and private, must work together to develop 

management strategies that reflect this connectivity. 

Most livestock grazing pastures or allotments include 

some riparian areas, and managing livestock in those 

areas is one of the most contentious issues facing rangeland managers. This issue is complex because livestock 

operators and land managers must resolve conflicting 

economic and environmental issues, as well as other 

issues. For example: 

• Most riparian acreage is privately controlled or 


intermingled with other ownerships.
 

• Riparian areas are often the primary, and sometimes 

the only, watering places for livestock grazing on 

pastures and rangeland. 

• Public use and fragmentation of riparian areas are 

increasing. 

• Other resources and uses, such as wildlife, fisheries, 

and recreation, are concentrated in and dependent 

on these areas. 

• Grazing by livestock and wildlife can affect a 

number of resources and uses, both onsite and offsite. 

• The value of properly functioning riparian systems 

is not widely understood. 

• Traditional management strategies, practices, and 

thinking are often inadequate and difficult to 

change (Leonard et al. 1997). 

“Land managers currently 

face over a century of riparian 

These complexities often 

make the participation and manipulation and often

cooperation of landowners, incompatible management recreationists, other actions. We must remember watershed users, agencies, 

and resource specialists from that successful riparian various disciplines critical management and restoration to the success of riparian 

area management. require patience and 

persistence.” Successful livestock riparian 

grazing strategies are Wayne Elmore, developed by considering 

Retired BLM Riparian Ecologist site-specific resource 

conditions, soil and 

vegetation capabilities, water quality requirements, 

livestock and wildlife needs, and human perspectives. 

While no single grazing system will maintain improved 

riparian areas or consistently help recover degraded areas, 

combinations of strategies can be used to customize 

an approach for each site (Leonard et al. 1997, Lucas et 

al. 2004). In fact, Clary and Webster (1989) thought 

that the grazing system selected may not be that important as long as there is direct control of livestock 

distribution and grazing intensity. Ehrhart and Hansen 

(1998) reported that in studies in Montana, riparian 

area conditions improved if the operator or manager 

was seriously committed and constantly involved. With 

this in mind, managers must work together to find 

grazing strategies and practices that make control of 

livestock distribution and grazing intensity easier and 

more effective or at least achievable (Leonard et al. 1997). 

Any attempt to improve grazing management generally 

follows these basic principles: 

• Avoid grazing the same place at the same time year 


after year.
 

• Provide for plant development prior to or plant 


recovery following the grazing period.
 

• Defoliate the primary forage plants only moderately. 

• Provide for livestock needs throughout the year. 

• Manage for maintenance or improvement of 


riparian area physical functionality.
 


 
 

• Assess riparian area condition at a frequency • Soils 

adequate to enable, if necessary, prompt corrective 

management action to protect the health of the 

riparian area. 

The case studies throughout this technical reference 

illustrate successful livestock grazing strategies and the 

consequent maintenance or recovery of riparian area 

function. These are just a few examples of riparian 

area improvement through livestock grazing that have 

occurred in the past 20-30 years on private and public 

land throughout the West. The compatibility of grazing in riparian areas depends on the extent to which 

the selected grazing management strategy considers 

and adapts to certain basic ecological and economic 

relationships. Prior to developing grazing management 

strategies for riparian areas, managers should have some 

understanding of grazing effects on the following: 

• Functions of riparian ecosystems 

• Growth and reproduction of woody and herbaceous 

plants on the site 

• Dependency of other animals (mammals, fish, 


birds, and amphibians) on riparian areas
 

• Hydrologic and geomorphic conditions and 


processes
 

• Water quality and quantity 

• Recovery rates 

• Upland conditions 

• Other uses and demands for the site (e.g., recreation, 

domestic water) 

An ecosystem perspective is critical to successful 

riparian area management. Leonard et al. (1997) stated 

that the structure and processes of riparian areas, more 

than those of any other ecosystem, are influenced by 

their connectivity to adjacent upland ecosystems. An 

ecosystem or watershed perspective provides a comprehensive basis for evaluating current grazing practices 

and other land uses, identifying riparian management 

objectives, and developing future management alternatives. Analyzing trends from an adaptive management 

perspective will help determine if goals and objectives 

are being met and what changes may be needed to move 

toward the desired outcome. 

The information presented in this document will 

further enhance the ability of livestock managers to 

develop and implement successful riparian area grazing 

strategies. More information is available from other 

sources such as the Web sites listed in Appendix A. 


 
 

 

II. GRAZING AND 

RIPARIAN-WETLAND AREA 

ATTRIBUTES AND PROCESSES 

Livestock can indirectly and directly affect stream 

condition through soil compaction, bank shearing, or 

severing of roots of riparian vegetation, which are needed 

for plant survival and bank stability (Behnke and 

Raleigh 1978). Depending on site, soil, and substrate 

characteristics, channel degradation generally takes one 

of two forms: 

• If a restrictive soil (claypan, organic, or bedrock) 

layer is in the channel bed, bank erosion causes 

channel widening and stream depth decreases 

(Figures 1 and 2). Stream temperature may also rise 

and affect aquatic habitat when floodflows can no 

longer access the floodplain. Little water is retained 

in the streambanks for later use by vegetation or 

delayed release back into the stream. 

• Conversely, if the restrictive soil layer is lower, the 

channel can downcut, and the stream gradient and 

energy can increase and move excessive sediment 

downstream (Figure 3). Water cannot access the 

floodplain as well or at all, the water table is lowered, 

and associated meadows dry up and become much 

less productive. Water is not stored for later use by 

vegetation or delayed release back into the stream. 

“There is good agreement that 

riparian plants influence the 

stability of riverbanks, and 

root reinforcement of banks is 

arguably the most important 

way vegetation enhances 

stability.” 

Abernethy and Rutherford (2001) 

Figure 2. Bank erosion caused by a bedrock channel bottom. 

(Photo by J. Staats, NRST.) 

Figure 1. Bank erosion caused by channel widening and stream Figure 3. The restrictive soil layer is lower and the channel has 

depth decreases due to an organic restrictive soil layer in the channel downcut with a new floodplain. The water table is lowered. 

bed (arrow). (Photo by J. Staats, NRST.) (Photo by J. Staats, NRST.) 


 
Livestock grazing that promotes and is compatible with A change in management to a late winter-early spring 

healthy riparian vegetation contributes to sustainable grazing strategy allowed this system to recover and 

levels of aboveground biomass, root growth, and root increased the available animal unit months (AUMs) 

strength in streambanks. Through overbank flows, (Figure 5). 

riparian vegetation is naturally defoliated or buried by 

stream and sediment deposition. Livestock can contribute 

to the maintenance of vegetation by defoliating dormant 

or dead growth in between these overflow events, thus 

increasing green matter and hence root strength and 

growth. If the root strength of riparian vegetation and 

the surface roughness is sufficient, sediments will be 

deposited, not eroded away. Riparian vegetation is critical in maintaining channel stability during high flows 

to allow maintenance of proper stream shape, pattern, 

sinuosity, and gradient. Vegetation is critical in most 

low- (<2 percent) and moderate-gradient (2-4 percent) 

streams. Riparian vegetation can play an important 

role in shading streams to improve or maintain water Figure 5. A change to late winter-early spring grazing allowed the temperatures for fisheries by narrowing channels and Bear Creek system to recover (1996). (Bear Creek photos by Wayne 

intercepting solar radiation. Elmore, retired, BLM.) 

If the harmful impacts from grazing are greater than Excess herbivory or trampling damage can lead to greater 

the recovery response, detrimental changes will occur erosion or deposition, changes in channel geomorphology, 

in the system. Harmful impacts stem from defoliation and less soil moisture (Skovlin 1984, Legge et al. 1981). 

of important plants at times that do not allow recovery, For example, Pearl Creek in Nevada in 1982 lacked the 

for long periods that lead to many repeated defoliations, attributes needed to maintain bank stability under highor at intensities that set back plant growth. Fragile soils flow events. The streambanks lacked woody vegetation 

in some areas may require total livestock exclusion for recruitment and the riparian herbaceous stabilizing 

at least a short period of time (2-5 years). Conversely, if species that would have maintained this system (Figure 6). 

the recovery of the vegetation or site is greater than the In 1983, Pearl Creek had downcut, lowering the water 

disturbance, then recovery should occur. For example, in table and losing frequent floodplain access (Figure 7). 

1977, Bear Creek in central Oregon was nonfunctional By 1988 Pearl Creek had stopped downcutting and had 

after years of continuous hot season grazing (Figure 4). started to widen, creating a new floodplain at a much 

lower elevation (Figure 8). 

Figure 4. Bear Creek in central Oregon was nonfunctional in 1977. 

Figure 6. In 1982, Pearl Creek in Nevada lacked bank stability. 


 
 

Figure 7. Pearl Creek had downcut in 1983. 

Figure 8. Pearl Creek started to widen by 1988. (Pearl Creek photos 

by BLM.) 

Understanding the relationship between vegetation and 

channel stability is critical in the planning and design of 

grazing management strategies that are compatible with 

riparian area maintenance or restoration. Understanding 

that the condition and management of the associated 

uplands can directly affect conditions in the riparian 

area is also important. Change in management of the 

upland should not be to the detriment of the riparian 

area and vice versa. 

A. Vegetation 

Vegetative attributes that can change in response to a 

grazing strategy include: 

• Plant community composition, distribution, and 

production 

• Plant species diversity 

• Rooting characteristics (deep-rooted or shallowrooted) 

• Vegetation contribution to percentage of soil 


organic matter
 

• Amount of bare ground vs. vegetated ground cover 

• Plant community structure including woody plant 

size, diverse age classes, location, and abundance 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National List of 

Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988) rates 

each species on the estimated probabilities (frequency 

of occurrence) of plants in a wetland versus nonwetland 

area across the entire distribution of that species. These 

species have been further grouped into wetland community types and or plant associations or “an assemblage of 

native vegetation in equilibrium with the environment 

on a specific fluvial or water formed surface” 

(Kovalchik 1987). 

Micheli and Kirchner (2002) have shown that riparian 

species, especially obligates, are six to ten times more 

effective in providing bank stability and in resisting the 

forces of water than those plant species adapted to drier 

environments. Riparian plant community types are 

important because they are more suitable for maintaining 

and enhancing the stability of streams. The roots of 

these plants have four basic characteristics that affect 

bank stability. They are: 

• Root biomass 

• Total root length 

• Resistance to compressive force (hoof action) 

• Linear or stretching strength. 

In developing grazing management strategies, both 

woody and herbaceous vegetation communities should 

be considered for maintenance of channel and bank 

stability (Winward 2000, Cornwall 1998). Willow 

root biomass, including root length and depth, corresponds closely to the size of the aboveground stems and 

branches. This biomass relationship fits well with watershed protection needs of mountain and valley settings. 

However, some stream systems neither require, nor have 

the potential for, woody vegetation. Other systems need 

woody vegetation, such as willows and cottonwoods, 

and some require a conifer component as well. 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adequate Root 

Strength 

Coyote Willow 

Anchored Rock 

Baltic Rush 

Bluegrass 

Beaked Sedge 

Willow-Bluegrass 

Willow-Sedge 

Bare Ground 

0 2 4 6 8 

Relative Stability Class 

B. Channel Stability 

Plants differ in their ability to protect streambanks. 

Winward (2000) assigns riparian vegetation communities 

a stability class rating, ranging from 1 (least) to 

10 (greatest), which reflects their ability to buffer the 

forces of moving water (Figure 9). A minimum rating 

of 7-8 is needed for some alluvial stream systems 

(0-2 percent slope), but on higher gradient streams 

(4–6 percent slope) minimum ratings can be as low as 

6 if there is ample embedded large wood or rock. 

Channel Stability Rating (Vegetation) 

Figure 9. Channel stablility rating (adapted from Winward 2000). 

Winward’s rating system and others, such as the multiple 

indicator monitoring methodology (Cowley and Burton 

2005), when integrated with existing classification 

documents, allow managers to assess riparian areas for 

site potential and set reasonable goals and objectives 

for maintenance or restoration, development of alternatives, and design of management strategies. These 

systems are also extremely important in assessing trend 

and ultimate attainment of desired plant communities. 

One frequently overlooked period when grazing 

strategies can be critical for recovering streams is during 

droughts. These periods of low flows and reduced 

stream energies allow vegetation to expand roots and 

aboveground biomass into areas that were previously 

in the active channel. The increase in root biomass 

enhances stream stability and resistance to both lateral 

widening and vertical incision. This is especially important in alluvial systems composed of finer sediments. 

Grazing strategies should allow these processes to occur 

(Walters et al. 1980). 

C. Upland Connection 

Consideration must be given to management effects 

on other types of ecological sites within a pasture or 

watershed, including upland areas, when planning 

livestock grazing in riparian areas. There are many 

factors that need to be evaluated, including landscape 

and animal behavioral interactions. For example, 

cattle tend to use primarily riparian areas during the 

hot season on steep landscapes. If this condition is 

not adequately addressed during the planning stages, 

the result may cause significant degradation to the 

riparian area. 

In many parts of the West, a reduction in fire 

frequency and intensity, primarily in pinyon and 

juniper woodlands, has allowed woody plants to 

encroach into grasslands. These additional shrubs 

and trees have caused a variety of effects. A shift 

from plant communities dominated by grasses and 

10 forbs to those dominated by woody plants can result 

in substantial changes to the hydrology of an area. 

For example, a switch from herbaceous to woodydominated vegetation has the potential to alter runoff 

patterns, infiltration, and ground-water recharge or discharge. These changes can, in turn, alter the flow regime 

of area streams. In addition to altering the hydrology, 

woody plant encroachment may also affect livestock use 

patterns. Thick stands of woody plants may limit livestock access to portions of a pasture and consequently 

put more pressure on other more accessible areas of the 

pasture (Bartos and Campbell 1998). Prescribed fire is a 

tool that can be used to address such concerns. Wildfire 

effects can promote riparian health and restoration as 

well as create many riparian problems. Accumulated fuels 

can increase fire intensity and watershed effects leading 

to debris flows and flooding. Flood damage is likely to 

be more severe where riparian vegetation has been 

consumed in hot fires fueled by accumulated wood. 


 
 

 

 

III. GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLANNING
 

The development of a successful grazing management 

prescription requires consideration of riparian area 

functional attributes, ecological processes, and an 

understanding of grazing effects. This understanding is 

exercised during the basic planning process. Collaboration in the planning process is extremely helpful in 

designing successful grazing management strategies 

when two or more individuals or parties are involved 

(see Appendix B). There are numerous examples across 

the West of collaborative processes that have involved 

local communities in achieving resource goals. Coordinated resource management (CRM) is one such process 

that has brought diverse groups of people together to 

resolve resource management issues (Cleary and 

Phillippi 1993). People are generally more dedicated to 

plan implementation and adaptive management in an 

environment of collaboration. 

In situations involving Federal land or dollars, National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other legal 

requirements need to be met. The NEPA effects analysis 

should be broad enough to provide for effective adaptive 

management. Local, State, and Federal requirements, such 

as the Clean Water Act [303(d)/Total Maximum Daily 

Loads], Federal Advisory Committee Act, Endangered 

Species Act, and State best management practice 

requirements, also need to be followed, as applicable. 

The basic components of a grazing management 

planning process are illustrated in Figure 10. 

Because streamside vegetation is one of the primary 

ecological attributes affected by grazing, an inventory or 

assessment of current vegetation condition in relation 

to the potential condition is necessary to identify 

limitations or opportunities. Additional issues may 

be identified through social processes or legal requirements. Goals and objectives are developed to address 

issues associated with grazing management. These may 

include individual objectives of livestock operators and 

land managers as well as resource objectives and legal 

obligations required by the Endangered Species Act, 

Clean Water Act, and others. 

Following the development of goals and objectives, a 

grazing management strategy with associated tools or 

improvements is developed and implemented to address 

all identified objectives. If planned management will 

not likely address one or more specific objectives, either 

the objective or the planned management should be 

Inventory and assess 

condition 

Analyze data and 

evaluate management 

Monitor 

Continue current management if 

upward trend or meeting objectives 

Modify current management 

if static or downward trend 

Adjust objectives if needed 

Identify issues 

Develop objectives 

Develop and implement 

management strategy 

Figure 10. A grazing management planning process. 


 

 

 

reconsidered. Monitoring data are collected to determine Conservation Districts (SWCD), or county extension 

whether or not progress is being made toward meeting 

specific objectives. Therefore, it is critical that the 

monitoring plan is designed to collect useful, quantified 

data that addresses objectives. Short-term monitoring 

consists of collecting information on actual livestock 

use and indicators of use, as well as annual events such 

as weather, fire, disease to indicate whether long-term 

objectives can reasonably be achieved. Long-term monitoring consists of measurements to determine if progress 

is actually being made toward objectives or objectives 

have been achieved. Adaptive management consists of 

refinements to the management strategy based on annual analysis of short-term monitoring data or analysis 

of mid- and long-term monitoring information relative 

to short-term events and indicators. These analyses help 

determine whether or not additional resource information (inventory) may be needed, issues have evolved, 

objectives were reasonable and achievable, or any management strategy needs to be changed. Once adjustments are made, continued monitoring is necessary to 

determine the effectiveness of the changes. Monitoring 

is discussed in more detail in section III.E. 

A. Assess Resource Conditions 

A properly designed grazing strategy requires a basic 

understanding of the short- and long-term ecological 

processes that can occur within a riparian area. Soils, 

vegetation, hydrology, climate, geomorphology, and the 

animals using the resources are just a few of the important factors that require consideration (Meehan and 

Platts 1978). A variety of assessments and inventories 

are available to determine resource conditions and management concerns in riparian areas. They provide information needed to make adaptive management decisions 

and to monitor ecological change. Baseline information 

is critical for determining if the land and livestock goals 

and objectives are being achieved. A common question heard in planning meetings is, “How do you know 

where you are going if you don’t know where you are?” 

The following tools are useful for determining the 

potential, capability, and desired resource conditions of 

vegetation in an ecological site in different topographic 

locations. Contact local Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), USDA Forest Service (USFS), Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil and Water 

field offices for local information. 

1. Classification 

Riparian classification systems have been developed to 

help identify, describe, communicate about, and manage riparian communities. Determining the potential 

vegetation community is important in developing objectives and designing a grazing system that will restore 

the stream’s ability to withstand moderately high-flow 

events and approach potential natural community. 

Several documents are available (or under development) 

that help determine what plant communities should 

exist in a particular setting and what the management 

implications are. Riparian classification systems have 

been completed in many of the Western States and are 

used to develop goals and objectives for grazing allotments or pastures. For example: 

1.	 Riparian Zone Associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, 

Fremont, and Winema National Forests (Kovalchik 

1987) and Mid-Montane Wetland Plant Associations 

of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997) 

describe vegetation classification systems used in 

Oregon. 

2.	 Central Nevada Riparian Field Guide describes plant 

associations but also considers the differing soilwater characteristics of a given fluvial surface. These 

differing soil-water characteristics result in different 

plant community expressions of the same potential 

(Weixelman et al. 1996). 

3.	 The Classification and Management of Montana’s 

Riparian and Wetland Sites (Hansen et al. 1995) is 

a system of wetland species dominance type (based 

on cover). 

4.	 Riparian Community Type Classification of Utah 

and Southeastern Idaho (Padgett et al. 1989) is an 

abstract grouping of plant communities based on 

floristic and structural similarities. 

2. Ecological Site Descriptions 

Ecological site descriptions are currently being developed 

by the NRCS, in cooperation with other State and 

Federal agencies, to update the original range site 


 
 

 

 

 

 

descriptions. They are available in local NRCS field 

offices. Ecological site descriptions expand the original 

descriptions and add management implications. 

Grazing land ecosystems, including riparian areas, 

are complex (USDA NRCS 2003), and an adequate 

understanding of these ecosystems is essential to proper, 

sustainable management. 

An ecological site is a distinct area of land that, because 

of its physical features, including soils, topography, 

and climate, will differ from other sites in its ability to 

produce a unique kind, abundance, and proportion of 

vegetation (USDA NRCS 2003). The plant community 

that is produced on an ecological site will differ from 

other sites in the composition of plant species, either in 

proportions or production. 

Basic ecological relationships and dynamics essential 

for effective grazing management in riparian areas 

include nutrient cycling, energy capture, hydrologic and 

geomorphic conditions and processes, soil processes, 

and basic plant physiological requirements. All of these 

relationships are important on upland and riparian 

areas. However, the channel and floodplain hydrology 

and geomorphology are important in riparian area 

dynamics and thus must be included in the state and 

transition model. (See Appendix C for an explanation 

and example of a state and transition model.) 

Ecological site descriptions also provide insights into 

the potential effects of grazing management strategies 

on different sites. Historic climax plant communities 

(HCPC) or potential plant communities for each site 

are also described in detail. The ecological processes, 

or pathways, that allow a site to return to HCPC and 

those that can move communities away from historic 

climax, are described as well. An example of an ecological 

site description can be found in the National Range 

and Pasture Handbook (USDA NRCS 2003), which is 

available in most NRCS field offices or online (See 

Appendix A). 

3. Proper Functioning Condition 

Assessment 

The current physical functionality of a stream is an 

important consideration that should be addressed at the 

start of a restoration, maintenance, or planning 

project. The USDA NRCS (2001) provides a variety 

of assessment and inventory techniques for determining 

conditions of riparian areas. The authors of this technical 

reference typically use the proper functioning condition 

(PFC) assessment (Prichard et al. 1998). The PFC 

method is not only an assessment tool, but also a 

communication tool. 

PFC is one qualitative method of assessing the physical 

function of riparian areas while taking into account the 

system’s potential and capability. The term PFC is used 

to identify the assessment process and a defined, on-theground condition of a riparian wetland area (Prichard et 

al. 1998). It has been shown to be a consistent approach 

for considering hydrology, vegetation, and soil erosion 

and deposition attributes and processes. A checklist 

used for the PFC assessment (Appendix D) synthesizes 

information that is foundational in determining the 

overall physical functionality of a riparian area. An 

interdisciplinary team determines a rating of proper 

functioning condition, functional–at risk, or 

nonfunctional based on the checklist information. 

Proper functioning condition of riparian areas, as 

defined by Prichard et al. (1998), exists when adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to: 

• Dissipate stream energy associated with high 

waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving 

water quality 

• Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain 

development 

• Improve floodwater retention and ground-water 

recharge 

• Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks 


against cutting action
 

• Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics 

to provide the habitat and water depth duration, 

and temperature necessary for fish production, 

waterfowl breeding, and other uses 

• Support greater biodiversity 

Functional–at risk (FAR) riparian areas are still functioning; however, an existing attribute (soil, water, vegetation) makes them susceptible to degradation. Riparian 

areas that are clearly not providing adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 10 

8 

6 

4
 

2
 

0
 

Condition 

0
 5 10 15 20 25 30 3

Time (yrs)
 

Herb. veg 

Woody veg 

Channel 

Water Qual 

WQS/RMOs 

PFC 

5 40 45 50 

energy, improve floodwater retention and ground-water 

recharge, and stabilize streambanks are nonfunctional 

and cannot sustain desired values. 

On the ground, PFC refers to how well the physical 

processes are functioning. PFC reflects a state of 

resiliency that enables a riparian area to hold together 

during high-flow events (5-, 10-, or 20-year flows). This 

resiliency allows an area to produce desired values over 

time, such as fish habitat, neotropical migratory bird 

habitat, and livestock or wildlife forage. Management 

actions focus on functions important to all resource users 

by setting objectives and planning to, at a minimum, 

address the limiting attributes and processes identified 

by the PFC assessment (those “No” responses on the 

checklist that indicate particular attributes or processes 

are not functioning as they should be). A grazing 

strategy that is compatible with those objectives can 

be developed and implemented by understanding the 

condition of a riparian area and attributes that are 

important to sustain functionality and values. 

To understand whether or not grazing management is 

facilitating riparian area recovery, an understanding of 

recovery rates and grazing impacts is necessary. As an 

example, BLM Idaho State Office compiled data from 

streams in southern Idaho showing recovery and 

degradation rates of herbaceous and woody vegetation, 

the channel, and water quality (Cowley 1997). The data 

showed that herbaceous and woody vegetation recovered 

first (Figure 11) and that After attending a PFC workshop, 

water quality and channel ranchers in Silver Lake, Oregon, configuration took 10-20 years 

to improve. Degradation rates were able to assess current 

showed the same pattern: veg- management of riparian areas on etation degraded first and the 

channel and water quality last their properties. They determined 

(Figure 12). Cowley’s example that one riparian area they felt suggests that water quality and 

channel measurements are not was falling apart was actually 

appropriate tools to evaluate recovering and another riparian grazing strategy changes in the 

short-term and that vegetation area that appeared to be fine attribute measurements 

may be more appropriate. was functional–at risk with a

Recovery is highly variable due downward trend. The assessment 

to the influences of climate, allowed the ranchers to adjust soils, available moisture, and 

streamflow. Recovery is also their management accordingly. more of a “first come, first 

J.Eisner, BLM Fish Biologist served” situation. If sedges and 

rushes are first to revegetate a 

recovering area, they can inhibit or delay woody 

species recruitment on sites that are fully capable of 

supporting woody vegetation. If riparian woody and 

shrub species are among the first species to come in, sod 

competition is not present to inhibit their increase in 

the riparian area. 

Understanding expected recovery rates for the specific 

riparian area is necessary to 

develop achievable objectives 

that can be met within a 

designated timeframe. Figure 13 

illustrates a decision tree that 

may be used to assist in the 

planning process. 

Figure 11. Recovery rates on a nonfunctional system in southern Idaho. 

0
 
 

 

 

 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0 

Time (yrs) 

Herb. veg 

Woody veg 

Channel 

Water Qual 

WQS/RMOs 

PFC 

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

Condition 

Figure 12. Degradation rates on a southern Idaho stream. 

Inventory All Streams Using the PFC Process 

FAR with a Downward 

Trend or Nonfunctional 

Modify Management 

Strategy 

Monitor “No” Responses 

from Checklist 

PFC or FAR 

with an Upward Trend 

Continue Management 

Strategy 

Monitor RMOs 

(May include values) 

Static/Downward 

Trend 

Modify Management 

Strategy 

Upward 

Trend Upward Trend 

Continue Management 

Strategy 

Continue Monitoring 

Attain DC 

Static/Downward 

Trend 

Modify Management 

Strategy 

B. Identify Issues 

Issues are identified based on 

the inventories and assessments 

completed for the area, along 

with the associated management 

activities. The next step is to 

evaluate and prioritize resource 

concerns. For example, a high 

priority may be placed on those 

stream reaches that were assessed 

as functional–at risk in an 

unapparent or downward trend. 

One method to organize the 

data and help identify issues is 

the Grazing and Spatial Analysis 

Tool (GSAT) (USDA NRCS 

2005). Management objectives 

can be developed once the 

resource, economic, and social 

issues have been evaluated, 

which may focus management 

on specific areas. 

C. Develop 

Management 

Objectives 

The process of setting objectives 

helps livestock operators and land 

managers develop management 

plans that maintain or restore 

riparian values. Site-specific 

objectives (short- and long-term 

are most effective) should be 

tailored to the exact needs of the 

situation. For example, cattle, 

sheep, feral horses, and wildlife 

prefer different habitats and 

plants depending on the time of 

year. Management objectives that Figure 13. Proper functioning condition (PFC) assessment flow chart. RMOs = resource 

management objectives, FAR = functional–at risk, DC = desired condition. 


 
anticipate animal preferences will help managers design improved channel form (e.g., a narrower active channel 

grazing strategies that balance livestock needs with ecological processes and resource values. A thorough understanding of site conditions and limitations provides the 

information necessary for making decisions regarding 

objectives and practices. 

Objectives developed for uplands do not necessarily 

translate into appropriate riparian area management. 

Livestock operators and land managers often need to 

include objectives and prescriptions specifically 

designed for riparian areas. 

Riparian area function often changes through a sequence of events. Thinking through a series of events 

helps increase understanding of the link between the 

element of time and the important attributes for setting 

objectives. For example, planned grazing management 

may result in the following sequence of events: 

1.	 A level of streambank vegetation residue is left that 

provides the opportunity for regrowth and recovery 

of plants, which 

2.	 Allows colonizing herbaceous vegetation to induce 

sediment deposition along streambanks by slowing 

water movement, which 

3.	 Provides a setting for streambank stabilizing plants 

to establish, with more of them having stronger and 

deeper roots, which 

4.	 Allows an increase in stable streambanks, floodplain 

access, and effects that dissipate flood energy and 

resist erosion, which 

5.	 Improves floodwater retention and ground-water 

recharge, which 

6.	 Further improves the functionality of the riparian 

area, which 

7.	 Leads to narrower and deeper streams, which 

8.	 Creates hiding cover for fish and improves water 

quality. 

Of all of these, improvements in the plant community 

are the most measurable and pivotal to subsequent 

improvement. They are also the improvements most 

influenced by grazing management. In this example, 

mid-term objectives (3 to 5 years) could focus on 

the anticipated vegetation changes (e.g., an increased 

proportion of selected plant communities along the 

greenline), with a long-term objective (10+ years) of 

and, eventually, increased sinuosity) or a desired 

age-class distribution. 

1. Objectives Based on Riparian Attributes 

Development of site-specific riparian area objectives 

begins by describing the existing riparian attributes and 

how they need to change. These changes depend on 

hydrologic events as well as time for succession. The 

amount of change in a given time period is difficult 

to determine unless it addresses only very obvious and 

predictable responses to management. Fortunately, the 

stream reaches that are functional–at risk and most 

likely to be targeted for management and monitoring 

are often the reaches where change is most needed and 

most predictable in the coming years. Some riparian 

areas may change slowly because they are not ready to 

respond to management or because they have already 

changed and the rate of additional change will be 

slower. The key to successful riparian area management 

is the quality of the interdisciplinary (ID) team that 

makes the assessment and carries the information 

forward into the management objectives and plan. 

Those who demand a high degree of precision or even 

accuracy among managers’ expectations and real opportunities for response may not be satisfied with the 

tools offered in many places. Those who recognize that 

the journey through adaptive management is the real 

meaning of management will find that setting objectives 

and learning from monitoring the attainment of those 

objectives is a good approach. 

The amount of change needed for detection depends 

on the variation in the data (which depends on many 

factors) and on the amount of data. Generally, in monitoring, representative areas, key areas, or designated 

monitoring areas are used to indicate change or lack of 

change. Within these areas, subsamples are used to 

indicate the trend. This sampling method is different 

from replication needed for statistical significance, but 

it does help to indicate trend from variable data. 

In general, objectives should: 

• Describe the desired plant community, list key 

plant communities, or list key species and indicate 


 
 

 

 

 

 

where in the riparian area these attributes should 

be located or where their abundance should be 

increased. 

• Be guided by the present condition and trend of 

the vegetation in relation to riparian functions and 

management goals and by the inherent potential for 

change. 

• Consider the complexity and diversity of riparian 

areas, which often requires interdisciplinary expertise to ensure that systems have the potential to 

respond to planned management and meet objectives. 

• Be set in close cooperation with other affected 


parties when necessary.
 

• Be achievable and measurable in the designated 


timeframe and worthy of the costs needed to 


accomplish and monitor them.
 

• Assume and clearly state that adaptive management 

is a part of the planning process and that if objectives are not met in a designated timeframe, either 

the management, the objective, or the timeframe 

may need to be adjusted. 

• Be consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law. 

An objective identifies the intended accomplishment in 

relation to an attribute that is important to the system. 

Objectives should be easily measured and identify specific milestones along the route to a longer term goal. 

They must be tied to clear, concise monitoring methods 

and be reaffirmed from the monitoring information. 

There must be a commitment to monitoring the associated riparian area or watershed in order to determine 

if the objectives are being met in an appropriate timeframe and to ensure that the appropriate information is 

collected to understand why they are or are not being 

met. The use of adaptive management requires that 

definite parameters and specific timeframes for evaluation 

are set. At the end of that time, another evaluation 

of the expectations, implementation, management 

scheme, uncontrollable disturbances, and time period 

may be necessary. 

Short-term monitoring often focuses on the management 

actions. Considerations such as remaining residue 

or not-to-exceed amounts of bank trampling are not 

objectives for resource conditions. However, they often 

trigger management actions or provide an indication of 

relative success in implementing a management action 

plan. Short-term monitoring is important for interpreting 

information about the attainment of objectives through 

the implementation of management actions. This 

allows managers to update plans through the adaptive 

management process. 

Management of riparian areas and rangeland is an art 

based on partial science rather than a direct application 

of science. Resource managers should not fall into the 

trap that they are required to prove they have met (or 

will meet) an objective in order to continue adaptive 

management. This would be a no-win situation and 

falsely assumes that “nothing” can be done. Any 

“nothing” would be a form of management, but it 

often would not be the best form of management. 

2. Elements of an Objective 

A good objective states (Maser 1988): 

• The component 

• What is to be accomplished 

• The amount of change 

• The location 

• A timeframe 

The component selected should reflect important 

processes in riparian areas and should vary in response 

to management rather than from unrelated natural processes. Often the components of objectives are derived 

from the “No” answers on a PFC assessment checklist. 

A component for an objective does not simply describe 

the trigger used for a management action in each year. 

Rather, it reflects the changes in attributes that result 

from cumulative impacts of management actions 

over time. 

Each objective should specify where it applies. The 

component may change quickly or may depend on 

processes that take time or stem from several other processes. What is to be accomplished could be an increase, 

decrease, or no change. Although it is important to be 

clear about the amount of change expected, it is also 

important to realize that the amount of change often 

depends, in part, on natural events that are beyond 

the control of management. In many cases, it is simply 

unknown how much change can be expected in a given 

period because processes can depend on both management 


 
 

High 

System Decline 

Management-Induced Stress

(Roads, Grazing, Logging, etc.) 

System Recovery 

Caution 

Low Natural Stress High 

(Soils, Gradient, Flow, Climate, etc.) 

 

and natural events. Therefore, objectives should be 

realistic and conservative and maintain flexibility. 

Objectives should be based on a full set of goals that 

reflect consideration of all resource issues and societal 

concerns. 

Following is an example of a good objective relating to 

grazing management: 

Increase stabilizing or late seral riparian vegetation 

(Winward 2000) along Deer Creek greenline transect at Key Area 2 from the present 25 percent to 

35 percent within 5 years after implementation of 

the grazing strategy. 

For more examples of objectives, see Appendix E. 

D. Develop and Implement 

Management Strategies 

1. Management Strategy Factors 

Once objectives have been formulated, appropriate 

management strategies should be developed to meet 

those objectives. As potential grazing strategies are 

discussed, the objectives should be continually reviewed. Objectives and management strategies must 

come together before either one is “established.” Where 

current management practices are detrimental, the 

focus should first be on reducing [their] impacts, then 

on using prescribed grazing management as a tool to 

achieve objectives (Mosley 1996). Because it is easier 

to keep a riparian area degraded than it was to get it 

that way, changes in season, intensity, and frequency of 

use, or even temporary exclusion, might be necessary to 

initiate recovery. Other grazing strategies might be used 

to maintain or achieve objectives in plant composition, 

structure, etc. (See section III.D.3 for a discussion of 

these topics). 

Grazing management strategies must also consider the 

sensitivity of different riparian areas to disturbance and 

their resiliency or ability to recover. Sensitive riparian 

areas experience a high degree of natural stress (or 

any natural attribute that makes them more sensitive 

to disturbance, such as noncohesive granitic soils), 

and therefore can tolerate little management-induced 

stress without degradation (Figure 14). Conversely, less 

sensitive systems have low levels of natural stress and 

therefore can tolerate more management-induced stress 

(Elmore and Kauffman 1994). Recovery potential is 

not always directly related to sensitivity to disturbance. 

Rosgen (1996) provides a guide to stream sensitivity 

and recovery potential. 

Figure 14. Management-induced stress vs. natural stress 

(Elmore and Kauffman 1994). 

Even though stream classifications such as Rosgen’s 

(1996) can help extrapolate responses of streams to 

grazing, structures, and other types of management, no 

two riparian areas are exactly alike. A grazing prescription must: 1) meet the needs of each specific riparian 

system, as well as other watershed components, 2) be 

compatible with the entire ranch operation, and 3) have 

the commitment of the operator/manager to achieve 

riparian objectives. These criteria have a higher probability of being met if the grazing strategy consciously 

incorporates: animal behavior, forage selectivity, plant 

responses, plant community change, hydrology, and 

practicality (Krueger 1996). 

Plant responses, plant community change, and hydrology 

usually form the basis for achievable objectives and thus 

become the focus of many grazing strategies. Animal 

behavior affects those resource interactions and the 

ability to achieve the objectives. Understanding the 


 
 

 

 

 

 

principles of behavior can help improve the probability 

of successfully managing for riparian and other social, 

economic, and resource objectives. 

Practicality is critical. A prescription should not only 

be feasible, it should be practical and achievable by the 

operator, with the flexibility built into the prescription 

to make adaptive management changes. As noted by 

Ehrhart and Hansen (1997), “the only required ingredients (for developing and implementing an appropriate 

prescription for any given riparian ecosystem) are a 

serious commitment and personal involvement on the 

part of operators and managers.” 

a. Animal Behavior 

Animal behavior is a function of consequences (Provenza 

2003). Positive consequences reinforce and lead to an 

increase in the associated behavioral response, whereas 

negative consequences typically lead to a decrease 

in that response. These behavioral responses can be 

influenced by (1) social management activities (e.g., 

low stress vs. high stress), (2) location on the landscape 

(e.g., upland vs. riparian), and (3) forage selection (e.g., 

nutrient requirement vs. nutrient and toxin contents of 

various plants and plant parts). Climate, soils, plants, 

herbivores, and people are interrelated facets of systems 

that change constantly. As stated by Provenza (2003), 

the “key to survival for herbivores and the people who 

manage them is to continually explore new possibilities 

and to know when to adapt.” Some of the social, 

landscape, and forage selection factors that influence 

behavior are discussed below. 

(1) Social 

“When it comes to managing pastures and rangelands 

that contain a variety of foods and terrain, managers 

must understand how social factors influence both the 

foods creatures eat and the location where they forage, 

both of which influence carrying capacity” (Provenza 

2003). Both also influence the use of riparian areas. 

Howery et al. (1998) demonstrated the substantial 

influence of mother cows on the behavior of their 

young. Experiences early in life influenced the distribution patterns of offspring later in life, but peers and 

environmental factors also influenced distribution. In 

the 4-year study, researchers identified cows that had 

a propensity to spend time near either of two adjacent 

creeks in the same allotment. Calves from some of the 

cows from each creek were cross-fostered to cows from 

the other creek. Two other groups of cows and calves, 

one group from each creek, were also studied. Distribution behaviors of the four groups of calves were followed 

for 4 years; i.e. as calves, as yearlings, as first-calf heifers, 

and as second-calf 3-year-olds. During the first summer, 

calves stayed with their mothers (natural and foster) 

and stayed on their respective creeks. The fall of the first 

year, calves were weaned and wintered as a group. The 

second year, the influence of peers from wintering together resulted in a greater distribution of the yearlings 

away from the areas occupied by their mothers. During 

the third year, a drought dried up one of the creeks. The 

2-year-olds from the dry creek drainage extended their 

range to access water. The animals from the drainage 

that continued to have streamflow stayed within their 

home range. During the fourth summer, all of the then 

3-year-olds occupied the home range that they had occupied with their mothers during the first year. Results 

indicated that early learning from the mother had a 

substantial influence on subsequent behavior over the 

following 3 years. Peer influence and environmental 

conditions (e.g., drought) resulted in modified distribution, but the influence of the mother during the first 

year was still very strong. Management implications 

from this study include: 

• Cull animals with undesirable habitat use 


characteristics.
 

• Retain those with desirable habitat use characteristics. 

• Herd routinely to change distribution, and 

implement practices that foster a predictable social 

environment (e.g., separate young animals with 

desirable distribution patterns from young animals 

with undesirable distribution patterns). 

Left to their own devices, cattle will form social groups 

similar to bison. Bison form intact family units including 

offspring, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers. Young animals benefit from the knowledge of 

social behavior, food, and habitat selection of older 

generations (Provenza 2003). Managing family or social 

units of livestock appears to have potential for modifying 

habitat preferences and reducing time spent in riparian 

areas. The Nature Conservancy’s Red Canyon Ranch in 

Wyoming uses riders to move cattle subgroups (social 


 
 

 

units) to upland sites and to settle them as a group 

(Figure 15). Over a 3-year period, the riders were successful in modifying habitat preference from riparian 

to upland (3 years seems to be approximately how long 

it takes to adapt and perform with new management 

techniques). Individuals separated from their subgroup 

tended to return to their former location in an attempt 

to reunite with the group (Provenza 2003); however, 

if moved as a social or family group, they tended to 

stay together. 

(2) Landscape 

Figure 15. Moving cattle within their social group decreases 

stress and the desire to move back to their previous location. 

(Photo by F. Provenza, Utah State University.) 

Social learning provides benefits to the animal and a 

tool for the manager to modify behavior and address 

management objectives. According to Provenza (2003), 

socializing enhances the learning efficiency of the group. 

For example, once one animal learns to drink from a 

water device that requires pressing a lever, others learn 

by example. Young learn the locations of water, forage, 

shade, and cover from their mothers. Experience carries 

over from generation to generation, which provides 

efficiency and an opportunity for behavior modification. In the Red Canyon Ranch example described 

above, the young learned along with their mothers that 

uplands were good places to be, and they then passed 

that experience to their young. Over a 3-year period, 

the behavior desired by the managers became adopted 

by the livestock and the preferred behavioral pattern 

became established. 

Grazing managers must develop an understanding of 

the grazing patterns employed by the animals they 

manage (Stuth 1991), including the predisposition of a 

given species to forage. Foraging behavior involves three 

distinct levels of selection—spatial (landscape), species, 

and plant part choice. 

An animal with experience in a given landscape will 

know its boundaries, routes of access and escape, plant 

communities and their spatial distribution, and the 

seasonality of desirable species (Table 1). Large grazers in particular focus their foraging strategies around 

free-standing water and are considered “central place 

foragers,” with the central or home place centered on 

water (Stuth 1991). The nature of the terrain, distribution of shrubs, changes in forage availability due to 

drought, and mobility of an animal all influence spatial 

use patterns around water sources. Figure 16 (Stuth 

1991) illustrates many of these points. In this depiction 

of a pasture, forage along the road is used as a result 

of animals entering or exiting through the upper gate. 

The rocky outcrop on the slope serves as a barrier, and 

the slope itself serves as an impediment to access to the 

forage on the slope. The upper left corner has no water, 

so it receives little use. The majority of the grazing use 

occurs at the bottom of the pasture, on level terrain, 

within easy reach of the only water in the pasture. The 

gully or ditch in the lower right corner and the dense 

stand of trees near the water trough also serve as barriers 

and restrict access to forage. 

Table 1. Landscape characteristics that influence animal 

movement patterns (Stuth 1991). 

Attribute Components 

Boundaries Fences, home range, migration routes 

Distribution of Range [ecological] sites, soils, aspect, 

plant communities elevation, structure, species composition 

Accessibility Slope, gullies, water courses, shrub density, 

rockiness, roads, trails, fence lines, cut 

openings, pipeline and utility rights-of-way 

Distribution of foci Location of water, shade, loafing, and 

bedding sites and other convergent and 

divergent points in a landscape 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Rocky

Outcrop 

S h a l l o w C l a y Loam Stoney 

Clay 

Loam 

Sandy 

Clay Loam 

San d y

 Lo a m 

Based on what is known about livestock behavior, 

grazing programs can be designed to entice animals 

to specific areas at specific times, encouraging grazing 

patterns that yield a desirable vegetative response. For 

example, livestock use of riparian areas is known to vary 

by season. During spring, livestock tend to disperse to 

uplands because of higher quality forage, better water 

distribution in shallow reservoirs and natural water Parent 

Material pockets, and acceptable or preferable thermal conditions. During summer, livestock tend to be attracted 

to riparian areas because of water availability; relatively 

higher concentrations of nutritious, palatable forage; 

and, if trees or shrubs are part of the system, preferable 

thermal conditions. During fall, livestock still tend to 

be attracted to riparian areas primarily due to water 

availability and the potential availability of browse with 

higher nutrient content and palatability than cured 

upland forage. During winter, livestock might avoid 

riparian areas if they function as cold air pockets or 

drainages, or they might be drawn to them by the 

availability of wind protection and nutrients in available 

browse. The specifics of each riparian area and its associated upland areas, such as upland water distribution, 

determine appropriate management options. 

Variable weather conditions also affect animal behavior 

by impacting conditions such as vegetation productivity 

and water distribution. For example, drought can cause 

the growing season to be earlier and shorter. As a result, 

animals may move to riparian areas much earlier, and 

dates of grazing may need to be adjusted. Conversely, 

a prolonged wet, cool spring and summer may result 

in less time spent in riparian areas and allow longerthan-normal use of a given pasture. This would allow 

deferment or rest of some other pasture as a possible 

beneficial treatment. 

The kind (e.g., cattle or sheep), class (e.g., yearling or 

cows with calves), and previous experience of livestock 

influence behavior as well. Cows with calves are usually 

less mobile than yearlings or dry, mature cows. Cows 

experienced in a pasture prefer certain locations, much 

like big game home ranges, and they can be expected to 

head for and stay in a given area. Inexperienced animals 

initially search for the boundaries (e.g., walking the 

fenceline) of their environment before identifying 

preferred locations, with water being a primary factor. 

These behavioral attributes provide an opportunity to 

Figure 16. Landscape configuration reflecting the unique set of 

forage resources, water locations, and terrain constraints that affect 

use patterns by grazing animals. Reproduced from Stuth (1991) with 

permission. 

An animal’s selection of a given plant community for 

forage is largely related to those attributes of a site that 

influence plant species composition and density (Table 2). 

Plant species composition and density depend on site 

characteristics, past management, and the availability 

of nutrients and water. 

Table 2. Attributes at the plant community and patch level that influence the animal’s selection of forage sites (Stuth 1991). 

Attribute Function 

Moisture-holding Affects forage supply and stability 

capacity of soil 

Species Affects suitability and stability of the site 

composition for general dietary and nutritional needs 

Plant frequency Affects the probability of encounter of plant 

species by the animal and number of dietary 

decisions 

Abundance Affects the supply of nutrients 

Structure Affects accessibility and harvestability of 

plant species and nature of thermal niches 

provided 

Continuity Affects movement velocity 

Size Affects amount of search area available 

Aspect Affects the thermal characteristics of the site 

Orientation in Position relative to needs foci affects 

landscape frequency or exposure to grazing 


 
 

 

train livestock to prefer habitats like uplands and to 

minimize time spent in riparian areas. 

Bailey (2004a) has found that genetics may influence 

where cattle tend to spend their time. In a study of two 

groups of livestock, Bailey found that one group of cows 

used steeper slopes and traveled further horizontally and 

vertically from water than the comparison group. Both 

groups were crossbred from the same two breeds, but 

the breed that was dominant in each group differed. 

The group that traveled further had a greater percentage 

of a breed that was developed in mountainous country. 

The group that stayed closer to water and used more 

gentle topography had a greater percentage of a breed 

that was developed in more gentle terrain (Bailey et al. 

2004c). Provenza (2003) also noted that genetics may 

have an influence on behavior, but he added that behavior 

can often be modified through appropriate training as 

illustrated by the Red Canyon Ranch in Wyoming and 

their use of low-stress stockmanship and working with 

social groups to change behavioral patterns [refer to the 

previous discussion in section III.D.1.a.(1)]. 

A rider may be able to train cows and calves to use 

uplands and discourage their use of riparian areas by 

consistently moving them away from riparian areas to 

other locations (Butler 2000). As described previously, 

this works best if family or social groups are moved 

intact, and if low-stress movement techniques are used 

(see section III.D.2). Behavioral principles can be used 

to determine the most effective timing of movement. 

When moving animals to another location to forage 

in a familiar environment, it works best to move them 

before they have fed and watered. At the new site they 

experience positive reinforcement from eating nutritious foods in the area (Provenza 2003). This allows the 

livestock to associate sites away from riparian areas with 

desirable qualities, thus making those sites preferred 

locations. If done repeatedly, cattle learn to move readily 

because good things happen when they do. When 

moving to new loafing areas, however, it works best to 

move cattle after they have fed and watered. Once they 

arrive, they are ready to settle down. 

When cattle are regularly herded from riparian areas 

to uplands, generally the best practice is to herd cattle 

away from the stream after they have watered, during 

late morning or early afternoon (Butler 2000, Bailey 

2004). Cattle travel to the streams during midday to 

drink and loaf. The goal is to allow animals to water 

and minimize the time they remain in the riparian area. 

If cattle are herded away from the stream early in the 

morning, they will likely return to the riparian area 

during midday to drink. Herding during midday after 

cattle water reduces the amount of riding required. 

Like people, individual animals have their own personalities. Some do not respond to behavior modification. 

To achieve management objectives, they (and their 

offspring) may have to be culled. 

Bailey and Welling (1999) found that strategic placement of a supplement resulted in cattle spending more 

time and grazing more in areas with the supplement 

than areas without. In this study, salt did not have 

much effect, but the low-moisture block supplement 

was effective. The effect was greater in moderate terrain 

than in difficult terrain. In a subsequent study, Bailey 

et al. (2001c) found that placement of low-moisture 

blocks in rugged topography attracted cattle use. Areas 

within 600 meters of the supplement were grazed by 

cattle even though the supplement sites were on some 

of the steepest terrain and in areas farthest from water. 

In ongoing research, Bailey (2004b) has found that 

herding combined with strategic placement of a desirable supplement appears to be even more effective in 

attracting cattle to graze previously underutilized areas 

than either supplement or herding alone. The technique 

requires less time and lessens the impact on riparian 

areas. Better distribution increases useable forage and 

thus capacity of a pasture or allotment. It may also 

result in the ability to keep livestock in management 

units longer because they spend less time in areas of 

concern, such as riparian areas. 

(3) Forage Selectivity 

In a general sense, forage selectivity varies by animal 

species, forage palatability, and preference. Palatability 

refers to characteristics of a plant that elicit a selective 

response by an herbivore. It changes throughout the 

annual plant growth cycle and can vary spatially as a 

result of soil characteristics. Preference is a behavioral 

function that involves proportional choice of one plant 

species from among two or more species. Preference 

for a particular plant species depends largely upon its 

abundance, morphological and phenological 


 
 

 

characteristics, the array of other species available, and 

the species of animal in question. Preference changes 

with season; weather; soil moisture; and forage palatability, availability, and variety. Thus, forage selectivity 

is a dynamic, situation-specific phenomenon. However, 

some generalizations can be applied. For example, in 

riparian areas, cattle generally don’t browse woody 

plants much if they have a sufficient supply of palatable 

grass. On the other hand, where only a few woody 

plants are available, animals may seek them out to 

obtain dietary diversity. Grass becomes less palatable, 

less digestible, and loses nutrient content with maturity, 

whereas shrubs tend to retain nutrient content longer. 

To satisfy their nutritional needs, livestock preference 

tends to shift to shrubs as grasses senesce, even when 

the amount of grass available is not limiting (Figure 17). 

Most generalizations have exceptions though, and an 

animal’s experience, health, stress level, and nutritional 

status have a great deal of influence on forage selectivity. 

Figure 17. This cow is browsing rather than grazing even though 

sufficient grass appears to be available. (Photo by M. Borman, Oregon 

State University.) 

Young animals learn about foods from their mothers 

(Provenza 2003). Provenza states that learning begins 

very early because the flavors of foods the mother eats 

are transferred in utero and after birth, in milk. Once 

they begin foraging, young learn from their mothers 

what to eat and what to avoid. Young also learn foraging 

skills from their mothers, which increases efficiency of 

ingesting foods of different forms (i.e., grasses, forbs, 

and shrubs). 

As young animals age, they increasingly interact with 

peers and encourage one another to explore new foods 

and environments (Provenza 2003). As this occurs, 

adults learn from younger animals to explore different 

foods because the younger animals are more likely to eat 

novel foods. 

Young animals cope with change more readily than 

adults because their food and habitat preferences are 

more malleable. Exposing young animals with their 

mothers to a variety of foods and locations, especially 

those they will experience later in life, can lessen problems with transitions. Animals make transition from 

familiar to unfamiliar environments better if they are 

moved to areas where the foods and terrain are similar 

to what they have experienced. 

Palatability is more than a matter of taste (Provenza 

2003). He found that animals associate flavors of 

specific foods with their postingestive consequences. If 

the consequences are positive (e.g., response to needed 

energy and protein), animals will increase intake of 

those foods until they become a regular part of their 

diets. If consequences are negative (e.g., nausea from 

intake of toxins), animals will limit intake of those 

foods in accord with the concentrations of toxins in the 

food. Satiation is also a factor in palatability. Plants that 

are deficient in energy or protein will tend to have low 

palatability, but palatability will also decrease for foods 

too high in energy or protein. Excess protein causes 

excess production of ammonia, which is toxic. Excess 

energy can result in acidosis, which reduces palatability. 

Each animal is unique. Some individuals need more 

energy or protein and some less. Some are better able 

to tolerate a larger intake of various toxins than others. 

Having a variety of foods available allows an animal to 

select for an appropriate balance of nutrients and toxins. 

The physical structure of a plant also influences selectivity. 

Because of the size and shape of its mouth, a cow has a 

hard time selecting short or prostrate plants. Hall and 

Bryant (1995) noted that as stubble heights of preferred 

species drop below 3 inches, preference will tend to shift 

to other species of plants that have not yet been grazed 

to that height or to shrubs. Below a 3-inch stubble 

height, the vegetation becomes too short to be pulled 

in by the tongue. At that point cattle must begin to eat 

in bites, which take more time and effort to obtain 

sufficient fill. Cattle seldom graze below 2 inches from 

the ground unless forced to do so to obtain forage. A 

3/4-inch stubble height effectively requires a shift to 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Effective riparian grazing 	 another forage source because 

of physical limitations management should begin on of a cow’s mouth. “Wolfy” 

the skyline rather than the plants (plants containing 

standing dead material from greenline. Simply reducing previous growth) are also 

numbers of livestock without generally avoided, especially 

when plants without standing developing improved grazing dead material are available. 

strategies will not solve a Separating green, nutritious 

leaves from among the dead riparian problem.” leaves and stems slows the 

Floyd Reed, Retired USFS rate of intake and reduces 

the desirability of wolfy Rangeland Management plants. 

Specialist 

b. Principles of Grazing 

Management 

To properly manage livestock grazing in riparian areas, 

it is important to recognize that: 

• Grazing management practices that maintain or 

improve an upland site may or may not maintain 

or improve a riparian area and may be detrimental 

to them. Problematic upland watershed conditions, 

such as excess runoff and erosion, often reduce the 

effectiveness of management in the riparian area. 

Although riparian areas respond uniquely, they 

should not be considered independently of uplands. 

• Passive, continuous grazing rarely improves a 

deteriorated riparian area or maintains a riparian 

area in good condition without reducing stocking 

levels to extremely low and uneconomic levels. 

• The grazing management plan must address the 

livestock needs. 

Finally, it is important to recognize that there are a 

number of other factors to consider in selecting management strategies to meet riparian objectives, including 

timing, duration, and frequency of grazing; distribution 

of livestock; stocking rates; utilization levels and patterns; 

pasture design, and wildlife management. These factors 

influence the economic feasibility and practicality of 

the management strategy, which are both essential if 

commitment to the strategy is to be achieved. 

(1) Timing, Duration, and Frequency of 


Grazing
 

Successful grazing management strategies for riparian 

areas can usually be achieved by using a combination of 

options, including grazing treatments that: 

• Limit grazing intensity, frequency, or season of use, 

thereby providing sufficient opportunity to encourage 

plant vigor, regrowth, and energy storage and 

minimize compaction of soils. 

• Control the timing of grazing to prevent damage 

to streambanks, the transition area between the wet 

and dry area of the meadow or streambank, and wet 

and semiwet meadows when they are most vulnerable 

to trampling damage. 

• Ensure sufficient vegetation during periods of high 

flow to protect streambanks, dissipate energy, and 

trap sediments. 

• Intensify grazing, in certain situations, to increase 

hoof action to trample wolfy plants and stimulate 

regrowth while reducing time and duration of 

exposure so animals do not have adequate time 

or need to move to less preferred riparian plants 

(sedges and woody plants). 

Timing of grazing is particularly important in pastures 

that are large and include a high proportion of upland 

forage. This upland forage is more palatable than riparian 

forage during certain seasons (generally spring, early 

summer, and fall if green-up occurs). Grazing in these 

seasons will shift use away from riparian areas especially 

if water is available close to the upland forage. Although 

preferences for certain areas are a factor in smaller 

riparian pastures, distribution is much more important 

as pastures increase in size and in their proportion of 

upland forage. The use of tools like the GRI (USDA 

USFS 1996) (Appendix F) may assist livestock managers 

in determining if the timing, intensity, and duration are 

appropriate for the grazing unit. 

Parsons et al. (2003) found that season of use (early 

versus late summer) affected cattle distribution relative 

to the riparian area, with late summer pastures having 

more concentrated use of riparian vegetation. More 

uniform cattle distribution within the upland and 

riparian areas occurred in early summer than in late 

summer. 

0
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Time provided for post3. Fall use duration (average 35 

28 

21 

31 

21 

grazing herbaceous 

regrowth (average 

number of days). 

2. Duration of use – total 59 

days per season 

(average number of days). 

37
 

number of days)
 

4. Percent of years fall 51 

use occurred (average) 

Criteria Successful Unsuccessful 

Used Management Management 

5. Percent of grazing 75 38 

treatments providing 

residual cover* through 

rest or regrowth (average). 

*Residual cover was defined as at least 30 days of regrowth. 

 

In a study of 34 grazing systems in operation for 

10-20 years in southwestern Montana, Myers (1989a) 

found timing of grazing, duration of use, and frequency 

of fall grazing were important factors in successful 

management (Table 3). The effectiveness of livestock 

grazing management was judged based on the vigor, 

regeneration, and utilization of woody species, as well as 

on bank stability. 

Table 3. Criteria for successful grazing management (Myers 1989a). 

Successful systems were defined as those demonstrating 

good or excellent riparian condition or fair condition 

with an upward trend. The results highlight the importance of adequate vegetation vigor and regeneration at 

the end of the growing season and the apparent critical 

nature of the frequency and duration of fall grazing 

treatments. Myers suggested that the duration of grazing 

treatments often prescribed for upland management 

(60-75 days) be shortened to 25-30 days. Shortening the 

duration and providing growing-season rest, deferment, 

or recovery in all pastures lessens animal impacts, 

provides for growth or regrowth, and causes livestock to 

be less selective in grazing (Provenza 2003). 

(2) Stocking Rates 

Stocking rate problems at the pasture, ranch, or 

allotment level are the exception rather than the rule in 

today’s operations. However, “There are no cookbook or 

there are some operations ‘one size fits all’ prescriptions that are still simply overstocked. The apparent over- for livestock grazing in 

stocking of some areas, while riparian areas.” others are only moderately 

grazed or even ungrazed, Wayne Elmore, 

will not be solved by simply Retired BLM Riparian Ecologist reducing numbers if other 

factors are not also changed. 

Reducing stocking rates may reduce the percentage 

of area in unsatisfactory condition, but the impacts 

around the foci of highly used areas (e.g., riparian areas 

or other water) will remain the same until few, if any, 

animals remain. Many pastures, ranches, or allotments 

are appropriately stocked for the majority of the area, 

but a temporary reduction in the stocking rate may be 

necessary to allow recovery of localized problem areas. 

This is especially true in rest-rotation strategies where 

part of the area is removed from grazing for an entire 

season. The rest may not compensate for the increased 

use during grazing to achieve sufficient recovery. No 

strategy will work until stocking rates are at an appropriate level for the existing conditions and prescribed 

management. Stocking rates should be determined by 

evaluating current grazing effects (i.e., residual vegetation and distribution patterns), use periods in relation 

to growth periods, historical use and trend data, and 

management objectives. 

(3) Utilization or Residual Levels and Patterns 

If utilization, timing, duration, or residual vegetation 

is used to develop a grazing prescription, the primary 

focus is usually the physiology of key plant species that 

must stay healthy and reproduce. The key to associated 

management techniques is usually to improve livestock 

distribution and avoid grazing intensity problems. 

However, the effects are often intertwined and problems 

can be addressed in many ways. Utilization mapping 

is an excellent tool for checking the distribution of 

livestock use and for identifying management opportunities in a landscape setting. However, measurement 

of stubble height (residual vegetation) is often more 

straightforward and easier to interpret than utilization 

data. Use within a season may impact the physiology 

of key species and can be a guide to develop grazing 

strategies. However, annual measurements often vary 


 
among years and individual observers. Therefore, a In pasture C, portions of the uplands are unused due to 

range of utilization or stubble heights should be used lack of water and length and steepness of slope. 

to accommodate favorable and unfavorable production 

years (see section III.E for a discussion of short-term In pasture D, portions of the uplands are unused due to 

indicators). length and steepness of slope and lack of water 

Also the stream corridor is of concern due to utilization 

Due to the variation among riparian sites and manage­ of willow and bank trampling in excess of allowable 

ment objectives, one standard utilization or residual limits hat may occur during this period. 

vegetation target is not appropriate. However, utilization 

or residual vegetation should be considered (along with Water provided in the preferred grazing areas in pasture 

regrowth potential) to ensure that vegetation stubble A could reduce the use of and damage to the saturated 

necessary for natural stream functions is present or streambank areas. 

other land use objectives are accomplished (e.g., residual 

nesting cover for waterfowl). In pastures C and D, frequent riding and herding of 

the livestock may increase utilization of the upland and 

In most situations where both upland and riparian sites relieve grazing pressure in the riparian areas. This would 

exist in the same pasture(s), portions of each pasture can reduce the need to adjust season of use or numbers of 

be seasonally unusable or unused for grazing because livestock to compensate for heavy riparian area use. 

of wet soils, lack of green forage, plant species preferences, length or steepness of slope, distance to or lack of (4) Pasture Design 

water, and absence of shade, and other factors, as shown Small stream sections and other small riparian areas 

in Figure 18. In pasture A, as shown in the schematic such as springs and seeps within large pastures usually 

below, the corridor along the stream is unsuitable due to cannot be effectively managed without the use of 

saturated soils and some of the uplands are exclusions. Exclusion fencing is often the most practical 

not used due to lack of green forage. approach for small areas. In pasture planning, however, 

the pasture should include as much of a stream as 

There are no limitations in pasture B for that period possible and not use streams as fenced pasture boundaries 

of use. (Myers 1981). Instead, Myers recommends trying to 

,

.

t

Pasture A Pasture B Pasture C Pasture D 

Used 5/16-6/15 Used 6/16-7/15 Used 7/16-8/15 Used 8/16-9/15 

Figure 18. Examples of seasonally unused areas within pastures. 


 
 

 

 

-

-

 

 

 

 

center streams within a pasture where possible. When 

pasture boundary fences zig-zag across streams, livestock 

impacts tend to be concentrated near the stream. Livestock tend to concentrate near and trail along fences, 

accentuating trampling damage. Also, wire fences across 

streams tend to catch debris and frequently wash out 

(Figure 19). 

Figure 19. Cross fence collecting debris is susceptible to washing 

out. (Photo by S. Wyman, NRST.) 

Where a stream must serve as the division line, fencing 

one or both sides of the stream with water gaps to the 

stream, if needed, can effectively avert most riparian 

concentration. These parameters should be considered 

when developing riparian pastures as well [refer to 

section III.D.2.C.(3)]. 

(5) Wildlife Habitat Considerations 

The development of a grazing management strategy 

should also consider wildlife habitat requirements. Concerns usually revolve around how wildlife and livestock 

compete while ignoring the positive influences wildlife 

and livestock have on each other (Knight 2004). Knight 

stated that minerals and supplemental food put out 

for cattle are often used by wildlife. In many parts of 

the West, water tanks, constructed and maintained for 

livestock, allow big game and other wildlife to use areas 

that would otherwise be used only during wet times of 

the year. Predator control to protect livestock also 

reduces predation on deer, antelope, and other wild prey. 

Livestock and wildlife forage and browse requirements 

may overlap or be compatible depending upon the 

species involved and the timing, frequency, and duration 

of grazing. For example, it may be beneficial to graze 

livestock in early summer 

to improve elk diets, but 

previous grazing by elk 

may reduce subsequent diet 

quality for cattle, deer, and 

elk (Damiran et al. 2003). 

Livestock can also be purposely grazed at high stock 

densities to control wild ungulate distribution (Mosley 

1999). Mosley states that 

livestock at high densities 

can help distribute wildlife 

away from highways in 

locales where wild ungulates 

are colliding with vehicles. 

Livestock grazing at high 

densities can also be used to 

deter wildlife depredation 

of nearby crops, pastures, or 

haystacks. Social dominance 

between ungulates and 

within species intensifies 

as resource conditions 

deteriorate, and subordinate 

animals are displaced 

(Mosley 1999). Mosley also 

stated that the knowledge of 

these relationships between 

social dominance and habitat selection can be used to 

improve management of 

rangeland, livestock, and wildlife resources. 

Crane’s (2002) research indicates that early spring and 

winter cattle grazing may improve forage conditions for 

elk. Results of habitat selection analyses demonstrated 

that elk preferred selected feeding sites where forage 

residue was reduced by summer cattle grazing and 

avoided ungrazed sites in all three seasons. In the winter 

and spring, elk preferred feeding sites with moderate 

amounts of forage residue. This condition corresponded 

to areas that were moderately grazed by cattle the preceding summer. These results suggest that elk respond 

to forage conditions that are mediated by the selection 

of feeding sites by summer cattle grazing and that 

The Deseret Land and Live 

stock Ranch in north-central 

Utah placed a band of sheep in 

Hornet Gulch to alter elk use 

patterns and improve riparian 

vegetation. There had been no 

cattle grazing in Hornet Gulch 

for over 20 years, but 300-400 

elk calved and summered in 

this gulch. Sheep were placed 

with dogs on about June 15th 

to move elk out of the gulch. 

Elk avoided the area while 

sheep grazed the upland, al 

lowing for 3 to 4 weeks of rest 

on the riparian area. Elk use 

had suppressed willow growth, 

and with a month of rest, 

an increase in willow 

production has occurred. 

R. Danvir, Deseret Wildlife Manager 


 
 

 

 

moderate summer cattle grazing is a viable tool to 

enhance foraging opportunities for elk during critical 

winter and spring seasons (Crane 2002). 

2. Management Tools and Techniques 

Common to All Grazing Strategies 

Successful grazing strategies generally involve a combination of management tools and techniques that aid 

livestock managers. These tools can help extend grazing 

periods within pastures by promoting distribution. The 

economic implications of using various management 

tools and techniques should be evaluated during the 

development of the grazing plan. Livestock operators 

and land managers need to consider the cost of a variety 

of techniques, including the following: 

• Installation of improvements and practices 

• Loss of grazing area 

• Extra hay, grazing land, and leases 

• Decrease in stocking rate 

• Change in management 


- Initial time and cost for setup
 

- Amount of time involved in ongoing 


management practices and maintenance 

Livestock operators and land managers should also 

consider the potential benefits of: 

• Increased time and use (AUM) within a pasture or 

allotment 

• Decreased use of leased land at a higher cost than 

privately owned or Federal land 

• Accelerated upward trend of riparian and upland 

area (function and forage) 

• Decreased peak and increased base waterflows 

• Improved livestock health and weight gain 

• Aesthetic benefits to interested public 

• Recreational benefits of healthy streams and riparian 

areas (e.g., fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing) 

• Increased ranch value 

• Quality of life for family 

Economic considerations often determine the applicability of a grazing plan. Managers need to ask the right 

questions to determine what the costs and benefits 

could be with the implementation of various tools. Will 

the use of low-stress stockmanship and low-moisture 

nutrient supplement blocks increase the length of time 

a pasture or allotment may be grazed? Will it improve 

animal performance? Will the costs of installation or 

use of different techniques be offset by the benefits? 

Stillings et al. (2003) found that the installation of 

offsite water and salt on a ranch in northeast Oregon 

improved livestock distribution, increased consumption 

of upland forage before maximum riparian utilization 

was reached, and increased weight gain. Expected 

annual net returns to the ranch for the project ranged 

from $4,500 to $11,000 depending on cattle prices and 

precipitation levels. Economic outputs will vary on a 

case-by-case basis, as will the applicability of different 

grazing strategies. 

Utilization patterns relative to total forage distribution 

reveal that livestock distribution, coupled with timing, 

duration, and frequency of grazing, is often the main 

problem with unsuccessful management approaches. 

Research in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada illustrates the 

importance of livestock distribution throughout the 

pasture and away from the riparian area. Platts and 

Nelson (1985) found that livestock took an average of 

29 percent, and as much as 40 percent, more vegetation 

from riparian sites (wildlife use was trivial) than from 

adjacent upland sites. Although use on the allotments 

was moderate, use on riparian sites was heavy to severe. 

Managing and controlling the attractant features of 

riparian areas usually increases the use of, and improves 

distribution in, uplands. The degree to which livestock 

can be attracted away from riparian areas depends on 

season, topography, vegetation, weather, and behavioral 

differences (McInnis and McIver 2001). 

Most successful grazing strategies include management 

tools and techniques that promote distribution of livestock, such as: 

• Techniques that attract livestock away from riparian 

areas 

• Herd management and animal husbandry practices 

that promote mobility 

• Techniques that restrict livestock from riparian areas 


 
 

a. Techniques that Attract Livestock Away from 

Riparian Areas 

(1) Offsite Water Developments 

Water development in upland areas that lack water is 

often a key factor in reducing livestock concentrations 

in riparian areas. Ganskopp (2004) found that moving 

portable stock tanks or closing access to specific watering points within pastures is very effective at altering the 

distribution patterns of beef cattle on arid rangelands in 

Oregon. A south-central South Dakota rancher found 

that distributing water tanks throughout a large pasture 

and having the ability to turn the water on and off at 

each tank worked well to distribute livestock to various parts of the pasture and decreased the amount of 

interior fence needed in rough terrain. 

Offsite water can be developed by installing solar, 

hydraulic ram, or conventional pumps; developing 

springs, seeps, wells, or guzzlers; and piping water to 

several troughs. Mobile systems can provide watering 

sites in different pastures with the use of one pump and 

existing water sources. 

Solar-powered pumps provide offsite water opportunities 

in areas where electricity is not available or is too expensive to install (Figure 20). Mobile solar-powered pumps 

with portable tanks placed on the edge of the riparian 

area decrease the amount of time livestock spend in the 

riparian area (Figure 21). Livestock prefer to drink from 

a tank rather than from a stream (Chamberlain and 

Doverspike 2001). Livestock do not have to stretch 

their heads below their front feet to drink out of a tank. 

They prefer this because of problems with depth perception and behaviors adapted for predator avoidance. 

Tanks also provide easier access for the animals; they do 

not have to push themselves through shrubs or trees, 

so trampling impacts to young seedlings, sprouts, or 

saplings are reduced or eliminated. 

Pasture nose pumps are another option for offsite 

use of water from the stream, pond, or shallow well 

(Figure 22). Nose pumps are most effective for small 

herd situations, and each pump is able to water 25-50 

animals, depending upon the brand of pump. Livestock 

use their noses to pump water into a small trough. 

Pumps are portable and can be moved to different 

pastures as livestock are rotated. 

Figure 20. Mobile solar powered pump. 

Figure 21. Mobile solar powered pump and tank. 

(Solar pump photos by D. Chamberlain, OSU Extension.) 

Figure 22. Pasture nose pump mounted on railroad ties. 

(Photo by S. Wyman, NRST.) 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frost-free nose pumps are becoming available for winter 

use (Kuipers 2002). Developed in Alberta, Canada, the 

frost-free pump can be used from a well or from stream 

or pond water diverted underground to the bottom of 

a culvert that supplies water to the pump. The nosepowered lever operates a piston pump submersed in the 

culvert, which is similar to how old hand pumps work. 

This pump requires no energy, other than the energy 

the cow uses to operate the lever. 

Even within riparian areas or riparian pastures, water 

developments, ponds, or troughs can reduce streambank 

trampling damage (Miner et al. 1992). However, they 

tend to concentrate disturbance rather than distribute 

it. Water developments should not create new problems, 

such as excess soil erosion or vegetation and habitat 

impacts. Creating shade and locating rubbing posts and 

oilers nearby may augment the effectiveness of water 

development in helping to reduce the time livestock 

spend in riparian areas. 

(2) Upland Seeding 

Planting palatable forage species on depleted upland 

areas or cropland can attract livestock away from riparian 

areas. Livestock are drawn to the upland forage, decreasing 

time and use on the riparian area. When developing a 

seeding plan, the season of use (e.g., use cool-season 

grasses if trying to decrease early-season use within the 

riparian area) and the use of native or nonnative plant 

species should be considered. Contact your local County 

Extension or Natural Resources Conservation Service 

office for recommended species mixes and seeding rates. 

(3) Prescribed Burning, Brush Beating, and 

Tree Clearing 

Prescribed burning and other vegetation treatments that 

favor herbaceous plants, such as brush beating or tree 

clearing, often enhance forage production, accessibility 

and palatability, and correspondingly increase upland 

use. In fact, the attraction of livestock to the burned 

areas often enables temporary rest of riparian areas until 

vegetation recovers. Wildlife habitat needs should be 

considered when developing prescriptions. A mosaic 

pattern is more conducive to wildlife habitat needs than 

block-shaped treatment areas. However, treating only 

one or a few small patches may not be effective, and 

may unintentionally attract wildlife or livestock to these 

small areas. 

In much of the West, plants and plant communities are 

adapted to periodic fire. Without a natural disturbance 

regime to shift the competitive balance, woody species 

increase and eventually dominate. Highly competitive 

shrub and tree species, such as juniper or pinyon pine, 

may displace herbaceous vegetation, leading to accelerated 

soil erosion, loss of habitat for some wildlife, hotter fires 

when the accumulated fuels eventually burn, and increased 

risk of invasion by noxious weeds or species such as 

cheatgrass or red brome. A well-designed treatment and 

followup management actions that are implemented 

before crossing an ecological threshold keep the watershed 

functioning and keep plant communities in a dynamic 

equilibrium. This equilibrium supports wildlife with a 

diversity of habitat needs through disturbance and succession cycles. Watershed areas benefit when treatments 

shift use away from impacted streams. Prescribed burning, 

brush beating, and tree clearing are alternatives that can 

be used to mimic or replace natural fire regimes. 

(4) Grass Reserves 

Grass reserves are pastures that are set aside for use when 

alternate forage sources are needed, such as during a 

drought or following a fire. A grass reserve was used by 

the Malpai Borderlands Group to provide forage in 

exchange for a conservation easement. The participating 

rancher was able to rest his land by grazing his livestock 

on the largest of the Malpai ranches in New Mexico 

(Gripne 2005). 

The Wyoming Nature Conservancy also used grass 

reserves on its Heart Mountain Ranch near Cody to 

provide local producers with forage alternatives and 

promote long-term conservation improvements (e.g., 

prescribed burning or grazing deferment) on rangelands 

by providing forage at a discounted fee. Livestock forage 

values can be exchanged for a desired resource outcome 

on land that is under restoration while the cattle graze 

the grass reserve (Gripne 2005). 

(5) Supplementation as a Livestock Distribution 

Tool 

Placing salt, hay, grain, molasses, and other supplements 

only in upland areas away from riparian areas improves 

livestock distribution. In general, supplements should 

be placed no closer than 1/4 mile, and preferably 

1/2 mile or more (depending on the topography), from 

riparian areas and intermittent drainages, except where 


 
 

 

 

 

 

salt and supplements are used intentionally to localize 

animal impacts (Riparian Habitat Committee 1982). If 

supplements are placed near riparian areas, livestock use 

of shrubs and other riparian forage may increase and 

needs to be closely monitored to prevent overuse. 

Proper salting improves both distribution and utilization. At least one livestock operator relates that sawing 

salt blocks in half allows frequent movement of salt 

stations to minimize localized impacts of concentrated 

use. Although strategic salt placement is an inexpensive 

and effective distribution tool, recent research has 

shown that it is not as persuasive in modifying livestock 

distribution patterns as water developments (Ganskopp 

2001) or the strategic placement of energy or protein 

supplements such as low-moisture blocks (Bailey and 

Welling 1999). Protein supplements containing products 

such as cottonseed or soybean meal can increase 

consumption of cured, low-quality grasses and are 

especially attractive to livestock as forage matures and 

becomes dormant. 

On one Montana ranch, the use of low-moisture blocks 

increased the number of livestock that used the east half 

of the ranch by 35 percent. Low-moisture blocks were 

an effective attractant for cattle in both moderate and 

difficult terrain (Bailey and Welling 1999). Over a 7- to 

10-day period, forage utilization increased by 20 to 

25 percent in nearby areas when low-moisture blocks 

were placed in moderate terrain (10- to 20-percent slopes 

and 1/4 to 3/4 mile from water) and by 10 to 15 percent 

when placed in difficult terrain (15- to 25-percent 

slopes and 1/5 to 1-1/4 miles from water). In a comparable area within the same pasture that did not contain 

low-moisture blocks, forage utilization did not change 

during the same period. The increase in forage use 

extended for about 600 yards from the location where 

low-moisture blocks were placed. In a second Montana 

study (Bailey et al. 2001c), forage use in difficult 

terrain increased by 14 percent, from 6 to 20 percent, 

during a 2-week period for areas up to 600 yards from 

placements of low-moisture blocks. 

The type of energy or protein supplement is an important consideration when it is used as a tool to modify 

livestock grazing patterns. “Self-fed” supplements can 

provide nutrients on a continuous basis and are more 

effective and often less costly to use than supplements 

that are “hand fed.” The effectiveness depends on 

distribution costs, availability, and ease of providing 

the supplement. Low-moisture blocks are self-fed, and 

intake is restricted by the hardness of the product. 

Intake of low-moisture blocks has averaged 0.5 to 

0.75 pounds/cow/day and new blocks are usually placed in 

a new location once every 2 weeks. Range cake (cubes) 

are usually hand fed several times per week. For example, 

many ranchers feed 4 pounds of cake per animal 

3 times per week. In a Montana study, cows spent about 

5 hours per day within 100 yards of low-moisture 

blocks and only 1 hour per day within 100 yards of 

where range cake was fed. After consuming the cake, 

cows appeared to return to preferred areas, while cows 

fed low-moisture blocks were more likely to remain 

nearby. The study showed that cattle fed strategically 

placed low-moisture blocks used higher elevations than 

cows that were hand fed range cake. 

Liquid molasses supplements are self-fed and can be 

used to attract cattle, but they are more difficult to 

transport to rugged terrain than low-moisture blocks. 

Liquid supplements must be carried in a tank on a 

truck. In contrast, low-moisture blocks contain less 

than 5 percent moisture and can be readily transported 

to rugged terrain by using all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) 

(if allowed in the ATV’s use guidelines and restrictions). 

Some ranchers have transported low-moisture blocks 

into mountainous rangeland using pack horses. 

Ranchers also use pressed blocks and loose, dry mineral 

formulations to supplement livestock on rangeland. A 

study conducted in New Mexico (Bailey et al. 2004b) 

showed that both low-moisture supplements and 

pressed blocks attracted cattle to areas far from water, 

but low-moisture blocks were more effective. Consumption of the pressed blocks was lower than the lowmoisture supplements and much lower than the manufacturer’s recommendations for the pressed supplement. 

Supplements will not be as effective in luring animals 

to underused upland areas if the consumption of the 

supplement is relatively low. 

Loose, dry mineral formulations are usually mixed with 

salt and fed in open containers. They, like salt, are 

attractive to livestock. A study conducted in Montana 

(Bailey and Welling 2002) found that although cattle 

were willing to travel to consume the dry mineral 


 
 

 

 

product, low-moisture blocks were more effective for 

modifying cattle grazing patterns. Cows spent more 

time near low-moisture blocks than near the feeders 

containing dry mineral formulations. 

Supplements should be placed in a restricted area 

so that social interactions among animals are more 

likely to occur and the placement site is more likely to 

become a loafing area. In research studies in Montana, 

eight low-moisture supplement containers were placed 

in a 200- by 200-yard area. Salt was also placed in this 

area because salt was not added to low moisture supplement products. If supplements are repeatedly placed 

in the same area, nearby forage use becomes excessive. 

New supplement barrels should be placed at least 

300 yards from old sites to improve livestock distribution 

and forage use. This becomes an anticipated reward 

(conditioned response) when livestock are herded from 

one portion of the pasture to another. 

Even though supplements are nutritious, animals must 

become familiar with a product and learn to prefer it 

before it can be used as an attractant. Offering animals 

a supplement in a dry lot or a small pen is the quickest 

and most effective method for getting animals to sample 

new supplements. A good time for training animals to 

consume new types of supplements is during calving 

when animals are near the ranch headquarters. Showing animals where a supplement is located is a good 

practice, especially if it is moved a long distance from 

its former location. Cows can be herded, “called,” or 

“honked” to a new supplement location. Not all cows 

need to be shown the new location. Generally, the 

entire herd will find the location if 30 to 50 percent 

of the herd is shown the supplement site once. If new 

supplement barrels are placed only a short distance 

(200 to 400 yards) from their previous locations, animals 

will readily find them. With this method, animals only 

need to be herded to the first supplement location. 

The idea is to place the supplement along an area 

(e.g., ridge) that typically receives little grazing. 

When placing supplements, other uses and values, such 

as wildlife needs, should be considered. For example, 

supplements should not be placed in elk winter use 

areas unless the goal is to reduce the amount of wolfy, 

decadent vegetation to stimulate more nutritious 

regrowth for elk use. 

b. Herd Management and Animal Husbandry 

Practices 

(1) Culling Practices 

Culling practices are traditionally employed to improve 

some aspect of animal performance such as conception 

rates, weaning weights, or conformation. However, 

some operators also cull on habitat use tendencies and 

foraging characteristics. Several studies found that within herds, or even within breeds, certain individuals tend 

to spend more time in the bottoms while others tend to 

forage widely (Roath and Krueger 1982, Howery et al. 

1996, Bailey 2004a). 

A 3-year study in northern Montana demonstrated that 

individual animal selection has the potential to improve 

grazing distribution patterns (Bailey et al. in press; 

Bailey et al. 2004c). Differences in individual grazing 

patterns observed in common pastures persisted even 

after animals were separated. Cows that were previously 

observed on steeper slopes and in areas farther horizontally and vertically from water (hill climbers) continued 

to use steeper and higher terrain and areas farther from 

water than cows that were previously observed in gentler 

slopes near water (bottom dwellers). Terrain use of hill 

climber and bottom dweller cows not only differed statistically, but common forage stubble height standards 

for riparian areas (e.g., 5 inches) treatments were higher 

in the hill climber treatment area than in the bottom 

dweller treatment area. 

Although the results from the Montana study were 

favorable, more research is needed before individual animal selection can be widely applied to improve uniformity of grazing. First, the selection pressure simulated 

in this study was high, because the herd was ranked and 

then split in half. Selection strategies based on culling 

(typically 10 to 20 percent of the herd are removed each 

year) would result in less selection pressure. Genetic 

progress from culling alone without sire selection is 

slow even when heritability is relatively high (Falconer 

1960). Second, the relative contributions of genotype 

and early learning on terrain use patterns of cattle must 

be determined. If terrain use is reasonably heritable, 

grazing patterns can be modified by sire and family 

selection. If early learning is important (Howery et al. 

1998), terrain use could be modified by management 

and training when replacement animals are calves. 


 
 

 

 

 

(2) Kind of Livestock 

Changing or incorporating different kinds of livestock 

can affect both the distribution pattern and forage 

preference. Unrestricted use by those cow-calf pairs, 

which tend to concentrate, loaf, and forage in bottoms, 

may impact riparian areas more than use by some other 

kinds or classes of livestock. Yearling cattle, particularly 

steers, generally tend to be wider ranging and use more 

of the adjacent uplands. Horse grazing during the winter may result in bark being stripped from deciduous 

trees in some areas (Kindschy pers. comm.). However, 

horses are primarily regarded as grass eaters, and generally congregate less than cattle (Stoddart et al. 1975). 

They graze an area and then move onto an ungrazed 

area, whereas cattle tend to stay in a grazed area waiting 

for vegetation regrowth. A concentration of feral horses 

on riparian meadows was reported to adversely impact 

that area (Platts pers. comm.), and Crane et al. (1997) 

found that sedges in streamside and bog and meadow 

areas were important forage for feral horses. Problems 

have occurred in other locations because of concentrated 

use of springs or seeps by feral horses. Horses pull plants 

out by the roots from areas that have moist soils more 

than most other animals (Pieratt pers. comm.). 

Herded sheep offer several options for achieving proper 

management in certain riparian areas. Sheep use may be 

more desirable than cattle use in some areas due to the 

herders’ control over location, timing, degree, duration, 

and frequency of use. Sheep prefer hillsides to the 

confining nature of riparian bottoms. The herder can 

easily move sheep to upland or ridgetop areas rather 

than bedding them in a riparian area meadow. Generally, 

herders want to keep flocks or bands moving to facilitate forage selectivity. The quality of herding controls 

impacts to riparian areas and rates of gain in the lambs 

(Glimp and Swanson 1994). When properly herded, 

sheep cause less trampling damage than cattle (Stoddart 

et al. 1975). 

Sheep and goats may do less physical damage to herbaceous plants due to their nibbling characteristics, 

whereas cattle and horses can dislodge plants from the 

soil because they graze with a pulling motion. Sheep 

and goats may also be used to control invasive plant 

species such as leafy spurge and knapweed. Because 

different animal species have different plant preferences, 

the integration of multiple grazing species may improve 

plant species composition. This integration could alleviate overuse of desired forage species, decrease the 

potential for increaser species to dominate an ecological 

site, and enable selective control of undesirable plant 

species without resorting to the use of herbicides, which 

is tightly restricted close to water. 

As previously noted in section III.D.1.b.5, the Deseret 

Land and Livestock Ranch in north-central Utah placed 

a band of sheep in Hornet Gulch to alter elk use patterns 

to improve riparian vegetation (Danvir pers. comm.). 

Free-roaming sheep (without a herder) consumed spring 

willow growth in Oregon even though adequate herbaceous forage was available. Heavy browsing of young 

willow growth by unherded sheep was also observed 

in southern Wyoming during spring, summer, and fall 

where the herbaceous vegetation was dominated by 

coarse forage such as sedges and rushes. 

Goats can effectively control a variety of problems or 

invasive plants such as leafy spurge, multiflora rose, 

knapweed, and brush species. They can reduce the need 

for herbicides, fertilize the soil, and control weed species 

in areas that are difficult to treat with other methods. 

Ranchers have incorporated goats into their livestock 

operations to help maintain and increase herbaceous 

forage species through invasive plant control. Individuals 

will sometimes contract with ranchers and farmers to 

provide forage for the goats, which in turn control weed 

species. Goats typically prefer forb and browse species, 

so there is not an overlap of use by goats and cattle 

(Coffey 2002). 

(3) Breed of Livestock 

Most livestock operators would not consider a change 

in breed of livestock simply to improve distribution. 

However, grazing patterns might become a consideration in breed selection if an operator is considering a 

change for other reasons. Higher heat tolerance (and 

related foraging characteristics) of Brahman, Brahman 

crosses, and other Zebu types is often a consideration in 

Southern and Southwestern States. For example, Herbel 

and Nelson (1966) found that Santa Gertrudis cattle 

(3/8 Brahman) traveled further when foraging than 

Hereford cattle in a study in southern New Mexico. 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For extensive and rugged pastures, livestock producers 

and land managers may be able to improve uniformity 

of grazing by selecting breeds that were developed in 

more mountainous terrain. Tarentaise cattle developed 

in the French Alps consistently climbed higher and used 

higher elevations (greater vertical distance to water) 

than Herefords on northern Montana rangeland (Bailey 

et al. 2001b). Additional research compared terrain use 

of cows sired by Angus, Charolais, Piedmontese and 

Salers bulls. Cows sired by Piedmontese bulls used higher 

terrain than cows sired by Angus bulls (VanWagoner 

et al. 2006, Bailey et al. 2001a). Piedmontese cattle were 

developed in the foothills of the Italian Alps, whereas Angus 

cattle were developed in flatter terrain in eastern Scotland. 

c. Techniques that Exclude Livestock Use or 

Promote Avoidance of Riparian Areas 

(1) Fences 

Fencing, when properly located, well constructed, and 

maintained, can be an effective tool for controlling 

distribution of livestock. Fencing facilitates management 

of riparian areas by either including or excluding 

livestock use, depending on management objectives. 

Sometimes exclusion fencing may be the most practical 

approach for initiating rapid riparian recovery or 

improving highly sensitive areas (Figures 23-25). It 

can also be a temporary measure for initiating recovery. 

The loss of forage from exclusion fencing may be 

inconsequential on streams in poor condition that lack 

vegetation. Fencing water sources at springs and seeps and 

piping the water to adjacent areas for use is often the 

only effective measure for protecting small riparian areas. 

Figure 23. Mahogany Creek, 1975. 

Figure 24. Mahogany Creek, 1978 after exclusion. 

Figure 25. Mahogany Creek, 2004. (Mahogany Creek photos by BLM.) 

Fencing may also restrict wildlife and livestock movements in an undesirable manner. In addition, fence 

construction and maintenance can be costly and time 

consuming. Temporary electric fencing can be an 

effective tool for improving distribution so that parts of 

a pasture can be grazed while others are rested (Figure 26). 

Temporary fencing is also useful for evaluating multiple 

placement locations before constructing more expensive 

permanent fencing. Using temporary fencing from year 

to year to break up grazing patterns and facilitate implementation of rangeland management practices provides 

flexibility in obtaining long-term objectives. 

Livestock acclimate to temporary electric fencing easier 

in a controlled environment, such as a spring calving 

pasture, as opposed to much larger rangeland pastures. 

Livestock need to learn to respect the fence as a barrier. 

It is important to note that temporary electric fencing 

does not provide the same level of control as permanent 

0
 
 

 

Figure 26. A temporary fence is used to rest sections of the pasture 

while allowing grazing in the remainder of the pasture. (Photo by M. 

Borman, Oregon State University.) 

barbed-wire or wooden-rail fencing and should be used 

to influence rather than control animal behavior. 

Suspending panels of corrugated metal roofing over the 

stream, between ends of a fence, has proven effective in 

controlling livestock movement in Oregon. The panels 

swing with the flow of water, do not catch trash, and 

are avoided by livestock. Other forms of swing panels 

constructed of hanging pipe or heavy chain have also 

proven effective. 

(2) Barriers 

Barriers formed by placing trees and brush on streambanks 

may discourage livestock use and help stabilize eroding 

banks. Placing boulders (10 to 20 inches or larger) 

along streambanks where livestock trail and cause trampling damage can effectively displace livestock use and 

promote recovery (Myers pers. comm.). 

(3) Hardened Crossing and Water Access Points 

Hardened crossings and water access points are coarse 

gravel pads that provide livestock sure footing on a 

gentle grade to water, either for crossing a stream or for 

drinking (Figure 27). Livestock prefer gravel pads over 

steep, overhanging streambanks or soggy low areas to 

access the water in the stream channel (Milesnick pers. 

comm.). During a roundup, cows will run for the gravel 

pad before trying to negotiate the streambanks (Massman 

1998). Berg and Wyman (2001) suggest locating crossings or access points in areas where the streambed is 

stable (Figure 28) and avoiding sites where: 

• The channel grade or alignment changes abruptly 

• The channel bed is unstable 

• Head cuts exist 

• Large tributaries enter the stream 

• There is a recently located or constructed channel 

• A culvert or bridge is immediately upstream or 

downstream 

• Water velocity and depth are excessive 

Figure 27. Hardened livestock crossing on a class 1 trout stream in 

Columbia County, Wisconsin (2000). (Photo by B. Nichols, NRCS.) 

Figure 28. Stable livestock water access in Jefferson County, 

Montana (2001). (Photo by G. Kramer, NRCS.) 

Locating water access in rocky areas (natural or manmade) 

minimizes trampling damage to streambanks and streambeds. Narrow water access (water gap) discourages livestock 

from loafing at the water source (Leonard et al. 1997) 


 
 

 

(Figure 29). Ice and high flows need to be considered 

when locating water access points and hardened 

crossings in some areas. 

Figure 30. Areas of fish and livestock use. 

(4) Bedding Grounds 

Bedding grounds and other livestock handling facilities 

Figure 29. Narrow water access (water gap or gap) discourages 

loafing. (Photo by NRCS.) 

Fish spawning and rearing areas should be considered 

when determining the location of the water gap or 

crossing. Although the vegetation has expressed itself 

in Figure 30, there are some key fisheries habitat areas 

(black ovals) that need to be addressed to ensure that a 

grazing strategy is successful. These include: 

•	 Pool formation and cover: Are cattle impacts 

preventing pool formation and overhanging cover 

on the outside of the meanders? 

•	 Margin habitat: Is there adequate vegetation in the 

margins to provide habitat for fry or minnow species? 

•	 Spawning area: Are there trampling impacts to 


spawning areas?
 

The red oval at the end of the point bar is an area cattle 

would likely use to water due to the gentle gradient. 

The red line is another area cattle may use to water and 

where they would prefer to cross. This shallow at the 

break between a pool and a riffle is just downstream from 

where salmonids can spawn. Although the preferred 

livestock access areas are close to redds in this example, 

there are few observations of livestock trampling redds 

in the Western United States. 

should be located away from riparian areas (Riparian 

Habitat Committee 1982). The use of low-stress stockmanship and salt, mineral, or other supplements (e.g., 

low-moisture blocks) may be useful for establishing or 

relocating bedding grounds away from riparian areas. 

(5) Livestock Turnout Locations 

Placing livestock far away from overused riparian areas 

when they are moved to a new pasture (turnout) may 

help regulate the timing, duration, and amount of riparian use in large pastures that contain adequate stock 

water (Gillen et al. 1985). It is beneficial to change 

turnout locations each year to vary behavior patterns. 

(6) Drift Fencing 

A drift fence is an open-ended fence used to retard or 

alter the natural movement of livestock; it is generally 

used in connection with natural barriers (SRM 2004). 

Drift fencing in conjunction with gullies, cliffs, and 

other natural barriers can regulate natural trailing or 

loafing by livestock in some riparian areas. 

(7) Stockmanship 

Frequent range riding and herding can effectively 

control livestock distribution in many situations. On 

some rough or poorly watered ranges, proper stock 

manship may increase breeding, conception, and calf 


 
 

 

 

crops (Stoddart et al. 1975). Several of the successful 

strategies reported by Massman (1998) and Masters et 

al. (1996a, 1996b) also incorporate riding and herding 

into overall management. Low-stress stockmanship 

techniques are once again becoming more popular as a 

tool to distribute livestock. 

Low-stress stockmanship is a method of handling livestock with prompts rather than force. Age-old principles 

and techniques of animal handling take advantage of 

some inherent traits of livestock, encouraging herds to 

stay together where they are placed. Livestock usually 

become more controllable with these techniques and 

their productivity and health often improve because 

the handling is low-stress and their health is monitored 

more effectively by the riders. Well-handled range livestock will want to stay together, instead of scattering or 

hiding in favorite places (such as meadows and riparian 

areas). Properly placed animals will go to water, such as 

a creek or trough, drink, and then return to bed down 

and graze around the area in which they have been 

placed. This allows the rider or range manager to readily 

control the results of grazing to a high degree, even 

on large expanses of unfenced range and on steep or 

brushy terrain. 

Successful application of low-stress stockmanship enables the rider or range manager to control the duration 

that plants and soils are exposed to grazing animals. 

This controls overgrazing and overresting, both of 

which lead to deterioration of range health. Proper 

handling can thus improve livestock distribution and 

rangeland condition and trend, and it can lead to 

improved riparian conditions that benefit fisheries and 

wildlife while improving water quality. Livestock can 

be moved away from critical habitats at critical times to 

minimize social displacement of wildlife (e.g., elk and 

deer winter range, fawning sites) (Mosley 1999). 

Low-stress livestock handling facilitates all grazing 

management strategies because the animals are readily 

moved and are comfortable where they are settled. 

Whereas good stockmanship is important with highintensity, short-duration grazing systems, it can mean the 

difference between success and failure with rest-rotation, 

deferred-rotation, and seasonal grazing strategies on 

large pastures or open range because areas within the 

large pastures may be overgrazed without intensive 

management. When management prescriptions require 

livestock grazing during one of the critical times, or in 

high livestock densities, a rotation grazing system can be 

used to provide wildlife the opportunity to move into 

pastures where livestock are not present (Mosley 1999). 

Incorporation of offsite water developments along with 

the placement of salt, mineral, and protein blocks has 

been found to complement low-stress stockmanship. 

Bailey (2004b) evaluated moving cow-calf pairs during 

midday by using low-stress handling techniques (with 

and without low-moisture supplement) as a management 

tool to protect riparian areas. Bailey reported important 

differences between the free-roaming control cows and 

the herded cows (with and without supplement). The 

study clearly showed that herding (with and without 

supplement) can reduce the time cows spend near 

streams and riparian areas and increase the time spent in 

uplands, and the change in cattle grazing patterns with 

herding will result in less forage use and higher stubble 

heights near streams. 

Learning low-stress stockmanship skills requires dedication and a shift in both attitude and how livestock are 

viewed. Also, the mishaps can be big if smaller herds are 

combined into one large herd. In some areas, existing 

water developments may lack the capacity to handle the 

number of animals in a larger herd. The herd may need 

to be kept split into smaller herds based on available 

water and forage. 

See Appendix G for information about the benefits, 

economics, and sustainability of the ranch operation 

using low-stress stockmanship. 


 
Case Study: Morgan Creek, Challis, Idaho (Gowan and Camper 2000) 

The Morgan Creek allotment was converted from season-long grazing to a rest-rotation grazing strategy 

in 1972. A collaborative approach, considered state of the art at the time, resulted in improved upland 

conditions, but improvements in riparian function were not well documented or apparent. 

The chinook salmon was added to the Federal endangered species list in 1992. Numerous requirements 

were put in place in an attempt to ensure compliance under the Endangered Species Act. Permittees found 

it difficult or impossible to comply with the new requirements, which were developed without their 

participation. By 1994 the management changes resulted in: 

• Up to 13 riders patrolling the drainages daily to herd cattle off of riparian areas. 

• Failing to meet grazing standards in 7 of 7 key areas. 

• A 68 percent reduction of animal unit months on the allotment. 

• Agricultural and environmental community dissatisfaction. 

• An impasse between permittees, agencies, and other interested parties. 

The Morgan Creek Team was formed, and through a combination of collaboration and low-stress 

stockmanship, it planned: 

• On-the-ground management that emphasized a shared vision and goals. 

• Continuation of rest on 1/3 of the pastures, but with much greater flexibility. 

• Subdividing the three-pasture system into several smaller grazing units divided by topographic 


features rather than fences.
 

• Strict stubble height standards within riparian areas. 

• Active monitoring, including photo points, of stream sediment, willow abundance, redds, bank stability, 

and disturbance. 

• Flexible management with ongoing adjustments as the grazing season progressed. 

Results (Figure 31): 

• Standards were met or exceeded on 8 of 11 key areas the first year; greater success was achieved in 

subsequent years. 

• Permittees were able to graze a full season. 

• Consultation was shorter and less contentious. 

• Costs were decreased. The Morgan Creek Cattleman’s Association reported saving $10,000 in 3 months 

over one season, even with the cost of hiring two full-time riders. 

• A positive environment for working together was established. 

• Stress on both livestock and the environment was reduced. 

• Livestock production increased; riparian conditions improved. 

• The Forest Service received the Forest Service Chief’s Award for Excellence in Rangeland Management. 

• The system worked as long as there was institutional support and the collaborative process was 


followed.
 


 
Morgan Creek Team requirements for application of low-stress stockmanship included: 

• Use livestock to mimic impacts of prehistoric wild ungulates. 

• Allow animals to bite each plant only one time. 

• Adopt Bud Williams’ low-stress stockmanship techniques. 

• Allow use of livestock as a vegetation management tool. 

Today the Morgan Creek Team still strives for sustainable resource management. Turnover in participating

 agency personnel and decreased institutional support in the collaborative process have created new 

obstacles for the group to overcome. As with any collaborative process, continued support by all parties is 

the key to long-term changes on the land. 

Before (1995) Year 3 (1997) Year 5 (1999) 

Figure 31. Changes to the Morgan Creek allotment, Idaho. (Photos by C. Gowan and R. Camper, USFS.) 


 
 

3. Grazing Treatments 

No matter which grazing treatment is selected, success 

ultimately depends on the livestock managers’ cooperation or support of the grazing management plan 

(Ehrhart and Hansen 1998, Evans Draft). Ehrhart and 

Hansen (1997) analyzed 71 stream reaches, located 

primarily on private land throughout Montana, rated 

as functioning properly or in an upward trend. They 

found that the operators employed the full range of 

seasons of use as well as lengths of grazing periods and 

concluded that “the manager is more important than 

a particular approach.” Selection of a grazing treatment differs depending upon the location, extent, and 

condition of the riparian area within the pasture(s), 

compatibility with the overall ranch management plan, 

people involved, agency requirements, weather patterns, 

livestock, wildlife, and so on. 

The treatments described in this section have succeeded 

in many places and failed in many others. Any treatment that is implemented without at least some of the 

management tools and techniques mentioned earlier 

is likely to fail. The grazing treatment selected should 

be designed to meet the resource needs of the area, fit 

with the livestock operator’s management plan, and be 

closely managed by the livestock operator. 

Ecologic and economic considerations should be evaluated when designing a grazing treatment. Livestock that 

remain in the riparian area waiting for the vegetation 

to grow high enough to bite will not gain as much as 

those animals that are using upland areas and filling 

their stomachs in less time. It can take twice the effort 

and time for a cow to fill her stomach in areas with 

less than 3-inch stubble height due to a change in bite 

pattern and the amount of forage a cow can pull into 

her mouth with each bite (Hall and Bryant 1995). The 

result is a shift to more quickly eaten and less palatable 

forage and less weight gain. 

Concerns about the detrimental affects of season of use 

on wildlife are based on the assumption that a single 

pasture is used the same season year after year. However, 

by maintaining the proper stocking rate, managing the 

duration of grazing, and monitoring, use during any 

season can benefit the plant community and selected 

wildlife species life cycle needs based on the land use 

plan (Miller pers. comm.). 

As for the grazing systems themselves, the more intense 

systems (e.g., twice over, short-duration, high-intensity 

systems) can provide excellent benefits for waterfowl 

(Barker et al. 1990) and upland game birds (Kirby and 

Grosz 1995, Svedarsky and Van Amburg 1996). The 

short grazing periods allow for regrowth that provides 

cover later in the season, but intense systems may substantially reduce current-season nesting cover for many 

ground-nesting species depending upon timing of use. 

A short grazing period may provide excellent regrowth 

and residual cover for next year, but this year’s nesting 

cover may be diminished in those particular pastures 

grazed at the time of year that affects cover. Kirby and 

Grosz (1995) hypothesize that grazed areas are centers 

of human and livestock activity and have reduced levels 

of cover for mammalian predators. These factors may 

make grazed areas unattractive to predators as foraging 

sites. In contrast, the seclusion and cover provided by 

nongrazed areas may actually attract greater numbers 

of predators. 

Impacts to individual fish and their habitat differ 

depending on season of use, climate, fish species present, 

and other factors. Grazing strategy impacts are determined by short- and long-term effects on vegetative 

structure and the long-term effect of vegetation and 

livestock on channel morphology. Grazing strategies 

should address impacts to, or objectives for, cover 

because fish require overhead (canopy) and instream 

cover, including overhanging banks and deep pools. 

Strategies could also address factors that influence water 

quality, including temperature and dissolved oxygen, 

and spawning habitat components (clean gravel) if such 

changes are likely within the management timeframe. 

Eutrophication concerns should be addressed for areas 

with lakes and ponds. 

One problem in multiple-pasture systems is allowing 

livestock to drift among pastures rather than moving 

them more quickly. In his evaluation of 30 grazing 

systems on 44 stream reaches in Montana, Myers 

(1981) and others concluded that livestock should be 

moved between pastures rather than left to drift over a 

period of several days or weeks. In this analysis, riparian 

vegetative response seemed to be better in allotments 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

where the livestock were moved and the gates closed, as 

opposed to where livestock drifted and simultaneously 

used two pastures. Movement requires a strong 

commitment from the livestock operator to clean 

the pasture. Without it, some livestock will stay in a 

pasture eating regrowth even with adequate palatable 

forage in the next pasture. One recommended approach, 

which can minimize livestock stress and encourage 

better dispersal, is to open the gate in late afternoon on 

day one, allow drift on day two, and clean the pasture 

and close the gate on day three (Hagener pers. comm.). 

Supplements can also be used to help attract livestock 

to the next pasture. Techniques that work well will vary, 

depending on local conditions. Some ranches do not 

have adjoining pastures, which makes livestock movement more difficult. This is not an insurmountable 

obstacle if considered during the planning phase. 

Successful grazing strategy planning takes into 

account that: 

• The grazing strategy needs to be designed for 


resource needs and for the rancher that will be 


implementing the strategy. 


• No one size fits all. 

• Commitment by the livestock manager is needed to 

succeed. 

• There is often a 3-year learning curve between 

initial implementation and indications of success 

or improving trend (Provenza 2003) in the resource 

and livestock condition. 

• The more intensive the management strategy, the 

better the chance for a serious mishap. 

• The objectives and expectations need to be clearly 

understood by all concerned. 

Following are descriptions and examples of various 

grazing treatments and their effectiveness for improving 

or maintaining riparian areas in specific situations. 

a. Winter (Dormant-Season) Grazing 

Winter grazing is the use of a pasture during the plants’ 

dormant season. Dormant-season grazing provides total 

growing season rest every year. Though some browsing 

does occur on the riparian woody vegetation, such use 

is often minimal because drainages are colder than adjacent 

uplands. Normally, there is little or no vegetation 

growth during winter, so grazing affects plants less. 

Winter use is usually the least detrimental to soils 

(especially where they are frozen) and to dormant 

herbaceous vegetation. However, winter use also has 

the potential to remove excessive amounts of vegetation 

cover just prior to spring runoff. Most streambanks 

require carryover vegetation for bank protection and 

sediment trapping during high-flow events. Furthermore, 

winter may be the period of greatest use of woody 

browse species by both livestock and wildlife depending 

on temperatures, snow depth and duration, availability 

of other feed, animal concentration, forage and browse 

preference, and the extent of the woody plant community. Many riparian areas and some entire pastures 

are unavailable for grazing during a major part of the 

winter due to snow depth. 

In areas that can be grazed, winter can be a season of 

use with minimal impact if grazing is closely monitored 

and controlled (especially use of woody plant growth 

and browse species). Even though plants are dormant, 

use levels should be managed because winter grazing 

can reduce residual herbaceous cover for ground-nesting 

birds and calving or fawning ungulates. Some woody 

plant communities can benefit from occasional, prescribed 

winter use. Light browsing can stimulate leader production, 

increasing the density (cover value) of individual shrubs. 

Winter grazing can reduce canopy cover, benefiting the 

herbaceous layer and preventing a secondary cycle of 

erosion on some soils (Miller pers.comm.). 

Offstream water can be effective for reducing streambank impact during the dormant season and for helping 

livestock avoid slippery and icy streambanks. However, 

this requires keeping offsite water ice free. 

On many ranches winter feeding costs are the most 

expensive component of raising livestock, and a grazing 

cost of even $18 per AUM compares very favorably to 

feeding hay at roughly $60-$70 per AUM. An analysis of Humboldt and Elko, Nevada, cow-calf budgets 

showed winter feed costs were about 36-42 percent of 

the total cost of the cow-calf enterprise. The cost with 

supplement tubs was $174 per AUM for Humboldt 

and $188 per AUM for Elko. Reducing winter feeding 

costs in the Great Basin can impact the financial stability 

of the operation by thousands of dollars (Riggs pers. 

comm. and Curtis et al. 2005a and 2005b). 


 
 

Wickiup Creek in northern Nevada has been grazed in 

the winter by cattle since 1910 (Masters et al. 1996a). 

Winter grazing has maintained stable riparian conditions 

for decades (Figures 32 and 33). In addition to winter 

grazing, management practices include placing salt well 

away from riparian areas, culling riparian loafers, and 

varying turnout locations from year to year. 

Figure 32. Wickiup Creek, Nevada, 1939. 

Winter (Dormant) Season Grazing 

Potential Advantages: 

• Soil compaction and bank trampling are 


minimal if soils are frozen. 


• Use of the herbaceous species is not detrimental if 

the plants are not grazed down enough to change 

the root crown temperature. 

• It is usually easy to control livestock distribution. 

• Total growing-period rest is provided every year. 

• The fish-livestock interaction is usually minimal 

due to the unfavorable climate in the riparian area 

for livestock. 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• Browsing and damage to trees and shrubs 

occurs from trampling, rubbing, or possible bark 

chewing. 

• There is potential for soil compaction if livestock 

are on thawed, moist soils. 

• The removal of vegetation can reduce streambank 

protection, sediment entrapment, and fish cover 

just prior to runoff. 

• There is a potential for livestock to impact fish 

spawning areas (species-dependent). 

• Livestock may be using key wildlife winter range, 

causing wildlife to shift to lower quality habitat. 

Figure 33. Wickiup Creek, Nevada, 1991. 


 


Case Study: Winter Grazing Practices of the Five Dot Land and Cattle Company 

The Five Dot Land and Cattle Company near Standish, California, which has been operated since 1959 by 

Todd Swickard, acquired a 3,000-acre pasture in 1985. Long Valley Creek is the primary water source in the 

pasture. The pasture had previously been grazed 8-10 months of the year, and Swickard’s primary objective 

was to improve resource conditions on the upland and riparian areas. Although he wanted to produce forage, 

he also wanted to decrease erosion, increase wildlife, and heal the creek (Swickard pers. comm.). 

Swickard’s operation, which includes several BLM permits along with the Long Valley Creek pasture, 

changed to a dormant-season grazing prescription (October–January) with 500 cow/calf pairs in 1985. 

Leaf drop had already occurred on the willows, and vegetation was not as palatable in riparian trees as 

in upland areas where livestock spend most of their time. Because of the change to dormant-season use, 

Swickard saw an improvement in upland as well as riparian vegetation (Figures 34-37). 

Today, Long Valley Creek supports a large variety of sedges, grasses, forbs, cottonwoods, and willows. 

Swickard hasn’t done any planting or structural restoration to accomplish his objective of improving the 

riparian area to increase forage production. Noxious weeds, primarily whitetop (hoary cress or perennial 

pepperweed), are sprayed annually. 

Figure 34. Long Valley Creek, 1986. Figure 35. Long Valley Creek, 2000. 

Figure 36. Long Valley Creek, 1987. Figure 37. Long Valley Creek, 2000. (Long Valley Creek photos by 

T. Swickard, Five Dot Land & Cattle Co.) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Swickard has started working with the BLM to increase bitterbrush browse for winter deer use. He recently 

adjusted his grazing plan on his private and public land pastures. Cattle are now moved onto the BLM 

pasture in early spring and then to the Long Valley Creek pasture in July and August. The creek is fed by 

several hot springs, and good regrowth occurs in late summer and early fall. He removes the cattle before 

they begin browsing willows. 

Swickard is committed to remaining flexible, working collaboratively with agencies, and managing his 

livestock operation to maintain an ecologically and economically viable business. 

b. Spring Grazing 

Spring grazing is the use of a pasture during the early 

growing period when upland vegetation is highly nutritious. It enables riparian areas to be largely ungrazed 

during a large portion of the critical growing period. 

Cool-season vegetation growth begins and peaks in 

spring. Warm-season plants begin growing during 

mid- to late-spring. Spring use normally results in better livestock distribution between riparian and upland 

areas due to flooding, generally cooler temperatures of 

riparian areas, and highly palatable upland forage. In 

late summer, upland forage has senesced and is lower in 

quality than riparian vegetation. In contrast, forage 

quality of riparian areas and uplands are both high 

in spring and early summer. Consequently, livestock 

are likely to graze more uniformly, because alternative 

choices of sites to forage within the pasture are relatively 

similar (Bailey 2005). Spring use provides more opportunity for regrowth and plant recovery than summer or 

fall use and also results in more residual cover. Barker 

et al. (1990) concluded that the value of this cover far 

outweighs any disturbance or trampling factors for 

ground-nesting birds. 

In a 10-year study on Stanley Creek in central Idaho, 

Clary (1999) found that riparian habitats are compatible 

with light to medium late-spring use by cattle. Improvements were found in stream channel configuration and 

riparian plant communities after all three treatments 

(none, light, and moderate grazing use) on historically 

heavily grazed pastures in a cold mountain meadow 

riparian area on the same creek. 

Regrowth is important for sustaining the important 

physical functions of a riparian area (e.g., shading, 

insulation, sediment filtering), as well as for buffering 

the effects of peak runoff on streambanks. For example, 

in the BLM’s Prineville District, in Oregon’s sagebrushand juniper-dominated high desert, spring grazing has 

been used to improve riparian conditions on Bear Creek. 

Prior to 1977, the area was a single pasture, permitted 

for 75 AUMs from April to September in most years. 

This strategy depleted streamside vegetation (low diversity 

and productivity) and deeply incised the stream channel, 

causing it to actively erode (Figure 38). Summer 

streamflow was often intermittent and low in quality. 

In 1977, the BLM decided to rest the area to restore 

the productivity of the riparian area. After 3 years of attempted rest, the area was used for 1 week in September 

in 1979 and 1980. In 1983, juniper trees were removed 

from the uplands to improve range condition and 

watershed health. In 1985, a grazing treatment authorized 

use from the time of spring runoff (mid-February) until 

April 15 in a three-pasture system. In 1988, authorized 

grazing use (permitted AUMs) was nearly five times 

greater than the forage obtained from the area under 

season-long use. The permittee reportedly cut his annual 

hay bill by $10,000 (1988 dollars). The riparian area 

continues to improve (Figures 39 and 40). The resulting 

improvement in quality and quantity of streamflow 

allowed the reestablishment of redband trout in Bear 

Creek. Although this early-season riparian grazing treatment works well on this site’s sandy loam soils, it might 

not work as well on medium- and heavy-textured soils 

with high moisture-holding capacity (clay). 

0
 
 

 

 

Figure 38. Bear Creek, Oregon, 1977. 

In the spring, seed and litter can be trampled into wet 

soil by hoof action. However, on some moist or saturated 

soils, grazing animals more easily uproot plants and 

compact soils or shear streambanks. Subsequent rest is 

often required to encourage root growth and other 

biological activity, which offsets the effects of soil 

Figure 39. Bear Creek, Oregon, 1996, after continued spring use. 

Figure 40. Bear Creek, Oregon, 2003. (Bear Creek photos by W. 

Elmore and BLM.) 

Late Winter–Early Spring Grazing 

Potential Advantages: 

• Use of riparian vegetation by livestock is reduced 

because upland plants have similar or higher 

nutritional content than riparian forage. 

• The amount of riparian soil compaction and bank 

trampling is reduced because the cattle use the 

uplands. 

• There is time for regrowth of vegetation. 

• Palatable herbaceous plants reduce pressure on 


woody plant species.
 

• The fish-livestock interaction is usually minimal 

because of the unfavorable climate for livestock in 

the riparian area. 

• Overhanging riparian herbaceous vegetation is 

usually not available for grazing because of high 

streamflows or the presence of trapped sediment in 

the vegetation. 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• The potential for soil compaction and bank 

trampling may be greater depending on soil type. 

• Use occurs during the critical period of upland plant 

growth and development if grazing is extended 

until grasses are in the boot stage of phenology. 

• Repeated grazing of desirable herbaceous species 

at this time may affect plant vigor (a short grazing 

season is beneficial). 

• Wildlife may be adversely affected (calving, 


fawning, and nesting cover). 


• There is a potential for livestock to impact fish 


spawning areas (species-dependent).
 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

compaction prevalent during spring. In a southwestern 

Montana study, most bank damage resulted when soil 

moisture was over 10 percent, which normally occurs 

prior to midsummer in arid and semiarid areas of the 

West (Marlow and Pogacnik 1985). The soil moisture 

content that minimizes bank damage differs with soil 

texture. 

c. Hot-Season Grazing 

Hot-season grazing is the use of pastures during the 

critical growing season for riparian plants. Summer is 

usually the period of greatest photosynthetic activity, 

especially for riparian and warm-season plants. Upland 

and cool-season plant growth and forage quality is 

diminished due to reduced soil moisture content. During the hot season, livestock concentrate in or near the 

riparian area when upland forage becomes rank or dry, 

water distribution is more limited, and the desire for 

shade is more intense. Where free-choice grazing is 

allowed in the summer, use of riparian vegetation 

is high and regrazing of the same plants can occur. 

Darambazar et al. (2003) suggest that cattle grazing in 

late summer in mountain riparian pastures will begin 

using shrubs intensively when the quality and quantity 

of grasses and the abundance of forbs decline. They 

recommend that late-summer grazing should be light or 

avoided if grasses have become dormant. 

Streambank damage relates to many factors, including 

soil moisture content, soil type, absence of woody 

plants and root systems, bank rock content, stock density (animals per acre), availability of offstream water, 

and duration of grazing. Streambank damage due to 

livestock trampling of wet soils, and where other factors 

are not controlling, may be avoided by deferring grazing 

until bank soil moisture content is less than 10 percent. 

Summer is also the time that grazing can cause the 

greatest levels of stress in most riparian plant species, 

which over time can reduce the abundance of desirable 

plants. There is less time for regrowth and replenishment of carbohydrate reserves during the summer than 

spring, and additional leaf area is needed. Continuous 

hot-season grazing can favor invasive plant species and 

can reduce residual herbaceous cover for ground-nesting 

birds, fish, and calving and fawning ungulates. 

However, most riparian areas should have available 

moisture and time for herbaceous plant regrowth, 

which can provide greater residual cover than that 

resulting from winter grazing. Woody species, where 

present, may suffer from browsing during the hot season. 

Long-term use of passive, continuous hot-season 

grazing may result in severely hedged (high-lined), 

single-age-class stands of woody plants. 

Annual grazing throughout the hot season (essentially 

the same as season-long use) is nearly always detrimental 

to riparian vegetation, especially in large pastures with 

small riparian areas that are not managed separately. 

Therefore, some form of indicator or trigger is needed 

to monitor and reduce frequency, intensity, and duration 

of riparian use. One of the other grazing management 

strategies should be considered. Offsite water, herding, 

proper use of supplements, or other practices may be 

needed as well. 

Myers (1981) found that in the foothills of southwestern 

Montana, the frequency of hot-season use from July 10 

to September 1 (period of heavy use) appeared to be a 

critical factor in developing and maintaining satisfactory 

riparian area conditions. Grazing systems with hotseason use in more than 1 year out of 3 or 4 met riparian 

habitat goals on only 5 of 21 streams. Grazing systems 

lacking hot-season use, or with no more than 1 year of 

hot-season use in 3 or 4 years, met riparian habitat 

management goals on 18 of 20 streams evaluated. 

Utilization or residual vegetation data were not available 

in this study. 

Myers (1989a) also analyzed the duration of hot-season 

(July 1-September 15) grazing treatments to determine 

the corresponding impacts on riparian areas. He found 

that successful treatments averaged only 12.5 days, 

whereas unsuccessful treatments averaged 33.4 days. 

In this study, willow utilization data was available. The 

length of the grazing period was also important from 

the standpoint of physical damage, regardless of 

utilization or regrowth potential, because livestock 

watered frequently and they preferred shade while 

loafing. The impact of the duration of grazing on the 

success of the grazing treatment depended on vegetation 

and stream type. 


 
 

There are situations where hot-season use works well. 

Most of these examples employ other management tools 

and techniques to facilitate proper use of the riparian 

areas. Deferring use in a riparian pasture until the hot 

season extends the green-feed period of nutritious forage and may provide an economic incentive for better 

riparian management. However, duration of use needs 

to be restricted to avoid repeat defoliation, overuse, and 

streambank trampling. Swamp Creek, a tributary to the 

North Fork of the Malheur River in Oregon provides 

an example of hot-season use (Figure 41). It is deferred 

during early summer and grazed every year from July 

or August through September. A 4-inch stubble height 

is required at the end of the growing season. There is 

offstream water, in most pastures, and some herding to 

keep livestock from “camping” on the river. One pasture that hasn’t been grazed by livestock for 5 years had 

browse use by wildlife on the sprouts and young willow 

and alder similar to that in the grazed pastures. 

Figure 41. Swamp Creek, Oregon, 2004. (Photo by S. Leonard, retired, 

BLM.) 

Hot-Season Grazing 

Potential Advantages: 

• Streambanks are more stable than earlier in the year. 

• There is frequently sufficient riparian soil moisture 

to allow for regrowth. 

• Riparian herbaceous vegetation may be more 

palatable and nutritious than desiccated upland 

plant material. 

• Bird nesting and calving and fawning by native 

ungulates is usually completed. 

• Fish spawning and incubation is completed for 

some species and has not started for others. 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• There is a greater tendency for livestock to remain 

and concentrate their use in the riparian area and 

stream channel. 

• There may be reduced plant vigor and possible 


changes in vegetation communities. 


• Tree and shrub species may be damaged. 

• Animal performance may be reduced. 

• Adverse fish-livestock interactions are generally the 

greatest due to the tendency of livestock to remain 

in the riparian area and the stream channel. 

• Possible damage to riparian herbaceous vegetation, 

which is needed for canopy and instream cover, 

may occur. 

• There is an increased potential for conflict with 

recreationists. 


 
 

 

d. Late-Season (Fall) Grazing 

Deferment is the delay of grazing to achieve a specific 

management objective (Society for Range Management 

2004). Skovlin (1984) suggests that deferring use until 

the late season (fall), until restoration of habitat is acceptable, offers a good measure of protection without 

great expense. 

Fall use is usually less critical than summer use because 

many perennial plants are completing their storage 

of carbohydrates and no longer need active leaf area. 

Upland cool-season species may again produce palatable 

forage, which, together with cooler temperatures, may 

shift livestock use to the uplands and relieve grazing 

pressure in riparian areas. 

Livestock are often assumed to leave riparian areas to 

use upland range in fall, but they may not. On one long 

glaciated U-shaped valley in Idaho, Platts and Raleigh 

(1984) found that a late-season grazing system helped 

restore riparian quality because livestock moved to the 

uplands in late summer and fall when a cold air pocket 

formed over the bottomlands. However, at another 

study site in a flat broad valley 15 miles away, livestock 

were drawn to the riparian areas during the late season 

because those areas contained the only remaining succulent vegetation. The orientation of the drainage (valley) 

can affect use by cows (e.g., south-versus east-facing 

slopes). Heavy fall riparian use can leave streamside 

vegetation depleted and banks vulnerable to damage 

from floating ice or spring runoff. 

Deferring grazing until after seedripe can benefit sedge 

and grass communities if sufficient residual vegetation 

protects banks and retains sediment during the next 

high-flow event (Elmore and Kauffman 1994). Woody 

species utilization must be carefully monitored because 

during the later part of the hot season, livestock tend to 

concentrate in riparian areas. Such concentrated use was 

found to retard woody plant succession on gravel bars 

even though the diversity and productivity of meadow 

communities were maintained (Green 1991). Kovalchik 

and Elmore (1991) noted that systems with late-season 

grazing may be incompatible with willow management. 

Late-Season (Fall) Grazing 

Potential Advantages: 

• Fish-livestock interactions depend on the climate 

and precipitation cycle. If the riparian area is 

working as a cold air sink, then the advantages 

resemble winter or spring use. If the riparian area 

is providing thermal cover, then the advantages 

resemble summer use. 

• Most herbaceous vegetation has completed its 

growth for the season, thus making it less 

susceptible to overgrazing. 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• Livestock are more likely to browse woody species, 

which can limit canopy cover and recruitment of 

instream cover. 

• Regrowth of vegetation needed for instream cover 

and stream function generally does not occur. 

• There is a potential for livestock to impact fish 

spawning areas (species-dependent). 

• Livestock distribution is poor. 

e. Passive, Continuous Grazing: Spring-Summer, 

Summer-Fall, or Season-Long Grazing 

In this document, the term “passive, continuous grazing” 

means grazing throughout the growing period with 

little or no effort to control the amount, duration, or 

distribution of livestock use in particular areas. Riparian 

areas will usually be overgrazed under passive, continuous 

spring-summer, summer-fall, or season-long grazing 

(Figures 42 and 43). During hot portions of the grazing 

period, riparian sites are usually preferred by livestock 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 42. An example of typical impacts from passive, continuous 

grazing. (Photo by Wayne Elmore, retired, BLM.) 

over upland sites on arid and semiarid ranges, as they 

provide water, lush forage, cooler air, shade, and relatively flat terrain. Until use becomes excessive, livestock 

do not need to spend as much time and effort to forage 

in riparian areas as they do on uplands to satisfy their 

daily nutritional requirements (Skovlin 1984). In 

Montana, during August and September, approximately 

80 percent of the forage used by livestock may come 

from riparian sites, even though these sites often make 

up less than 4 percent of the total pasture (Marlow 1985). 

Figure 43. Passive, continuous grazing can result in bank hoof shear, 

lack of vegetation on point bars, encroachment of dry-land vegetation, willows well above the channel elevation, heavily hedged 

willows, presence of only one age class of willows, lack of adequate 

vegetation for sediment entrapment and bank protection, and wide, 

shallow stream profile. (Photo by USFS.) 

Passive, Continuous Grazing: SpringSummer, Summer-Fall, or Season-Long 

Grazing 

The advantages and disadvantages are not listed for 

passive, continuous grazing as this treatment rarely 

works well for the maintenance or recovery of 

riparian function. 

f. Spring and Fall Grazing 

Spring and fall grazing in the same year may work in 

some cases, but it usually fails to meet riparian vegetation 

needs because it adds the potential limitations of spring 

grazing to those of fall grazing. If temperatures are still 

warm when fall grazing begins, livestock concentrate in 

the riparian area while palatability of both herbaceous 

plants and willows is high. Appropriate use on willows can 

easily be exceeded, and residual vegetation for protection 

of banks during high flows is removed before uplands are 

grazed (Figure 44). Livestock preference for the riparian 

area is compounded the following spring because the 

absence of standing dry matter increases the palatability 

of riparian forage over ungrazed upland plants. Excess stress 

may be added to upland plants that are already grazed in 

the spring if fall use of riparian areas is avoided due to 

cold in the bottoms and the palatability of upland fall 

greenup. Careful monitoring of grazing and browse use 

is essential for the success of this type of grazing strategy. 

Figure 44. An example of winter use on the left compared to spring 

and fall use on the right. 


 
-

 

 

Spring and Fall Grazing 

Potential Advantages: 

• Use of riparian vegetation is reduced due to live 

stock focus on nutritious upland plants in spring 

and avoidance of cooler bottom areas in late fall. 

• There is time for growth of vegetation before and 

after use. 

• The pasture may be used more completely, with 

some areas being preferred in one season and other 

areas preferred in the other season. 

• The period of nutritious forage may increase by 

focusing animals on upland vegetation when it is 

palatable and on riparian areas at other times. 

• The ease of livestock movement may offset a 


disadvantage of any required light use.
 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• Use occurs during the herbaceous growing season 

and when riparian woody plants are often browsed. 

• The banks may not be protected during high-flow 

events if use is excessive. 

• Use occurs when soils are most compactable (spring) 

and when soil is susceptible to dry ravel (fall). 

• There is more opportunity for livestock to disturb 

nesting, calving or fawning and to impact fish 

spawning in spring or fall. 

• Use may need to be more limited or the duration 

shortened to avoid the added negative effects of 

spring and fall use. 

• A use pattern set up in spring may be perpetuated 

with the same areas used in fall. 

Successful spring and fall grazing was observed by the 

National Riparian Service Team on a private, irrigated 

riparian pasture in south-central Idaho. Factors contributing to success in this case included plentiful herbaceous 

forage, water availability throughout the pasture, and 

a short duration of use (approximately 2 weeks) in the 

fall. Ehrhart found similar successes in several places 

in Montana. The critical point in these examples is 

that the owner or operator monitored use daily and 

moved livestock when target use levels were met. 

g. Deferred and Rotational-Deferred Grazing 

Deferred grazing is the delay of grazing in a nonsystematic rotation with other land units, and rotationaldeferred (deferred-rotational) grazing is a systematic 

rotation of the deferment among pastures (SRM 2004). 

Both strategies have been successful in restoring and 

improving riparian areas. Both strategies were found to 

be statistically similar in the amount of bank sloughing 

that occurred on nongrazed controls on Meadow Creek 

in northeast Oregon (Buckhouse et al. 1981). The 

common thread of successful application, except for 

riparian pastures used in a deferred strategy, has been 

to use many pastures to shorten the duration of use 

and provide greater flexibility. Many riparian grazing 

successes in Montana use from 7-38 pastures (Massman 

1998). Masters et al. (1996b) concluded, “Four-pasture, 

five-pasture (or more) rotation schemes with no rested 

pasture may be more suitable to areas that require increased streambank vegetation. The additional pastures 

or smaller riparian pastures allow for a shorter grazing 

season and greater flexibility in rotation schedules.” 

Figure 45 shows Van Duzer Creek around 1900 when it 

was turned upside down with intense mining and overgrazing. By 1982, recovery had taken place (Figure 46), 

but with a change to a five-pasture deferred rotation 

strategy, even more recovery occurred (Figure 47). 


 
 

Figure 45. Van Duzer Creek was turned upside down with mining 

and overgrazing around 1900. 

Figure 46. Recovery on Van Duzer Creek had taken place 

by 1982. 

Deferred and Rotational-Deferred Grazing 

Potential Advantages: 

• Riparian area livestock grazing and concentration 

does not occur every year. 

• The grazing season is shorter and changes in the 

timing, frequency, and intensity of grazing decrease 

the likelihood of multiple defoliations of desired 

riparian plant species, allowing for longer periods 

of plant recovery. 

• Livestock may be less selective in pastures where 

use is concentrated into shorter periods. 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• Every year livestock will be in some pasture when 

they are most likely to concentrate in riparian areas 

and damage riparian vegetation or stream channels. 

• This may or may not be offset by recovery in other 

years when the pasture is grazed in a different season. 

• With few pastures, the duration of the grazing 

season may be too long for some riparian areas. 

• There is an added expense for fence and fence 


maintenance. 


• Fences may interfere with wildlife movement. 

Figure 47. A five-pasture deferred rotation strategy allowed even 

better recovery by 1991 on Van Duzer Creek. 


 
 

 

 

Research at the Red Bluff Research Ranch near 

Norris, Montana, suggests that implementation of a 

grazing system based on seasonal preference for 

riparian and upland forage may be beneficial. In 

this area, livestock spend most of their time during 

June and July in the uplands, moving to the riparian 

sites in late July where they graze until October. 

Bank trampling damage is reduced by deferring 

grazing until after late July when soil moisture 

content has decreased to 8-10 percent or less. This 

system requires a minimum of three pastures and 

uses a 3-year cycle. Stocking rates in the pasture 

used first are based on forage available on both the 

upland and riparian sites. Stocking rates on the two 

pastures used later are based on 20- to 30-percent 

utilization of forage on the riparian sites. Although 

this may appear to drastically limit the length of 

time a pasture can be used, riparian zones usually 

produce three to four times the forage of upland 

areas. The regrowth potential of riparian species is 

great enough that, during most years, regrazing 

of the same pasture can occur at 30- to 40-day 

intervals until frost. Consequently, there is little, if 

any, change in the amount of forage a rancher has 

available to his livestock in the grazing season. Once 

the target level of use is reached, livestock are moved 

to the next pasture. Each pasture receives 2 years of 

deferment during periods when soil moisture exceeds 

10 percent (June-July). The pasture used early the 

first year is grazed progressively later during the 

second and third years. 

Marlow (1985) 

h. Rest-Rotation Grazing (Rotational Stocking) 

Rotational stocking is a grazing method that uses recurring periods of grazing and rest among two or more 

paddocks in a grazing management unit throughout 

the period when grazing is allowed. Words such as 

“controlled” or “intensive” are sometimes used in an 

attempt to describe the degree of grazing management 

applied with this grazing method. These words are not 

synonyms for rotational stocking (SRM 2004). Restrotation grazing is a management scheme in which rest 

periods for individual pastures, paddocks, or grazing 

units, generally for the full growing season, are incorporated into a grazing rotation (SRM 2004). Rotational 

stocking differs from rotational deferred grazing in that 

the rotation includes a year (or full growing season) 

with no grazing for each pasture at least once in each 

cycle. Hormay (1976) emphasized that each rest-rotation 

system should be designed to meet the resource needs of 

the area. The amount of rest, stocking rate, and season 

of use should be determined based on the growth 

requirements of all the vegetation present. Rest-rotation 

does not dictate heavy grazing under any treatment. 

As with deferred and deferred-rotation strategies, a 

system that uses more pastures is usually better than 

one that uses fewer; however, in practical application, 

rest-rotation grazing frequently has been a three-pasture 

system. Cost and simplicity have often been factors in 

choosing a three-pasture system, and riparian objectives 

historically have rarely influenced pasture design and 

grazing strategy. 

There are great differences of opinion on the value of 

rest-rotation grazing, as generally applied, in the proper 

management of riparian areas. Variation in ecological 

conditions and among stream types with different sensitivities to disturbance have contributed to mixed results 

of rest-rotation systems. Successes and failures have 

occurred, sometimes in the same management unit. 

Elmore and Kauffman (1994) cited 10 years of continued 

channel degradation in a high-gradient, high-energy 

stream system under three-pasture, rest-rotation grazing 

(Figure 48). Yet, in the same allotment, with the same 

system and the same livestock, another stream made an 

excellent recovery (Figure 49). The differences are due 

to stream type, sensitivity to disturbance, vegetation 

potential, and kind and amount of vegetation required 


 
 

 

 

 

to stabilize each stream. Rest-rotation favors herbaceous 

bank-forming vegetation, which is entirely adequate for 

the low-gradient stream depicted in Figure 49. However, 

the high-energy stream in Figure 48 continued to show 

a downward trend because of the lack of willows needed 

to stabilize the streambanks. Buckhouse et al. (1981) 

found no statistical difference in the amount of bank 

sloughing between a properly managed rest-rotation 

pasture and nongrazed control pastures. 

Masters et al. (1996b) provide examples of two, threepasture rest-rotation strategies in Nevada; one was 

successful, the other was not. The goals on Strawberry 

Creek (Figure 50) were to maintain healthy streamside 

vegetation and stable channel conditions. The continued 

success since the strategy was implemented in 1969 

is attributed to cooperation among agencies and the 

permittee, inherently stable stream channel conditions, 

long-term attention to resource conditions, and careful 

herd management practices, including salt placement 

and livestock herding to improve distribution. On 

Wildcat Creek (Figure 51), past management had 

resulted in unstable, eroding banks and deteriorated 

ecological conditions. Applying a three-pasture, restrotation strategy in a degraded system without adjusting 

livestock numbers resulted in the overgrazing of two 

pastures, and one year of rest did not allow system recovery. 

In this case, temporary exclusion to allow a “jump start” 

in the recovery process was probably warranted. In 

addition to limitations imposed by the initial conditions, 

specified herd management practices were not 

followed, upland water developments failed, and salt 

blocks were still placed near the stream channel. 

Figure 48. Higgins Creek, 1984. Channel degradation continued with 

10 years of a three-pasture, rest-rotation system. (Photo by W. Elmore, 

retired, BLM.) 

Figure 49. Beaver Creek, 1984. A three-pasture, rest-rotation system 

provided recovery of herbaceous bank-forming vegetation and 

associated channel characteristics. (Photo by W. Elmore, retired, BLM.) 

Figure 50. Strawberry Creek, Nevada, maintained properly functioning 

riparian conditions with a three-pasture, rest-rotation system. 

Figure 51. Wildcat Creek, Nevada, did not improve under the same 

kind of system. 


 
 

Rest-Rotation Grazing 

Potential Advantages: 

• Plants periodically receive a full growing season 


of rest for recovery.
 

• The duration of grazing season is shortened 

from season-long and frequency of defoliations is 

decreased. 

• The combination of a shorter grazing season with 

occasional or frequent periods of no grazing within 

the growing season allows plants to prosper in 

most, if not all, years. 

• The timing of pasture rotation frequently 


corresponds to grass phenology, and many 


riparian grasslike plants respond well to this 


treatment and timing.
 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• Moving animals to a pasture after seed ripening on 

upland grasses will likely concentrate animals in 

the riparian area. 

• Resting a pasture for a complete year will either 

add pressure to other pastures or require a decrease 

in herd size. 

• Every year livestock will be in some pasture when 

they are more likely to concentrate in the riparian 

areas and damage riparian vegetation or stream 

channels. 

• This may or may not be offset by recovery in other 

years when the pasture is grazed in a different season. 

• With few pastures, the duration of the grazing 


season may be too long for some riparian areas.
 

i. Short-Duration Grazing 

A short-duration grazing strategy is characterized by 

relatively short periods (days) of grazing and longer 

periods (week to months) without grazing. Periods of 

grazing and nongrazing are based upon plant growth 

characteristics. Short-duration grazing is separate from 

intensity of grazing use (SRM 2004). The duration may 

be short (a matter of a few days, but the intensity can 

vary depending upon stocking rate and the size of the 

grazing area. 

Short-duration grazing prevents frequent defoliations 

within a grazing period by moving livestock frequently 

when plants are growing rapidly. With grazing periods 

as short as a few days, few if any individual plants will 

have regrown sufficient leaf material to be regrazed. 

Thus regrowing plants have full opportunity to recover 

from defoliation without further defoliation stress. 

0
 
 

 

 

 

 

Short-Duration Grazing • There is a decrease in potential diseases and the 

Potential Advantages: 

• Plant root and shoot growth is less impacted with no 

or with only a few repeated defoliations. 

• There are long periods of growth and recovery. 

• Depending on the season of use, ground-nesting 

birds and other wildlife species needing shade and 

cover may benefit. 

• There is decreased time of exposure to grazing and 

trampling. 

• Enhanced monitoring by the livestock operator 


is required. 


• Fly problems are decreased as the livestock rotation 

breaks the fly larvae cycle. 

livestock manager can provide earlier treatment for 

sickness or injury. 

• Animals may be less selective, using more areas 

(better distribution) and more plants (more forage). 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• Cover for ground-nesting birds and wildlife may not 

be adequate during and right after grazing. 

• Intensive management is required (frequency of 


monitoring and moving animals).
 

• There are high fencing requirements unless herding 

techniques are used. 

• Mistakes in the timing of moves can lead to excessive 

grazing intensity with animal concentration. 

Case Study: Short-Duration Grazing at Milesnick Ranch 

Tom and Mary Kay Milesnick are the third generation on the Milesnick Ranch north of Belgrade, Montana. 

The ranch was purchased in 1936 and expanded over the years to the current 1,400 acres in the Belgrade 

unit and 4,800 acres of mountain pasture near Livingston, Montana. The Milesnicks raise Red AngusSimmental cattle commercially. 

From 1936 to 1970, all of the cattle were run in a single herd. They grazed a single pasture continuously 

and were fed supplemental forage during most of the winter months. From 1970 to 1991, the herd was 

rotated through three pastures, grazing each for 20 to 22 days, and resting each for 45 days before regrazing. 

In 1992, Milesnick’s interest in the environment led him to make some fundamental changes in grazing 

management on the home ranch. Public environmental pressures stressed a need for all riparian areas to 

be fenced from livestock use, but Tom wished to demonstrate that cows could effectively use the riparian 

areas on the “world-class fly-fishing streams” that run through his property. He began a 17-pasture shortduration system, with grazing periods ranging from 1⁄2 to 3-1⁄2 days and grazing up to five times per year 

in any one pasture with 250 cow/calf pairs. Two 12-hour pastures are grazed at night to accommodate 

fishermen who use the property during the day. 

The short-duration grazing schedule has completely eliminated historical asthma problems in the cattle. 

Cattle gains have increased from 450 pounds to 675 pounds since 1972 because of genetics and shortduration grazing (Milesnick pers. comm.). 


 


 

 

 

 

The Milesnicks use a variety of tools to facilitate their grazing plan. They have installed water access points 

to decrease streambank trampling. Size depends upon how many animals are watered at one time. An 

8-foot width has been sufficient if there are fewer than 175 head. They also use spring water to provide 

offsite water 50 feet from a meandering stream on the Livingston unit to decrease the amount of time 

cattle spent in and along the stream channel (Figure 52). 

Milesnick strives for a 6-inch stubble height on sedges and rushes when removing cattle from the pasture. 

He does not manage stubble height on Kentucky bluegrass as it is not the primary (key) species. He attempts 

to leave adequate leaf material for photosynthesis to occur on key plant species for plant vigor and 

maintenance and to provide more shade for fishery habitat. 

Milesnick also recognized the need to diversify his operation and started the Milesnick Recreation Company 

in 1999, which provides fee fishing (Figure 53), waterfowl hunting, and archery elk hunting. The Milesnicks 

are managing the vegetative resources for fish habitat. Fishing and hunting supply approximately 5 percent 

of the gross profits of the ranch, but the fishing and hunting operation yields an 80 percent net profit. 

Figure 52. Offsite water from a spring has allowed this stream 

channel at Milesnick Ranch, Montana, to heal. 

Figure 53. Cattle grazing on a blue-ribbon trout stream at Milesnick 

Ranch in Montana. (Photos on this page by T. Milesnick.) 
 

-

j. High-Intensity, Low-Frequency Grazing 

High-intensity, low-frequency grazing strategies are 

multipasture, single herd systems (USDA NRCS 2003). 

Stock density is high to extremely high; however, the 

length of the grazing period is moderate to short, with 

a long rest period. Dates for moving livestock are set 

by the use of forage, and grazing units typically are not 

grazed the same time of year each year. The number of 

grazing units and grazing capacity of each unit determines how often, if ever, the same grazing unit is grazed 

during the same period of the following year (USDA 

NRCS 2003). Intensive grazing management attempts 

to increase production or utilization per unit area or 

production per animal through a relative increase in 

stocking rates, forage utilization, labor, resources, or 

capital. Intensive grazing management is not synonymous 

with rotation grazing (SRM 2004). 

Unlike short-duration grazing, use periods are not based 

on the rate of plant growth. However, grazing periods 

may be short. The purpose of high-intensity grazing is 

to avoid use patterns, overresting of plants adapted to 

herbivory, unused forage, and favoring of less palatable 

plants. With all or most plants used well, forage plants 

have an equal opportunity to recover. This diminishes 

tendencies for increasers to outcompete decreasers. The 

low frequency is provided by having many pastures and 

long recovery/growth periods. Desirable forage species 

often benefit from this grazing system, but animal nutrient intake and corresponding livestock performance 

usually decline because the forced higher utilization 

levels reduce selectivity (Hart et al. 1993, Pfister et al. 

1984, Pieper et al. 1978, and Smoliak 1960). 

Trlica et al. (2000) found that in a montane riparian 

ecosystem along a small headwater stream in northern 

Colorado, heavy grazing may result in increased 

nonpoint source pollution if grazing occurs in close 

proximity to the stream. Runoff rates from heavily 

grazing plots were 70 percent greater than runoff rates 

from ungrazed control plots. 

High-Intensity, Low-Frequency Grazing 

Potential Advantages: 

• Long periods of rest are allowed. 

• Ground-nesting birds and other wildlife species needing 

shade and cover may benefit, except during or soon after 

intensive use. 

• There is decreased time of exposure to grazing and 


trampling.
 

• Enhanced monitoring by the livestock operator is 


required. 


• Fly problems are decreased as the livestock rotation 


breaks the fly larvae cycle. 


• There is a decrease in potential diseases. 

• The livestock manager can provide earlier treatment 

for sickness or injury. 

• The long period of rest provides for adequate litter and 

ground cover. 

• The competitive advantage of unpalatable plants is 


reduced.


 Potential Disadvantages: 

• Adequate cover for ground-nesting birds and other wild 

life may not be available during and right after grazing. 

• Intensive management is required (frequency of moving 

animals). 

• There are high fencing requirements unless herding 


techniques are used.
 

• Soil compaction is possible if grazed when soils are wet. 

• High intensity in the fall may fail to provide adequate 

vegetation cover for trapping spring sediment. 

• High levels of grazing intensity may reduce livestock 

performance. 

• Heavy grazing may result in reduced stream water 

quality if grazing occurs in close proximity to the stream 

(Trlica et al. 2000). 


 
 

 

 

 

Case Study: High-Intensity, Low-Frequency Grazing at Banister Ranch 

The Ray Banister Ranch is located in Wibaux County in eastern Montana. Banister manages 5,500 acres of 

private rangeland by using a high-intensity, low-frequency grazing strategy (what Banister calls “Boom-Bust”) 

that consists of intensive periods of grazing followed by two growing seasons of rest (Provenza 2003). 

He uses half of his 38 pastures each year (Massman 1998). Although pasture sizes differ, each pasture is 

grazed heavily by the herd for about 20 days every other year. This method stresses soils, plants, and 

herbivores with intensive grazing pressure and then allows them to recover. High-intensity grazing allows 

the cattle to open up thick patches of brush. Once sunlight penetrates dense, brushy areas, grasses can 

compete better with noxious weeds. This type of “hard hit” on a pasture helps trample grass seed into the 

soil and makes room for the establishment of new seedlings. Banister found that after providing a long 

rest, it is not necessary to vary the season of grazing, and the short amount of time in each pasture 

decreases the opportunity for regrazing individual plants. He also allows light grazing of the pastures 

during dormancy. Banister worked with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop livestock 

water (Figure 54), pasture and hayland renovation, and cross fencing. 

Banister feels that the riparian areas are healthy because the high-intensity, low-frequency strategy allows 

23 months of rest (Figure 55). Riparian vegetation becomes rank, palatability is lower, and cattle preference 

increases for plants on the uplands increases (Banister pers. comm.). 

Banister’s Hereford cattle had to adapt from eating the most palatable plants that were available to eating 

all the plants. The 220 cow/calf pairs, 20 heifers, and 10 bulls are allowed to move only when they have 

used high levels of the least palatable plants (sagebrush, snowberry, and various weeds). This reduces the 

competitive advantage unpalatable plants have over more preferred plants. It took Banister’s cattle 

3 years to adapt to this style of management. Weaning weights of calves plunged from well over 500 pounds 

to 350 pounds, and then rebounded back to over 500 pounds. Weight gains or losses will vary depending 

upon the situation, current health of livestock, and livestock requirements. Banister recommends allowing 

a minimum of 3 years to allow livestock to adapt to new management changes before deciding whether 

the strategy will or will not work. “There is no control over anything in riparian areas. There are too many 

variables, so the best strategy is to follow the rules of proper management” (Banister pers. comm.). 

Banister has found that this grazing strategy is beneficial for a large variety of wildlife species, including 

mule deer, white tail deer, antelope, greater sage-grouse, Columbian sharptailed grouse, and ring-neck 

pheasants, and many other bird and wildlife species, as well as the health of his land (Banister pers. comm.). 

Figure 54. Excellent wetland vegetation along a stockwater pond 

under high-intensity, low-frequency grazing system at Banister Ranch 

in Montana. (Photo by R. Banister.) 

Figure 55. Willows after grazing under a high-intensity, low-


frequency strategy at Banister Ranch in Montana.
 

(Photo by R. Banister.)
 


 


 

k. High-Intensity, Short-Duration Grazing 

High-intensity, short-duration grazing management is 

used to concentrate animal impacts in time and space, 

thereby avoiding regrazing and overresting of plants 

adapted to herbivory. This treatment copies the shortduration idea of not regrazing a plant during a grazing 

period by moving animals faster during rapid growth. 

It also uses the high-intensity idea of grazing all or most 

plants severely so that regrowth is balanced among 

species. To do this well requires appropriate numbers of 

animals to balance the forage available with the proper 

timing and desired use level. This treatment often uses 

many more pastures than high-intensity, low-frequency 

or short-duration grazing, so animal numbers must 

be sufficient in order to still meet goals, because use 

periods can be very short. Depending on how well it is 

planned and implemented, this technique can be good 

for riparian management. 

High-Intensity, Short-Duration Grazing 

Potential Advantages: 

• The positive plant regrowth opportunities of 


short duration are combined with the positive 


plant stimulus and equal recovery benefits of 


high intensity.
 

• Riparian concentration is diminished with more 

equal use of the uplands. 

• Depending upon the season of use, riparian 

vegetation recovery is possible over an extended 

period due to availability of soil moisture. 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• Residual cover for ground-nesting birds and 


other wildlife may be inadequate immediately 


after grazing.
 

• High-intensity use after the growing season may 

leave riparian areas with little cover for trapping 

sediment during high-flow events. 

• Stocking rates need to be adequate for proper 

intensity of use of vegetation, which varies 

depending upon amount and timing of precipitation. 

• Intensive management and an increase in fencing 

(unless low-stress stockmanship is used to move 

livestock) are required. 

• Livestock performance may suffer if grazing 


intensity levels are sufficient to reduce animal 


selectivity.
 
 

 

 

 

Case Study: High-Intensity, Short-Duration Grazing at Deseret Ranch 

High-intensity, short-duration grazing has been used to improve general range and riparian conditions on 

the Deseret Land and Livestock Company Ranch in northeast Utah. Prior to implementation of this method, 

much of the rangeland on the ranch was in a deteriorated condition (Secrist pers. comm.). Sagebrush filled 

many gullies in the lower elevations. Muddy water flowed in the drainages during snowmelt or following 

heavy rains. Riparian herbaceous vegetation was absent in most drainages and no willows could be found. 

A high-intensity, short-duration grazing program was initiated on the ranch in 1979, with the objective of 

making a profit while improving the health of the range. Because grazing animals were originally part of 

the ecosystem, livestock were chosen as the tool for accomplishing this objective. Cattle, sheep, elk, and 

buffalo are managed to control the timing and duration of grazing, as well as animal impact. Adaptive 

management is practiced by evaluating research and monitoring information, applying rangeland 

restoration projects, and revising the grazing strategy as needed (Danvir pers. comm.). 

Flexibility in time control has been achieved by grouping animals into large herds (from 2,000 yearling 

heifers to 5,000 cow/calf pairs and 2,000 yearling steers) and creating more pastures through fencing. 

Three cattle herds and two bands of sheep use 100 pastures on the ranch. Depending on range conditions, 

vegetation, and economic goals, pastures are used one to three times per year; the majority is only used 

once and usually receives more than 12 months of rest. Stock density has ranged from 0.5 to 3.5, depending 

on pasture size. Time in each pasture is determined by how fast plants are growing. When growth is rapid, 

pasture moves are frequent. When growth is slow, the livestock stay longer in each pasture. When plants 

are dormant, lack of forage and animal performance determine when livestock are moved. Time in each 

pasture has ranged from 3 days (during rapid growth) to 60 days (during dormancy). During the growing 

season, the grazing animals are moved from pasture to pasture in an attempt to graze each plant only 

once, and then allow it to recover from the effects of defoliation before it is grazed again. Sheep and 

cattle are moved by herding; however, most cattle have learned to move to the next pasture (with their 

calf at their side) when gates are opened (Danvir pers. comm.). 

The Deseret Ranch manager believes that animal impacts resulting from herding include: (1) hooves break 

up soil crusts, enrich soil, and provide cover by incorporating manure, litter, and seeds into the soil surface 

(this can be detrimental in areas where microbiotic crusts are an important component), (2) urine adds 

urea to the soil, (3) hoof prints create seedbeds and pockets for collection of litter and precipitation where 

seeds are pressed into contact with mineral soil, and (4) grazing, trampling, crushing, etc., prune plants 

to stimulate new plant growth. New plants result in additional pathways for water to get into the soil 

reservoir where it is stored, purified, and slowly released into riparian areas. Animal impact, when properly 

managed, is very important to the health of these rangelands. The herding effects, particularly the hoofprint 

seedbeds, improve microsite conditions for the germination of seeds and establishment of seedlings, which 

can be the weakest link in the natural function of many range ecosystems. 

The ranch manager believes that this method of grazing results in an increase in ground cover, water 

infiltration, and soil moisture and restores some of the natural hydrologic function to the watershed. Riparian 

vegetation has reestablished in the drainages, serving as a sediment trap that raises the water table. As 

this process continues, the bottom of the drainage rises in elevation, thus deepening and widening the 

riparian aquifer. As a result, riparian vegetation expands into the edges of the uplands and floods sagebrush. 


 
 

 

 

 

 



Clear water flows year-round, and willows have established themselves where they did not exist before. 

The streambed in one drainage has raised more than 6 inches in elevation. Gully banks are slumping and 

are being vegetated by riparian plants. Sagebrush is dying where the riparian areas expand. Though 

precipitation and runoff were far above normal, the additional ground cover in the uplands and the 

improvement in the riparian habitat prevented significant erosion damage on the ranch in spite of 

increased stocking rates (Table 4) (Simonds pers. comm.). The ranch continues to sustain higher stocking 

levels of cattle and elk than in 1979 (Danvir pers. comm.). 

Table 4. Stocking levels on the Deseret Land and Livestock 

Company Ranch. 

Case Study: High-Intensity, Short-Duration Grazing at Rio Oxbow Ranch 

The Rio Oxbow Ranch in the San Luis Valley of Colorado is owned by Alan and Patricia Lisenby and 

managed by Dale and Anne Pizel. The 1,600-acre ranch is located at the headwaters of the Rio Grande and 

borders the Rio Grande National Forest in the San Juan Mountain Range. 

The Lisenbys and Pizels use a time-controlled grazing strategy to maintain and restore properly functioning 

riparian areas. Their primary objectives are to improve the riparian areas, fisheries for fly fishing, and 

wildlife habitat. The ranch was rested from 60 years of overgrazing for 5 years along 6 miles of the Rio 

Grande River (Figure 56). Intensive grazing through 6 pastures with 1,000 cow/calf pairs of the neighbor’s 

cattle began in the fall of 2000. The cattle graze in the spring or fall, which has proven effective in 

transforming vertical river banks to more normal angles of repose and stimulating new plant growth of 

riparian grasses, willows, and cottonwoods (Figure 57). Noticeable results occurred in the first year. The 

riverbank stabilized and the rocky shoals, which had no growth for many years, sprouted numerous willows 

throughout the river’s 6 mile reach (Pizel pers. comm.). Livestock are turned in around June 10 and again 

around October 10 and are in each pasture 2-5 days. The dates are adjusted according to weather conditions 

(drought) and USFS adjustment of turn-in dates. They also try to rest each pasture every couple of years. 

Riverbank stabilization and wildlife enhancement projects were completed with the help of the NRCS 

Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP) 

(Blenden 2003). Projects included installation of rock barbs and extensive willow and cottonwood plantings. 

Pizel found that most of the willows died and undercutting of the reshaped banks occurred. It wasn’t until 

livestock were used that recovery started to occur. Minimal fencing to allow for better control and use of 

the riparian area and to maintain a wildlife-friendly ranch has been installed. Fencing allows for careful 

control of the time and timing of grazing, which aids in riparian function improvement. 

1979 1986 2005 

Cattle 4,500 10,460 9,000 

Sheep 12,000 10,000 3,000 

Elk 350 1,500 2,300 

Buffalo 0 230 0 


Figure 56. Rio Oxbow Ranch, Colorado, after 5 years of rest from 

overgrazing (2000). 

Figure 57. Rio Oxbow Ranch, Colorado, 3 years later (2003), with 

grazing. Young age class willows are present. (Photos by D. Pizel, Rio 

Oxbow Ranch.) 

The Rio Oxbow Ranch is an example of using livestock to improve wildlife habitat and riparian area function. “Livestock are a tool, just like a hammer is a tool. If you hit your thumb with the hammer, you are 

using the tool incorrectly. The same analogy can be said of livestock grazing” (Pizel, pers. comm.). 

The effects of this grazing treatment are strikingly evident in photos of two pastures on the ranch. “Both 

pastures had not been grazed for 5 years. This is spring on the exact same day, a couple of hours apart. The 

brown pasture (Figure 58) had not been grazed the year before. The green pasture (Figure 59) was grazed 

with 1000 pair for 30 days, the fall before. Again this is the same day, different sides of the fence, in very 

comparable environments. It is May 1st and as you can see one side has a good start on summer, and at 

9000 feet that is important. What was shocking to me was the life. The brown side of the ranch appeared 

dead, it even smelled bad. There were no elk, birds, ducks, bugs, and frogs; there was silence. I would not 

let my children touch it. On the green side the life was deafening. There were ducks that refused to leave, 

water insects, and the frogs were quite honestly deafening. They were loud. They were everywhere! My 

little girls took their pants off and went wading, (swimming, when they were done). It was life re-born! 

They had moved back in, in one season. We really have to manage the elk now as they are causing overgrazing; they won’t leave” (Pizel, pers. comm.). 


 


 

 

 

 

This type of change can occur when decadent and dead plant material is removed exposing plants to solar 

energy, allowing for earlier greenup. Insects, amphibians, waterfowl, and wildlife are attracted to the 

exposed green leafy material. 

Figure 58. A pasture at Rio Oxbow Ranch, Colorado, that was not 

grazed the previous year lacked flora and fauna vigor and life. 

l. Rest 

Depending on the riparian area objectives, available 

tools and finances, and time prescribed for achieving 

objectives, temporary nonuse may be the best alternative 

for realizing the most rapid improvement. A deteriorated 

riparian area with few trees or shrubs, or one where the 

objective is to get woody plant regeneration above the 

reach of livestock, may require rest, at least for a few 

years (Davis 1982). 

Skovlin (1984) found that exclusion of livestock has 

produced improved riparian and aquatic habitat following 

4 to 7 years of rest, woody plant (shrub) recovery following 5 to 8 years of rest, a doubling of fish biomass 

following 3 to 5 years of rest, and attendant positive 

Figure 59. In another pasture at Rio Oxbow Ranch, Colorado, 

livestock grazing removed dead material, exposing new, growing leaf 

material. (Photos by D. Pizel, Rio Oxbow Ranch.) 

responses in birds and small mammals. A study on Big 

Creek in northeast Utah concluded that a minimum of 

6 to 8 years of rest was necessary to restore a deteriorated 

streamside riparian area to the point where livestock 

grazing could be allowed at reduced levels (Duff 1983). 

However, substantial recovery of streambanks and 

vegetation was observed following 4 years of rest from 

grazing through the use of fencing. 

Elmore and Kaufmann (1994) state that riparian 

exclusion should only be used in conjunction with an 

upland management plan designed to restore the entire 

landscape or when there are situations where the most 

rapid recovery possible is necessary (i.e., for habitat 

restoration of federally listed threatened or 

endangered salmonids). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rest 

Potential Advantages: 

• Plants are not affected by herbivory, and 

streambanks are not affected by livestock trampling. 

• Woody riparian plants are allowed to reach 


escapement height.
 

• There is a quick recovery period, especially in the 

first few years after grazing is eliminated. 

• Areas outside that are still grazed can be compared 

and evaluated. 

• Residual vegetation may be used as cover by fish 

and wildlife. 

• The time to build up fuel for prescribed burns in 

riparian areas is decreased. 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• Plants may become decadent with rest. 

• Nutrients can become tied up and residual plant 

material can impede light getting to young 

seedlings and sprouts. 

• The rested area may attract wildlife and replace 

livestock herbivory, so goals and objectives may 

not be met. 

• Without herbivory, some plants become less 

palatable, and residual dead vegetation can prevent 

wildlife foraging on live material. 

• Some weeds may flourish in the absence of grazing 

as a biological control. 

• Economic hardship may occur. 

m. Riparian Pasture 

Riparian pastures are designed to protect riparian values. 

They may be smaller areas of rangeland containing 

both upland and riparian vegetation that are managed 

together as a unit to achieve riparian objectives, or they 

may be streamside pastures containing only riparian 

vegetation. 

In riparian pastures containing both upland and riparian 

vegetation, the balance of forage between upland and 

riparian areas is important. Forage in the upland sites 

should not limit proper distribution or use. For example, 

there should be enough forage in the upland and riparian 

areas so that livestock do not overgraze either when 

managed for overall appropriate use. Forage balance 

may vary with changes in forage preference, depending 

on season of use and kind or class of livestock. 

Platts and Nelson (1985) found that on six 10-acre 

pastures in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, the timing and 

location of grazing in specially managed riparian pastures 

could be controlled much more effectively than in large 

allotment pastures, providing an easier way to make 

grazing compatible with other resource uses. Using 

riparian pastures offers alternatives to eliminating livestock grazing and fencing riparian boundaries, which 

can be costly. By experimenting with different types of 

riparian and upland range, different sizes and shapes 

of pastures, and different ratios of riparian forage to 

upland forage, it may be possible to efficiently graze 

riparian vegetation without damaging this sensitive 

area. In mountain meadow ranges, special management 

pastures would need to be larger to better match the 

costs of fencing with benefits derived from improved 

riparian and fish habitat. The influence of a livestock 

herd’s home range on grazing use requires careful 

analysis; pastures may have to be larger than a herd’s 

home range in less productive ecological types, in which 

case, techniques to draw the herd to all parts of the 

pasture are essential. When fencing narrow streamside 

corridors or eliminating livestock are the only alternatives 

for maintaining productive riparian and aquatic habitats, 

the cost of special management pastures may not 

seem exorbitant. 

Riparian pasture use is applicable in areas where riparian 

areas encompass a large enough area to be managed 

0
 
 

separately from uplands (Elmore and Kauffman 1994). 

Each riparian area may be managed individually or in 

combination with other allotments or pastures and can 

be grazed or rested depending on current conditions 

and stream riparian needs (Elmore and Kauffman 

1994). Riparian pastures can be used seasonally, in 

conjunction with rotation strategies, or as special-use 

pastures (e.g., gathering pastures, horse pastures, bull 

pastures). Considerations when developing riparian 

pasture designs include: 

• Desired grazing period and duration. 

• Ability to control use of riparian area. 

• Benefit to degraded stream types. 

• Cost of installation and maintenance (including 

possible offsite water developments). 

• Ability to meet livestock manager objectives. 

• Inclusion of upland area in pasture to decrease 


pressure on riparian area.
 

• Need for close monitoring to avoid switch from 

livestock grazing to browsing. 

Figures 60 and 61 show results of a change from seasonlong use on the North Fork of the Humboldt River in 

Nevada in 1994 to a riparian pasture for use by yearling 

bulls and cows for several weeks between late April 

and late June. Figure 62 shows continued recovery 

through 2004. 

Figure 60. North Fork of the Humboldt River, Nevada, 1989. 

Figure 61. North Fork of the Humboldt River, Nevada, 1994. 

Figure 62. North Fork of the Humboldt River, Nevada, 2004. 

(North Fork photos by C. Evans, BLM.) 

The Goosey Lake Flat (Nevada) riparian pasture 

(Figures 63 and 64) has generally been used as a gather 

or turnout pasture since it was changed from continuous, 

season-long use. The grazing plan calls for use in early 

June for 1 year out of 3 and for 2 weeks in September 

for gathering during the remaining 2 years (Masters et 

al. 1996b). 


 
-

-

-

-

-

Figure 63. Goosey Lake Flat Creek, Nevada (1965). 

Figure 64. Goosey Lake Flat Creek, Nevada (1991). (Goosey Lake Flat 

Creek photos by BLM.) 

Riparian Pasture 

Potential Advantages: 

• There is closer management and control to 


achieve goals and objectives.
 

• It is possible to graze these pastures more fre 

quently, but they should be evaluated on a caseby-case basis. 

• A riparian pasture can be used as seasonal pasture, 

in conjunction with rotational strategies, or for a 

special use (i.e., ultimate flexibility without forgo 

ing use of uplands). 

• Upland use objectives can be met without sacrific 

ing the riparian resource condition. 

• Use of the riparian area is allowed. 

Potential Disadvantages: 

• It is often short in duration. 

• Close management is required. 

• Riparian areas may provide the only water for sur 

rounding uplands. 

• Riparian fences without a proper design can be a 

problem for recreationists and wildlife. 

• The amount of upland needed to prevent upland 

overuse within the riparian pasture must be care 

fully determined. 

• Topographic features may inhibit development of 

riparian pastures or employing other practices. 

• Fencing may be more expensive than for a riparian 

exclosure due to size. 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. Monitor Vegetation 

1. General 

No discussion of grazing management would be complete without addressing monitoring. Once objectives 

have been established and a grazing strategy selected 

and implemented, the only way to evaluate whether or 

not objectives are being achieved is through monitoring. 

All stated management objectives require some strategy 

for monitoring their attainment. Likewise, all monitoring 

should tie directly to the analysis and accomplishment 

of specified objectives. This may seem obvious, but an 

analysis of 20 public land grazing allotment management 

plans in northeastern California and northwestern 

Nevada found that none combined all the elements of a 

systematic process by linking goals, issues, and objectives 

with action, monitoring, and evaluation (Olson 1989 

and Olson and Burkhardt 1992). 

Olson stated, “Management objectives, overall, were 

not measurable or realistic, providing no solid vegetative 

benchmarks for determining management successes. 

In the cases where management objectives were both 

measurable and obtainable, the supporting monitoring 

studies and evaluations were incomplete.” Other subsequent program reviews have identified similar problems 

in virtually every location to one degree or another. 

Monitoring that has no direct relationship to objectives 

is a frequent problem that increases costs and usually 

detracts from necessary monitoring and administrative 

tasks. Private land monitoring plans also have similar 

problems, although public land situations may be more 

complicated due to budgets, personnel, administrative 

needs, and so on. 

Due to seasonal, annual, and cyclic events such as fire, 

insect infestations, disease, weather, and associated 

hydrologic phenomena, success in grazing management 

depends on adaptive management. Adaptive management 

treats each management practice as an experiment and 

evaluates and adjusts the practice over the short- and 

long-term. Monitoring plans should include implementation (within season and end-of-season) and effectiveness 

(mid- and long-term) strategies to support adaptive 

management. Implementation monitoring includes 

annual documentation of implementation activities, 

events, and interpretive measurements (annual indicators) 

or observations of effects that influence progress toward 

objectives. Effectiveness monitoring documents achievement of and should measure trend toward objectives, 

usually over a period of years. Many agency, interagency, 

and cooperative extension references guide the planning, 

method selection, analysis, and interpretation of monitoring data. Therefore, the following discussion will 

present general concepts common to all and primarily 

address vegetation monitoring. Initial baseline data 

may also include channel morphology and stream 

measurements and macroinvertebrate inventories to 

evaluate water quality (Rasmussen et al 1998). 

a. Key and Critical Areas 

In many grazing operations, riparian areas, or portions 

of riparian areas, are “key areas” for management, and 

their condition may indicate whether grazing management is proper for the entire pasture or operation. In 

other cases, riparian areas may be “critical areas” for 

management of site-specific concerns and objectives. 

In critical areas, proper management may severely limit 

upland use from what would otherwise be acceptable. 

Key areas and critical areas must be differentiated for 

analysis and subsequent management recommendations. 

When selecting key areas to be monitored, consideration 

should be given to how these areas represent the use 

that is occurring and the objectives to be reached. Collectively, key areas should possess (or have the potential 

to produce) all the specific elements contained in the 

objective(s) because these will provide data for evaluating 

all management efforts. In many cases, it is appropriate 

to first select the key areas that represent important or 

common resource values, situations, and general goals, 

and then develop objectives specific to each. 

Stream reaches that are functional–at risk, with an 

unapparent or downward trend that can be attributed 

to livestock use, often are prime candidates for designation as key areas. The limiting factors to proper functioning condition can guide the selection of attributes 

to monitor, as well as needed management changes. For 

example, if adequate vegetative cover is the primary 

limiting factor, then the objective and long-term 

monitoring may focus on the percent of the greenline 

in riparian species. Short-term monitoring would focus 


 
 

 

 

on incidence of use on those woody species or stubble 

height on those herbaceous species that would expand 

next along the greenline or possibly in adjacent floodprone areas. Monitoring the dates of use, kind and class 

of animal, and other management factors would help 

interpret long-term trends relative to short-term results 

and help adjust management toward desired conditions. 

Limiting factors to PFC can also help determine locations 

to monitor. For example, along a stream with little 

floodplain access due to incision, the best place(s) to 

monitor would be where the incision had already widened. 

Newly formed floodplain or floodable areas that 

could become a vegetated floodplain are appropriate 

locations as well. 

b. Key Plant Species 

Key plant species are forage plants that indicate the 

degree of use on associated species and those species 

that must, because of their importance, be considered in 

the management program (Interagency Technical Team 

1996). In riparian areas, key species selected for monitoring should be necessary to natural stream functions, 

directly related to vegetation management objectives, 

and sufficiently abundant to respond to management 

and meet those objectives. Key species for riparian areas 

should have root masses capable of withstanding highstreamflow events. These plants are most commonly the 

more robust sedges, rushes, and bulrushes, as well as a 

very few grass species such as bluejoint reedgrass. Bluegrass 

species, most tame pasture grasses, or forbs typically do 

not root to an adequate depth or produce a root mass 

dense enough to withstand high-streamflow events. 

Manning et al. (1989) compared the length and mass 

of roots of four species: Nebraska sedge, Baltic rush, 

Douglas sedge, and Nevada bluegrass. The results 

showed a significantly higher (remarkably so) amount 

of roots under Nebraska sedge compared to the other 

species, especially Douglas sedge and Nevada bluegrass. 

Nebraska sedge contained over 200 cm of root length 

per cm3 of soil. This translates to over 22 miles of roots 

in a column of soil 12”x12”x16”, making these plants 

effective in protecting streambanks and riparian areas. 

Douglas sedge was similar to Kentucky bluegrass and 

Nevada bluegrass, as expected of an upland species, had 

fewer roots. There was also a significant difference in 

root mass, with Nebraska sedge having the greatest root 

mass, followed closely by Baltic rush and then Douglas 

sedge. Although having much less root length, Baltic 

rush has a much higher root mass per length with more 

rhizomes and coarser roots than the other species. 

Understanding the physiological and ecological requirements of key species (whether woody or herbaceous) is 

essential to designing a proper management program 

(Thomas et al. 1979, Winward 2000). In addition, the 

grazing impacts on the particular growth characteristics 

of the species involved and the probable outcomes of 

plant community and channel change from the plant 

species requirements need to be determined. 

Key plant species may differ with the potential of each 

individual site. A mix of vegetation increases channel 

roughness and dissipates stream energy. Willows and 

other large woody plants filter larger water-borne 

organic material, and their root systems provide bank 

stabilization. Sedges, rushes, grasses, and forbs filter out 

and capture finer materials, while their root masses help 

stabilize banks and colonize deposited sediments. On 

sites with potential for both woody and herbaceous 

vegetation, the combined plant diversity greatly 

enhances stream function. 

Additional plants away from the greenline may also be 

key species because of their unique resource values, e.g., 

aspen and subirrigated meadow species. Cross sections, 

utilization measures, or other methods can be used to 

monitor these areas away from the greenline. Ecological 

site descriptions and plant community classifications 

may aid in determining key species for a particular site. 

c. Unusual Events 

Monitoring studies require documentation of important 

unusual events such as fire, insect or disease infestations, 

severe weather, and associated hydrologic phenomena. 

Such effects must be distinguished from the effects of 

grazing when making evaluations. Fires, floods, and 

droughts have beneficial and detrimental effects on 

riparian plant communities and channel characteristics. 

Wildfire effects can promote riparian health and 

restoration as well as create many riparian problems. 

Fire, depending upon the intensity of the burn, may 

kill the vegetation in the upland and riparian area. 


 
 

 

 

 

The accumulation of too much fuel can increase fire • whether the grazing strategy left enough residual 

intensity and watershed effects leading to debris flows vegetation (or regrowth) to trap and retain fine 

and flooding. Flood damage is likely to be more severe 

where riparian vegetation has been consumed in hot 

fires fueled by accumulated wood. The removal of litter 

and canopy cover may increase water runoff and sediment from sheet and rill action into the stream system 

from the watershed. Fire may also open up the canopy, 

allowing new herbaceous growth, and initiate new plant 

suckering of various woody plant species (willows and 

cottonwoods). A prescribed burn plan should evaluate 

the current conditions and the effects of too little or too 

much fuel in any given situation. Livestock may be used 

to reduce an overabundance of fine fuels to reduce the 

heat of a fire. 

Floods may widen channels and increase width/depth 

ratios, which is generally not beneficial. However, floods 

may also redistribute sediments to floodplains, recharge 

shallow aquifers, and initiate recruitment of many 

plants (especially willows and cottonwoods) depending 

on timing, discharge, channel shape, and floodplain 

access. Key points to be considered in monitoring are: 

• whether or not livestock management before or 

after a flood led to additional widening or to the 

capture of sediment along banks and the formation 

of appropriate channel features 

• whether the grazing strategy allowed for 


establishment of plant species that depend on 


floods for recruitment
 

Droughts increase moisture stress on plants and tend to 

cause livestock and wildlife to concentrate in riparian 

areas even more than they normally do. Pastures slated 

for rest are sometimes grazed during periods of drought. 

However, low flows associated with droughts reduce the 

stress on streambanks, and there is often enough water 

in channels to continue to support hydric, bank-forming 

vegetation. Given the opportunity, most perennial 

vegetation aids in channel narrowing and bank building 

with fine sediments transported after reduced flows. Key 

points to be considered in monitoring are 

• whether or not the timing, intensity, and duration 

of grazing during the drought allowed for plant 

colonization and stabilization of exposed banks or 

wide channel edges 

sediments for bank building 

2. Implementation Monitoring 

Implementing a grazing system as planned is critical. 

The best management plan is likely to fail if it is not 

properly implemented. However, it may also fail if 

it is blindly followed without consideration of, and 

modification in response to, changing conditions such 

as within-season precipitation patterns or temperature 

regimes that are different than those expected. Deviations in the grazing plan should be documented to 

evaluate the effectiveness of management changes and 

to avoid criticism of a planned grazing strategy that was 

not used. Implementation monitoring, which includes 

within-season monitoring and end-of-season monitoring, 

is essential to successful adaptive management. 

a. Within-Season Monitoring 

The manager needs to document whether livestock are 

in the right place, at the right time, in the right numbers 

and that any additional measures necessary to improve 

distribution, such as use of offsite water, supplements, 

or riding, are being recorded. For example, when livestock are moved from a management pasture, it is often 

easy for a few animals to be overlooked. If a few undetected livestock remain or drift back to a grazed pasture 

through faulty fences or ineffective natural barriers, they 

can quickly “undo” any progress that deferment or rest 

might have accomplished. It only takes a few days or 

weeks of unplanned use or overgrazing to set back years 

of progress in improving riparian areas (Duff 1983). 

In one stream, Myers (1981) found that annual use by 

a few head of livestock left in the pasture throughout 

most of the hot season had nullified positive riparian 

habitat responses of an otherwise excellent grazing system. 

When such things happen, they should be recorded 

to ensure proper interpretation of other monitoring 

results. Trigger indicators that define when livestock 

should be moved should also be noted. These indicators 

include stubble height, streambank alteration, or use of 

willows or other important riparian species. 


 
 

 

 

 

b. End-of-Season Monitoring 

Along with documenting annual timing, frequency, and 

duration of livestock use, endpoint indicators should 

be considered as a means to assess resource impacts 

of current-year grazing. Endpoint indicators provide 

information to help determine if the annual timing, 

frequency, and duration of livestock use appear to be 

appropriate in relation to desired objectives. As such, 

they are not purely for implementation monitoring, 

but rather, they help bridge the gap between pure implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. 

The critical time for discussing triggers is at the end of 

the growing season when the results become apparent. 

Without end-of-season monitoring, there is no timely 

way to verify that the established trigger ensures that 

the stream and associated riparian area will be in a 

condition that remains steady or is moving toward 

management objectives. Although other monitoring 

procedures that measure such parameters as vegetative 

cover, composition, and channel morphology are useful 

in establishing trend over the mid- to long-term (at 

least 3–5 years, up to decades), endpoint indicators can 

help determine whether current-year management has 

been appropriate. 

As discussed previously, livestock grazing primarily 

affects riparian areas and stream systems through herbivory or direct mechanical damage (both to plants and 

streambanks). The most appropriate endpoint indicators 

for stream and riparian areas measure vegetation (herbaceous or woody riparian species) that can protect and 

build streambanks and evaluate any mechanical damage 

that can leave streambanks vulnerable to the increased 

energies experienced during high flows. The appropriate 

time to measure and evaluate endpoint indicators is 

typically after the end of the current growing and grazing 

season and before the next high-flow event that may 

reach or exceed the bankfull stage, often the following 

spring. The following elements should be considered 

when choosing triggers and endpoint indicators: 

1.	 Measure residual vegetation height on preselected 

key riparian species on the greenline (not the 

average height on all herbaceous species). 

2.	 Measure residual vegetation height and percentage 

ground cover on drier riparian “islands” within the 

riparian area, where species such as Kentucky bluegrass dominate settings away from the greenline, if 

these areas were identified by management objectives. 

3.	 Record incidence of use on key riparian woody 

browse species (trees and shrubs). 

4.	 Record streambank alteration as a result of livestock 

grazing (bank trampling). 

5.	 Measure residual vegetation height or utilization 

of selected herbaceous species or incidence of use 

of key woody species in upland settings, such as 

threatened and endangered species or regenerating 

quaking aspen where they need special concern and 

attention. 

Note that the above list expands the focus beyond the 

greenline, including upland sites. This expanded focus 

is important because effects on soil and vegetation 

outside the immediate greenline can also have critical 

adverse effects on aquatic systems. 

It is a relatively common practice to factor in expected 

regrowth when setting within-season triggers for vegetation, particularly herbaceous stubble height. In these 

cases, end-of-season monitoring is important to evaluate 

if the trigger is appropriate. At times, expected regrowth 

does not materialize either due to lower than expected 

precipitation or overly optimistic estimates of the actual 

length of the growing season or rate of growth. 

When using both within-season triggers and endpoint 

indicators, allowable numeric values should be established. The monitoring strategy must not only ensure 

that measurements are recorded and used to determine 

whether or not the allowable numeric value was met, 

but also evaluate whether the numeric value used as 

the criterion is correct. Due to site-specific differences 

across the landscape, the initial determination of allowable numeric values must rely largely on professional 

judgment. Current research can provide a starting point, 

but it is not precise enough to apply in a “cookbook 

fashion” so site-specific data collection is needed. 

The lack of site-specific information reinforces the need 

for adaptive management, which involves using the 

selected within-season triggers, endpoint indicators, 

or other indicators to evaluate whether these numeric 

values are useful in making management adjustments 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

to meet riparian objectives. These values also should 

be continually refined along with the current management prescription to determine if desired results are 

being achieved. Determining proper numerical criteria 

for annual indicators may, in some cases, require trial 

and error through monitoring, analysis, and evaluation 

of the results after adjusting management. Because 

initial results may differ from expectations, the manager 

should not hesitate to change key species or utilization 

guidelines to meet established objectives. 

Although the triggers and endpoint indicators appear 

simple and straightforward, there are important considerations that must be examined when selecting and 

using each indicator. 

(1) Residual Vegetation Height 

Residual vegetation height can be an excellent tool for 

warning of impending damage to riparian areas (Hall 

and Bryant 1995). However, residual vegetation height 

as an annual indicator of grazing use in riparian areas 

should only be used where existing science suggests that 

it is an appropriate indicator and in combination with 

long-term monitoring of vegetation and channel parameters. Measuring progress toward long-term resource 

objectives, such as increases in bank-stabilizing plant 

communities, key species, stream narrowing, or fish 

habitat is the real measure of successful management 

and may require years of intervening management. 

Residual vegetation height has been shown to be related 

to two areas of concern: (1) the effect of grazing on the 

physiological health of the individual plant, and (2) the 

ability of the vegetation to provide streambank protection and filter out and trap sediment from overbank 

flows. A summary of the literature (Clary and Leininger 

2000) suggests that residual vegetation heights can 

also be correlated to streambank trampling and shrub 

(willow) browsing on the greenline. Boyd and Svejcar 

(2004) also found that adequate regrowth occurred on 

most sites tested in Oregon by leaving a 4- to 6-inch 

stubble height. They concluded that it is important to 

have an understanding of how various stubble heights 

impact belowground production dynamics and the 

role of residual vegetation in influencing bank building 

processes and site development. 

Residual vegetation height sampling is relatively quick 

and simple and reasonably accurate. It can be used to 

monitor large areas in less time than traditional utilization study protocols require. In some situations, however, 

accuracy can be adversely affected by stand characteristics. 

Difficulties with stubble height arise, for example, in 

irregularly grazed nonhydric bunchgrasses or stands 

of inconsistent plant composition with varying palatability. Stubble height measurements should focus on 

key riparian plant species or species groups important 

for providing bank stability, minimizing surface runoff, 

and filtering sediments. Also, although streambank or 

greenline residual height is the critical factor for trapping sediments and providing bank stability, residual 

height farther from the edge of the bank or greenline 

may be a better indicator of livestock use (Marlow and 

Finck 2002). Kentucky bluegrass is not desirable with 

respect to bank stabilization, but it is highly preferred 

by livestock and is useful for determining if changes in 

grazing management have been effective in minimizing 

the time cattle spend in riparian areas. 

(2) Utilization 

Utilization maps describe the pattern of livestock use 

relative to topography, vegetation, water, salt and other 

supplements, season, and all other management factors. Utilization mapping relative to plant growth and 

community distribution can provide more insight to 

the appropriateness of a particular grazing strategy than 

utilization of a key area alone. It can guide adjustments 

better than most other forms of monitoring information. 

However, accuracy and precision limitations of utilization 

measurements should be recognized in all interpretations. 

There is often high sampling variability among sites and 

among observers, especially for shrubs. Because of these 

limitations, high confidence levels require intensive 

sampling and more time and money. In addition, 

relative utilization (utilization determined at any time 

other than peak standing crop) may have little relationship with utilization at peak standing crop for determining plant or community response to defoliation. 

Interpretations should be made with caution! 

In spite of the potential limitations of utilization and 

because they lack a better tool, many managers have 

chosen to establish utilization guidelines for short-term 

management considerations. To establish utilization 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

guidelines, knowledge of the growth habits and characteristics of the key plant species; of their response to 

grazing and browsing; and of the characteristics, preferences, and requirements of the grazing and browsing 

animals is needed. When using utilization information 

to make management changes, consideration should 

be given to the timing of utilization of key species with 

respect to plant phenology, which often affects subsequent growth and reproduction more than the amount 

of utilization does. Rasmussen et al. (1998) provide 

one example of worksheets used to record utilization 

measurements along with an example of a utilization 

gauge. Many of the Western States have developed a 

State monitoring guide, which may be available in local 

county extension offices in your State. 

(3) Woody Species Monitoring 

The amount and timing of defoliation of riparian 

shrubs and trees can have tremendous effects on their 

growth and survival. Unfortunately, utilization measurements by traditional methodologies appear impossible 

to accurately replicate either between individuals or over 

time (Hall and Max 1999). Until more acceptable 

methodologies are developed, it is suggested that preference changes be used as a within-season trigger. Stubble 

height and greenness of herbaceous species are critical 

elements in palatability and cause shifts in cattle forage 

preference, such as changing from grasses and sedges to 

shrubs (Hall and Bryant 1995). These preference changes, 

especially later in the season, should be used as a trigger 

to manage the livestock and protect sprouts and young 

of the woody species. The end-of-season indictor would 

be incidence of use, which is the proportion of browsed 

twigs versus unbrowsed twigs. Although there is no 

relationship to the amount of material removed, there 

is a relationship to degree of impact on the plant. The 

method is quick and repeatable. It is especially important that measurements be taken on sprouts and young, 

as these plants must have an opportunity to develop 

into mature plants over time (Winward 2000). 

(4) Streambank Alteration 

Streambank alteration results from both hydraulic (e.g., 

channel-altering flows) and mechanical processes (e.g., 

herbivores such as elk, moose, deer, cattle, sheep, goats, 

and horses walking along streambanks or across streams; 

beaver activity; or uncontrolled off-highway vehicle 

activity). The protocol used to measure streambank 

alteration should identify the degree of impact attributable 

to domestic livestock for subsequent use in management 

decisions. Discrimination is necessary for considering 

modifications of the current grazing strategy. 

Setting numerical criteria to manage mechanical impact 

from livestock can be complex. The type of soil composing the streambank greatly influences the degree of 

alteration produced by a particular level of livestock use. 

Vegetation cover and composition also affect the degree 

of impact from livestock. A site with well-developed, 

dense plant communities composed of sedges, rushes, 

bulrushes, and spike rushes will exhibit significantly less 

impact than a site with a less developed plant community 

or one composed of species that do not have the desired 

rooting characteristics. The establishment of numerical 

criteria for use in reducing mechanical impacts from 

livestock in riparian areas should be treated as an 

adaptive experiment, with ongoing refinement that 

reflects site-specific experience. 

3. Mid- and Long-Term Monitoring 

If the relationships between objectives and monitoring 

are clear, and management and monitoring are maintained, mid- and long-term trend studies are well underway. Useful and appropriate monitoring techniques 

vary widely because of the inherent variety in appropriate 

management objectives. No short list could be complete, 

and each technique requires a detailed description to 

guide its proper application. However, there is one 

aspect of vegetation trend monitoring in riparian areas 

that is sometimes confusing and significantly different 

from monitoring in uplands. Riparian ecological sites or 

plant communities move as streams move. They change 

their distribution and extent over time as attributes such 

as the water table change (Winward 2000, Gebhardt 

et al. 1990, Winward and Padgett 1986,). Objectives 

tied to kind, proportion, or amount of vegetation 

may be monitored either by methods that account for 

changes along the stream edge as it moves (greenline) or 

throughout the riparian complex (valley cross sections) 

(Winward 2000). Other methods account for dynamic 

changes along the riparian area (e.g., Rasmussen et al. 

1998, Cowley and Burton 2005). Winward’s (2000) 


 
 

 

 

 

three-part monitoring also includes woody species 

regeneration along the greenline. 

a. Greenline 

The kind, amount, and location of vegetation are crucial 

to the function of most riparian systems. Greenline 

monitoring measures the vegetation along the edge of 

streams. It samples community type composition on 

both sides of a stream in a selected section of a stream 

(within one riparian complex) and compares the composition with past measurements and objectives. Objectives may be based on a “standard” required for proper 

functioning of that particular stream type. Winward 

(2000) suggests the standard and rates each community 

type’s ability to buffer the forces of moving water. Greenline 

data can be used to develop a rating of both ecological 

status, (i.e., the existing kind and amount of vegetation 

on that particular section of stream in relation to the 

amount and kind of vegetation that might potentially 

occur on that stream section) and average physical strength 

for buffering the effects of moving water (streambank 

stability). Greenline data at the same location through 

time can be used to evaluate long-term trend. 

b. Vegetation Cross Section 

Vegetation cross sections provide a quantitative measurement of the nature of riparian vegetation across 

the valley floor. Many earlier vegetation measurement 

processes calculate changes in species composition. This 

process measures change in percentage of area occupied 

by different community types. Trend is determined by 

whether the changes are moving toward preferred types 

(desired condition) or desired ecological status. Ecological site descriptions, plant community classifications, 

or reference areas that have similar soils, hydrology, and 

geomorphology but are managed differently are helpful 

in determining potential and setting objectives. 

c. Woody Species Regeneration 

Woody species regeneration provides a measurement of 

the density and age-class structure of each woody plant 

species that occurs along a greenline. It provides a way 

to compare changes in woody structure through time. It 

is based on the premise that populations require 

reproduction and growth to attain appropriate population 

levels or maintain themselves through time. 

4. Photo Monitoring 

Photographic monitoring is quick and effective for 

documenting changes in vegetation and determining if 

management in an area has been successful (Hall 2001, 

2002). Permanent photo points are recommended, no 

matter what monitoring plan is developed. Pictures are 

relatively inexpensive and provide a wealth of information: they truly are “worth a thousand words.” The 

photo sites should also be tied to specific management 

goals and objectives. The characteristics of the vegetation or landscape that the photos address and how 

those characteristics will be evaluated require careful 

consideration when developing the photo monitoring 

plan (Reynolds 1998). Advances in digital photography, 

both still and video, have made it possible to take large 

numbers of high resolution photos for little cost or no 

more cost than that incurred in getting to and from 

monitoring locations. An added bonus is that images 

can (and should) be reviewed while still on location 

and, if necessary, more or better photos can be taken at 

the time (Hilliard pers. comm.). 

Photographic monitoring should be conducted during 

the same season each year (Rasmussen et al. 1998). 

Vegetation structure and color change seasonally, 

making comparisons among different seasons difficult 

in many community types. Other tips for improved 

interpretation are to: 

1.	 Include the skyline or prominent features to help 

the photographer reshoot the same scene and the 

viewer to recognize the area 

2.	 Include a card or slate in the photo with the date 

and location (large enough and exposed correctly so 

that it can be read) 

3.	 Include something for scale (location card, person, 

ruler, etc.) to help viewers gain perspective 

4.	 Use lighting and exposure conditions to illuminate 

attributes related to objectives 

5.	 Avoid too much sky or sunlight reflecting off water 

because this tends to darken the areas of interest 

6.	 Use the same lens or focal length so the picture 

angle remains constant 


 
 

 

 

 

7. Avoid using a lens with too wide of an angle skills, and practices of individual participants; (2) shown 

(26-35 mm) which can make the objects of interest 

too small in the photo, and a lens with too much 

telephoto or zoom, which makes objects of interest 

lose their context 

8.	 Check the readability of the card or slate in the 

photo and label the photos with location, date, 

camera or lens 

9.	 Print out digital photos, store them in a safe place, 

and back up digital data so that changes in technology 

do not make historically valuable photos unusable 

A variety of photo monitoring methods is available, 

consequently the complexity, scale, time, and cost of the 

photo method should be considered when developing 

the monitoring plan. 

5. Cooperative Monitoring 

A recent large-scale evaluation of the University of 

Arizona Cooperative Extension’s rangeland monitoring 

program, indicates that cooperative monitoring programs 

have: (1) made a positive difference in the knowledge, 

a strong association between rangeland monitoring 

and the implementation of beneficial land and grazing 

management by permittees; and (3) demonstrated improved relationships among permittees and agency staff 

(Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2005). In an effort to build 

on these types of successes, the Public Lands Council 

(representing sheep and cattle ranchers in 15 Western 

States who hold Federal grazing permits) recently signed 

a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with both 

the USFS and the BLM for the implementation of a 

cooperative rangeland monitoring program (USDA 

USFS 2004, USDI BLM 2004). “The MOU establishes 

a framework for voluntary, collaborative work [among] 

grazing permittees and the USFS (and BLM) to improve the quality and quantity of short and long-term, 

allotment level monitoring information on public 

rangelands” (USDA USFS 2004). Supporters note that 

this approach will benefit all involved “by improving 

the relationships [among] parties and by producing 

the information needed for sound stewardship of the 

resources” (USDA USFS 2004). 

Case Study: Cooperative Monitoring with Eastfork Livestock Ranch 

The Eastfork Livestock Ranch, owned and operated by Joel Bousman, is a family-run cow-calf and yearling 

operation located in Sublette County, Wyoming. In 1996, Bousman participated as a member of the Silver 

Creek Grazing Association in an effort to develop a voluntary permittee monitoring program that allowed 

permittees to actively and cooperatively monitor their rangeland on the Forest Service (USFS) Silver Creek 

common allotment. He organized a committee of cattlemen, sheepmen, and agency personnel to work with 

the University of Wyoming Extension office (Bousman 2003). 

The committee worked cooperatively to develop short- and long-term monitoring objectives relating to 

grazing management changes made in 1989 and identify basic, field-based, achievable methods for 

collecting data (Bousman 2003) (Figure 65). Short-term monitoring focused on utilization, production, 

precipitation, and AUMs by season with dates. Long-term monitoring focused on the collection of trend 

data. Specifically, the group used 100-foot trend transects with permanent photo points to determine 

cover by life form. They also relied on the Winward (2000) methodology (supported by photos) to identify 

streambank stability and vegetation condition over time (Bousman 2003). 

According to Bousman (2003), the monitoring reports were viewed as cooperative statements because all 

of the monitoring activities were conducted as a group. Signatures were included on the monitoring report 

to certify that the data had been collected, documented, and cooperatively approved by the USFS and 

0
 

 

 

 

 

 

the grazing association. The cooperative report then became part of the official USFS “Those truly concerned with 

allotment files. In addition to collecting monitoring information, the group also led benefiting the land understand public tours of the allotment at various times during the year. 

that real conservation will only 

Advantages of Cooperative Monitoring: occur with the participation and 1.	 Cattle distribution and performance improved after 1989 management changes, 

concurrence of all stakeholders. but it was the monitoring program and associated documentation of improved 

resource condition that enabled the Bousmans to increase their grazing season Litigation only serves to drive 

by 2 weeks. This resulted in about $5,000 in savings. wedges between people who 

2.	 The program helped develop and maintain trust, understanding, and good should be working together....” 

working relationships. Getting the parties involved to talk about conditions, Eisenberg (2004) concerns, and objectives on the ground helped provide a learning opportunity for 


the permittees, agency officials, and the public. It also helped reduce the stress and 


uncertainty of one party not knowing what another party wants or thinks is possible.
 

3.	 The program helped demonstrate accountability and responsibility and documented stewardship. 

Public land grazing remains a controversial issue—one that is constantly in the public spotlight, which 

can be seen as a problem or as an opportunity. The permittees, who have initiated or participated in 

similar voluntary cooperative rangeland monitoring programs, have embraced the public spotlight as 

an opportunity to demonstrate their good stewardship of the land. 

Disadvantages of Cooperative Monitoring: 

1.	 There is an initial economic cost to the livestock manager (monitoring equipment, camera, report 

preparation, film development, etc.) (Bousman pers. comm.). 

2.	 There is a time requirement by livestock managers, agencies, universities, and others to properly set 

up the monitoring program (Bousman pers. comm.). 

(Note: In the long-term, the costs should be more than recouped by improvement in the resource and the 

trust ultimately developed among the cooperating partners. It is hard to place a dollar value on trust, but 

it is a benefit to everyone.) 

Figure 65. Silver Creek Common Allotment, USFS, WY, 1997. Permittees 

and USFS and BLM staff teaching and learning monitoring techniques 

together. (Photo by E. Peterson, Univ. of Wyoming Extension.) 


 
F. Evaluate Progress 

Grazing prescriptions and associated management of 

riparian areas should be monitored, evaluated, and 

reconsidered regularly. Managers should not hesitate to 

identify problems and make changes in grazing treatments. They should use adaptive management when 

taking risks and trying new alternatives to achieve 

objectives. Flexibility to change or adjust should be 

part of any grazing management plan. But along with 

that flexibility, it is important to document conditions 

under which each system does and does not work. 

Decisions will need to be made regarding future 

management prescriptions when the monitoring data 

and current year’s grazing management plan have been 

evaluated. The decision may be to: 

• Continue current management if it is meeting 


objectives or if there is an upward trend
 

• Modify current management if it is static or in a 

downward trend 

• Adjust objectives if needed 

Any riparian monitoring plan should include before and 

after photos, with backup data, to show the effects of 

management. Photos can often clarify the data, allowing 

people to see and understand riparian trends (Sipple 

and Swanson 1995). Documentation of pretreatment 

resource conditions provides a basis for interpreting 

results, avoiding past mistakes, and providing a “springboard” for exploring other options. Documentation of 

successes, as well as of failures, is essential for learning 

from past efforts. 

The Grazing Response Index (GRI) (Reed et al. 1999 

USDA USFS 1996,) was developed to evaluate the 

effects of annual grazing pressures and the effects of repetitive defoliation during the growing season. The GRI 

was developed to assess the use of herbaceous species in 

both the riparian and upland plant communities. The 

assessment is particularly well suited to be conducted 

from horseback so that a more complete assessment of 

the entire grazing unit can be accomplished, rather than 

having to be restricted to only key areas. It assesses how 

much of a plant was grazed, when it was grazed, and 

how many times it was defoliated during the growing 

season. The index is a way to incorporate a number of 

factors into a general evaluation of what potential effects the current grazing system may have on rangeland 

plants. It puts grazing use (utilization or stubble height) 

in context with season and duration of use. Multiple 

options can be considered when making adjustments 

to a grazing program. It is relatively easy to learn, easy 

to communicate, and is based on general observations 

rather than time-consuming, precise measurements. 

The GRI is not intended to be the only method for 

resolving major conflicts. It should be used for situations where resource issues are considered to be at a 

low to moderate level of intensity. (See Appendix F 

for GRI forms and directions.) 

The use of state and transition models is one way to 

evaluate whether current management is achieving 

long-term objectives (Appendix C). These models show 

management pathways and potential plant communities 

for a particular ecological site. They increase a manager’s 

ability to invest wisely for achievable and important 

objectives. Information obtained from monitoring and 

evaluation of vegetation responses can also be helpful 

to fine tune the model, particularly for specific 

site conditions. 


 
IV. CARDINAL RULES FOR PLANNING 

AND MANAGING LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

IN RIPARIAN AREAS 

Though each management situation is unique, there are 

still some general rules that can help ensure successful 

riparian area management: 

• Adapt grazing management to the conditions, 

problems, potential, objectives, public concerns, 

and livestock management considerations on a 

specific site. 

• Include all those willing to learn the details and 

contribute ideas or work for enhanced management 

throughout the planning process. 

• Consider overall watershed goals and objectives and 

all important resource issues including watershed 

dynamics and issues associated with the receiving 

water or the stream reach the grazing activities are 

located on (water quality and quantity, threatened 

and endangered species concerns). 

• Manage grazing so there is sufficient vegetation 

growth and postgrazing stubble on the banks and 

overflow zones to permit the stream to function 

naturally. 

• Identify and implement alternatives to passive, 


continuous grazing.
 

• Employ rest or deferment from livestock grazing 

whenever appropriate. 

• Take advantage of seasonal livestock preference for 

uplands in grazing prescriptions. 

• Ensure that expertise from appropriate professional 

disciplines is represented on the planning team. 

• Ensure that everyone involved clearly understands 

the issues and agrees with the management objectives, as well as understands the changes that can 

occur and how they can benefit from proper 

management and improved riparian conditions. 

• Build flexibility into grazing management to accommodate any changes that are needed. 

• Implement frequent (sometimes daily) supervision by the parties involved once management is in 

progress, so that adverse impacts (e.g., trampling 

damage and excessive utilization) can be foreseen 

and avoided. 

• Don’t rely on a grazing system alone to improve 

conditions. Management tools and techniques work 

hand in hand with selected grazing systems. 

• Document mistakes so they are not repeated. 

• Use management successes to encourage proper 

management in the future and to promote good 

riparian area management elsewhere. 


 

APPENDIX A 

REFERENCE WEB SITES 

More information about grazing management and 

related topics may be found on the following Web sites. 

This is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of all 

Web sites, but is intended to provide a few sites that the 

reader may access for more information. 

Agencies and Organizations: 

Boise Aquatic Sciences Lab (Research and Publications) 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/teams/techtran/ 

techtran_home.htm 

Cows and Fish Program, Alberta’s Riparian Habitat 

Management Society 

http://www.cowsandfish.org 

Environmental Management Systems 

http://www.epa.gov/ems 

Grassbank (Grass Reserves) 

http://www.grassbank.net 

National Riparian Service Team 

http://www.or.blm.gov/nrst 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov 

Quivira Coalition 

http://www.quiviracoalition.org 

Society for Range Management 

http://www.rangelands.org/srm.shtml 

Stream Systems Technology Center 

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us 

Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable 

http://sustainablerangelands.cnr.colostate.edu 

The Western Rangelands Partnership 

http://rangelandswest.org 

Articles and Publications: 

BEHAVE (Behavioral Education for Human, Animal, 

Vegetation and Ecosystem Management) 

http://www.behave.net 

Behavioral Principles of Livestock Handling 

by Dr. Temple Grandin 

http://www.grandin.com/references/new.corral. 

html 

Helping Livestock Expand Their Diets and Their Turf plus 

Herding and Supplementation Studies 

by Derek Bailey. 

http://www.behave.net/projects/riparian_ 

bailey2003.html 

Monitoring Streambanks and Riparian Vegetation— 

Multiple Indicators 

by Ervin Cowley and Tim Burton 

http://www.id.blm.gov/techbuls/05_02 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint 

Source Pollution from Agriculture 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm 

Natural Resources Conservation Service Electronic Field 

Office Technical Guide (EFOTG) 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg 


http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov
 

Ranching for Profit 

http://www.ranchmanagement.com 

Riparian and Wetland Tools for the Great Basin and Intermountain West Regions 

http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/idpmc/ 

riparian.html 

University of Idaho Stubble Height Study Report (2004) 

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/documents/ 

Stubble_Height_Report.pdf&pid=74895&doc=1 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B 

COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 

The successful use of grazing management strategies in 

the maintenance and recovery of riparian areas has been 

widely documented. However, riparian grazing remains 

one of the most pervasive issues facing rangeland managers. The management of these areas is socially, as well 

as technically, complex. Successful management cannot 

be achieved through reliance on scientific and technical 

information alone. Riparian and watershed resources are 

typically geographically nested within a complex maze 

of jurisdictional and administrative boundaries, so a 

collaborative approach is often needed. 

A. What is Collaboration? 

Collaboration is the pooling of appreciations or tangible 

resources (e.g., information, money, or labor), by two or 

more stakeholders to solve a set of resource problems 

that no one party can solve individually (Gray 1985). It 

is grounded in a belief that if the right people are brought 

together, in constructive ways, with good information, 

they will produce better, more informed, effective, sustainable, and popular decisions; improved relationships; 

and sustainable communities and landscapes (Field and 

McKinney 2004). The range management community 

has been using this collaborative philosophy for many 

years under the name of coordinated resource management (CRM). CRM is a proactive process in planning 

for improvement of natural resources (Cleary and 

Phillippi 1993). 

Within this document, collaborative planning is 

presented as a process designed to strengthen existing 

planning and decisionmaking approaches (e.g., expertbased, NEPA-based, litigation, legislation, and regulation). Collaborative planning can work very effectively 

when it is integrated with the NEPA public involvement 

and analysis process (Swanson 1994). When addressing 

complex issues, collaboration is a good tool for promoting 

decisions that are informed, understood, accepted, and 

feasible (USDA 1999). However, participation in 

collaborative efforts is strictly voluntary, and individuals 

remain free to pursue more traditional approaches at 

any time. Furthermore, 

pursuit of a collaborative 

approach does not interfere 

with the exercise of private 

property rights nor does 

it suggest that Federal 

or other land managers 

abdicate their 

decisionmaking authority. 

The collaborative model 

has shown advantages over 

more traditional planning 

and decisionmaking 

approaches under the 

following conditions 

(Gray 1989): 

1.	 The problems are 

ill-defined, or there is 

disagreement about 

how they should be 

defined. 

A ‘stakeholder’ is defined as a 

person or organization that: 

1. Has an interest or concern 

(self-identified), 

2. May be needed to implement 

the outcome or solution, or 

3. May try to undermine your 

effort. 

Examples are: 

• Federal and State grazing 


permittees
 

• Public and private 


landowners and managers
 

• Livestock managers 

• Interested publics 

• Other user groups 

2.	 Several interdependent stakeholders have a vested 

interest in the problem. 

3.	 The stakeholders are not necessarily known in 

advance or organized in any systematic way. 

4.	 There may be differences in power or resources for 

dealing with the problems among stakeholders. 

5.	 Stakeholders may have different levels of expertise and 

different access to information about the problems. 

6.	 The problems are often characterized by technical 

complexity and scientific uncertainty. 

7.	 Differing perspectives on the problems have resulted 

(or could result) in adversarial relationships among 

the stakeholders. 

8.	 Existing processes for addressing the problems have 

proved insufficient and may even be making them 

worse. 

Successful collaborative efforts adapt to the conditions 

of a particular situation (there is not a recipe or cookiecutter approach). Typically, successful efforts focus on 


 
 

 

 

 

“It is important that all of the 	 a particular place; secure 

the involvement of all rel­ people who need to be there evant stakeholders upfront; 

are there. Even though it [the 	 and identify durable, practical, and flexible solutions subject] may be a contentious (adaptive management). 

issue, it is important that 	 Finally, they often rely on 

the use of a trained, neutral everybody is there together so facilitator or conflict manager 

they can hear the same things, 	 and the use of consensusbuilding techniques. The talk and come to conclusions intent is not to dispel 

as a group. Simply getting a 	 conflict, but to help groups 

or individuals reach enough copy of a written report is just agreement that they are 

not the same thing as having 	 able to do something 

mutually beneficial on the been there and been part of ground. Often this involves 

creating a new solution that that conversation.” 

no individual had thought 

J. Staats, USFS Hydrologist of or could implement 

alone. 

B. Collaborative Planning Process 

The first step in collaborative planning is to define the 

planning area. The planning area should include public 

and private lands as necessary to allow the development 

of a comprehensive management plan to resolve the 

problem. However, the participation of private landowners in a specific planning effort is strictly voluntary. 

The next step is to engage key stakeholders. The exact 

makeup of a collaborative group will be different in 

each situation. Depending on the size and scope of the 

planning area and the nature of the issues involved, 

collaborative efforts can be as small as two private landowners working together to build and maintain a fence 

or as large as a multicommunity working group tasked 

with developing a watershed plan. The key is that in 

each of these efforts, participants are working together 

to develop and implement mutually beneficial solutions, 

rather than one party imposing a solution on another. 

Securing the voluntary participation of key players early 

in the planning process is critical to future success. To 

ensure participation, it is often necessary to reach out 

with personal invitations, phone calls, or face-to-face 

conversations. 

Riparian issues often include multidisciplinary, scienceintensive disputes. They affect multiple stakeholders 

who have different interests and levels of scientific 

understanding. As with most natural resource issues, 

they typically include a mix of both information- and 

value-based conflicts. Information-based conflicts are 

those in which people argue over information. There 

may be too little information or people may disagree 

about the assumptions or methods of others. Either 

way, scientific and technical information is a lynchpin 

for addressing the conflict. Value-based conflicts, on 

the other hand, cannot be resolved simply through 

better technical information because they address issues 

concerning economic, political, recreational, aesthetic, 

or spiritual values. 

Agreed-upon resource decisions must be scientifically 

sound, as well as socially and economically acceptable. 

Because issues, groups, and options change, a collaborative planning process should be designed to foster 

ongoing deliberation among stakeholders and resource 

specialists (USDA 1999). To engage effectively in the 

deliberation and negotiation required for reaching 

common ground, individuals must feel safe in their 

social environment. Individuals must be able to examine, 

share, and broaden their perspectives in a nonthreatening and respectful manner. This requires attention 

to the physical and social setting within which group 

interactions take place (Smith 2002). 

Once a group of diverse stakeholders and resource 

specialists has been organized, they must work to create 

a common vision for productive and sustainable ecosystems and communities. Studies demonstrate that individuals who have built relationships and trust within 

a group are able to develop and use their individual 

knowledge and skills more effectively (Coleman 1988). 

It is through relationship building and mutual learning 

that individuals build ownership and commitment to 

the planning process, other individuals, underlying 

information, and ultimately, final decisions. Once a 

certain social context has been established within a 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Differences in feelings of power 	 group, individuals are more 

likely to understand and take among individuals tend to collective action in response 

be equalized when a group is 	 to information. Furthermore, 

adults learn best when they seated in a circle versus when apply new knowledge to 

they are positioned in an 	 real-life situations, and most 

collaborative planning requires auditorium-style seating learning by all participants. 

arrangement where the “expert” 

One of the most important is addressing an audience factors in stream restoration is 

from a raised podium.	 the commitment by the people 

involved to make it work. 

Given the inherent resiliency Individuals are more likely 	 of riparian areas, almost any 

action that relieves an impor­ to develop relationships or tant stressor, or limiting factor, 

connections to each other, as will result in improvement. 

The key is helping people well as to a particular place, understand that things can 

when they are working 	 get better. This is not to say 

that science and technical together in small groups to information are not important 

solve a problem on the ground.	 attributes of successful management efforts but rather Laura Van Riper, that such information can 

National Riparian Service Team	 only be put to work if 

individuals are willing to 

change the beliefs and associated behaviors that caused 

the resource conditions. 

Given the scientific complexity of natural resource 

issues, it is important to integrate science and technical 

information into a collaborative planning process. One 

of the most effective ways to meet this objective is to 

incorporate joint factfinding as part of the ongoing 

deliberation among resource specialists and stakeholders 

(Yaffee et al. 1997). When possible, it is best to go to 

the field together. Strangely, many people are prepared 

to decide whether a person is a good manager without 

ever looking at their land and are willing to decide 

whether the land is healthy without ever seeing it 

(Dagget 1998). However, to move forward on resolving 

conflict and improving the land, it is important to focus 

on what information the land provides. 

Because riparian issues are interdisciplinary by nature, 

successful management relies upon resource specialists, 

representing multiple disciplines, who are able to read 

the land and effectively communicate what they see. By 

involving stakeholders in the joint factfinding process, 

research is enriched and studies become more relevant. 

The process helps resolve key areas of uncertainty and 

creates a common understanding (shared knowledge) 

about on-the-ground processes (ecosystem functions). 

Later, the group can discuss new management ideas 

with the understanding needed to overcome philosophical 

positions in pursuit of site-specific, interest-based 

solutions. Finally, joint factfinding strengthens personal 

relationships and builds trust among participants. 

It is important to use a collaborative process through 

all planning phases (e.g., determining existing condition, 

identifying limiting factors, creating management 

objectives, and monitoring). Following the joint 

collection and consideration of preliminary information, 

group members must reach agreement on the existing 

situation (resource condition), problems (limiting 

factors), and opportunities. This information will 

then guide the creation of agreed-upon management 

objectives (practical and measurable), as well as a list 

of possible strategies and actions. The group should 

then review suggestions and identify those that are the 

most practical, workable, and likely to solve the problem. Once the action items have been narrowed, they 

should be listed in logical sequence that leads to the 

accomplishment of a particular management objective. 

For each item, a lead person and the estimated date of 

completion should be identified. The next step is to 

outline a monitoring system, indicating how progress 

toward each specific objective will be measured. This 

will serve as a feedback system for providing corrections 

and adjustments to the plan. As the group implements 

the plan, some will play more active roles than others. 

However, the whole group needs to periodically review 


 
 

 

-

“Involving stakeholders in 

forums designed to share 

knowledge, build relationships, 

establish trust and encourage 

creative problem solving is 

more likely to produce socially 

acceptable decisions... Even 

when the decisions are the 

same, people need the oppor 

tunity to engage as partners 

in the decision-making process 

so they have ownership in the 

outcome.” 

Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000) 

progress. Taking time to keeps people involved through adaptive management 

note what has been accom­ and through shared experiences that build relationships. 

plished and the results helps As with any process, there are many downsides, and 

to keep people committed collaboration isn’t always appropriate and doesn’t 

to remaining tasks and always work. Success is dependent upon the commitment 

necessary adjustments. of all the involved parties. 

In the long term, successful 

collaborative management 

0
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C 

ECOLOGICAL STATE AND TRANSITION 

MODEL EXAMPLES 

Ecological site descriptions contain state and transition 

(S&T) models, which outline some of the various plant 

communities that can occur on a particular site. This 

outline provides a diagram of the functional relationships among the plant communities and disturbances 

that may cause them to shift or change. It depicts the 

potential results of current management or a planned 

action; thus, it helps managers avoid the possibility of 

crossing a threshold that would result in an irreversible 

consequence. Avoiding an irreversible consequence can 

be extremely important if the site has the potential to 

provide habitat for wildlife, fish, or plants of special 

concern. S&T models are based on processes, not on 

species lists. Plant communities are an expression of the 

reduction in ecological function occurring on the site. 

Primary processes include energy flow, nutrient cycling, 

and water storage. In riparian areas, the hydrology of 

the site is primary. 

The community composition is an assemblage of plants 

that are in dynamic equilibrium with their surroundings and are able to shift in composition or production 

as a result of natural variables. There are many factors 

and processes involved in the changes from one plant 

community to another within a state. These variations 

in plant community are natural or managementinduced and do not result in an irreversible consequence. 

Variations in climate, elevation, depth to water table, 

frequency and duration of flooding, soils, landform and 

geology, stream channel morphology, fire, and grazing 

all play a role in determining plant communities that 

will be expressed at a site. 

When the primary processes of an ecological state 

are altered past the point of self-repair, a threshold is 

crossed, resulting in a plant community that often has 

only a few remnant members of the original natural 

community. From a process perspective, it is appropriate 

to have a different suite of species as long as they fill 

the same functional role. However, if the ecological processes are compromised, resulting in a plant community 

that is functionally different, then a threshold has 

been crossed. Once established, these new communities 

(e.g., Kentucky bluegrass, reed canarygrass) can become 

very stable and will not return to one resembling the 

potential natural plant community through the use of 

grazing management or extended rest alone (Stringham 

et al. 2003). Significant inputs, along with extended 

rest, are generally required to restore a primary ecological 

process that has been lost and to return to a vegetative 

community that resembles the original. However, if a 

site recovers through just a minor change in grazing 

management or by restoring wildfire to the system, 

then it has not crossed a threshold. Once an ecological 

threshold has been crossed, management focus should 

be on restoring the damaged ecological processes, not 

on reestablishing a specific plant community (Stringham 

et al. 2003). Economic, social, or political thresholds 

or processes may also need to be dealt with in 

certain situations. 

State and transition models for riparian plant 

community dynamics are still preliminary, and further 

investigation is warranted (Stringham pers. comm.). 

Disturbances that impact channel form and water table 

depth (incision, braiding, or overwidening) may alter 

the plant community to such a point that recovery to 

predisturbance conditions is not possible. Should the 

stream experience such significant degradation (i.e., 

incision), the channel itself usually must go through 

a recovery process (Schumm 1977, Jensen et al.1989) 

before the vegetative community can reestablish. In 

some cases, predisturbance stream morphology must be 

restored by physically altering or recontouring streambanks and floodplains in order to achieve these goals in 

a reasonable timeframe. 

The following riparian subirrigated state and transition 

model for the north Rocky Mountain valleys in Montana 

is one example of a riparian model that is currently 

under development (Figure 66). A second component 

to the model has been added to provide a functional 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

comparison of each state (Figure 67). Photos provide discussions of riparian ecological site descriptions are 

examples of several of the states found within different needed to incorporate the complexities inherent in 

states within this description (Figure 68-72). Continued dynamic riparian systems. 

Figure 66. Riparian Subirrigated (RSb), North Rocky Mountain Valleys, Montana, 15- to 19-inch Precipitation Zone
 

Part 1 – State and Transition Pathway Model
 

(Typically occurs along riffle-pool streams, i.e., Rosgen C type). 

Plant Communities and Transitional Pathways (State and Transition Model Diagram): Transitions in plant community composition occur along a gradient. 

Many processes, including climatic patterns, topography and landform, flood frequency and duration, elevation, soils, amounts and kinds of sediment available, 

fire pattern and history, and grazing are involved in the changes from one community to another. The following model outlines the various plant communities 

that may occur on this site and provides a diagram of the relationship between plant community and type of use or disturbance. 

A. Historic Climax/Potential Plant Community (HCPC): Tall and medium willows, tall 

and medium grasses and sedges, rushes, forbs (obligate and facultative wetland). 

D. Nonnative short grasses, rushes, forbs, shrubs, sedges (facultative and facultative 

wetland). May be a temporary drop in water table level; no change in stream type. 

(2). Nonnative short grasses, forbs, shrubs, (facultative and facultative upland). 

May be a permanent drop in water table level; no change in stream type. 

(4). “Upland” ecological site (e.g., sandy, silty), or may 

be a subirrigated site (depending on resulting depth to 

water table), or other. Mainly upland species, often with 

remnant wetland species widely dispersed. 

(3). Early seral community within a 

smaller riparian area at lower elevation. 

Colonizing grasses, spikerushes, 

rushes, and willows. 

(1a). HCPC (at a lower elevation 

in narrower riparian area). 

(1).

B. Willows, sedges, midgrasses, rushes, and 

forbs (facultative wetland and obligate). 

C. Medium and short sedges and grasses, rushes, 

forbs, mature willows (facultative wetland and obligate). 

PG NPG 

PG 

PG 

NPG 

NPG, 

upland degradation** 

Hydrology 

restored to 

predisturbance 

conditions*** 

Advanced channel 

recovery stages* 

Early channel 

recovery stages* 

Channel incision, overwidening, and braiding (Rosgen F, G, or D) 

Extended rest, PG 

With adequate 

sediment, etc. 

Restore site and/or 

watershed hydrology*** 

NPG 

* Refer to the appropriate channel evolution/recovery model (e.g., Schumm 1977, Jensen et al. 1989) for details. This recovery may occur over many years.
 

** Upland degradation may occur from dewatering, lack of fire, conifer encroachment, or drought.
 

*** Restore hydrology by prescribed fire, timber harvest/thinning, irrigation system adjustments, or change in grazing management with accelerating 


(e.g., expensive stream restoration [Rosgen], range seeding) and/or facilitating (e.g., stock water, fencing) practices. 

PG = Prescribed Grazing: A planned grazing strategy that balances animal forage demand with available forage resources. Timing, duration, and frequency 

of grazing are controlled, and a grazing rotation is applied to allow for plant recovery following grazing. 

NPG = Nonprescribed Grazing: Grazing that does not control the factors listed above, or grazing that occurs when animal forage demand is higher than the 

available forage supply. 

Smaller boxes within a large box indicate that these communities will normally shift among themselves with slight variations in depth to permanent water table, 

herbivory, and other factors. Moving outside the larger box indicates the community has crossed a threshold (heavier line) and will require intensive treatment 

to return to community A, B, C, or D. Dotted lines indicate a reduced probability for success without major inputs (e.g., accelerating practices). 

(NRCS, Montana Draft 2005) 


 
 

 

Figure 67. Riparian Subirrigated (RSb), North Rocky Mountain Valleys, Montana, 15- to 19-inch Precipitation Zone 


Part 2 – Functional Comparison
 

(Typically occurs along riffle-pool streams, i.e., Rosgen C type). 

A. Herbaceous and woody species have strong deep, root systems capable 

of holding banks, capturing sediment, and maintaining stream dimension, 

pattern, and profile during high flows. Proper functioning condition site. 

D. Root mass and aboveground biomass starting to decrease, making it potentially 

susceptible to energy impacts during moderately high events, which may cause the stream to 

either downcut or widen. Water table may drop and stream channel dimension, pattern, and 

profile exhibit negative changes but stream type remains the same. Functional—at risk site. 

(2). Mostly short, weak-rooted upland plants sometimes intermixed with remnant 

weak obligate sedges or Baltic rush. Older willows that had deep, established root 

systems become isolated on the abandoned terrace. Banks become vertical and 

very unstable, stream type may change depending on depth of channel incision. 

(4). “Upland” ecological site (e.g., sandy, silty), or may be 

a subirrigated site (depending on resulting depth to water 

table), or other. Mainly upland species, often with remnant 

wetland species widely dispersed. Potential of site may 

have changed depending upon watershed contribution. 

(3). Early seral community within a 

smaller riparian area at lower elevation. 

Colonizing grasses, spikerushes, rushes 

and willows. Functional–at risk. 

(1a). HCPC at a lower elevation 

in narrower riparian area. In proper 

functioning condition, but to a 

much lesser extent. 

(1).

B. Water table may begin to lower—species 

begin to change to more facultative wet with 

weaker root systems than obligate stabilizers. 

C. Reduced above- and belowground biomass— 

reproduction slows, and banks become less stable. 

Colonizers become more common. Functional—at risk site. 

PG NPG 

PG 

PG 

NPG 

NPG, 

upland degradation** 

Hydrology 

restored to 

predisturbance 

conditions*** 

Advanced channel 

recovery stages* 

Early channel 

recovery stages* 

Channel incision, overwidening, and braiding (Rosgen F, G, or D) 

Extended rest, PG 

With adequate 

sediment, etc. 

Restore site and/or 

watershed hydrology*** 

NPG 

* Refer to the appropriate channel evolution/recovery model (e.g., Schumm 1977, Jensen et al. 1989) for details. This recovery may occur over many years.
 

** Upland degradation may occur from dewatering, lack of fire, conifer encroachment, or drought.
 

*** Restore hydrology by prescribed fire, timber harvest/thinning, irrigation system adjustment, or change in grazing management with accelerating (e.g.,
 

expensive stream restoration [Rosgen], range seeding) and/or facilitating (e.g., stock water, fencing) practices.
 

PG = Prescribed Grazing: A planned grazing strategy that balances animal forage demand with available forage resources. Timing, duration, and frequency of 


grazing are controlled, and a grazing rotation is applied to allow for plant recovery following grazing.
 

NPG = Nonprescribed Grazing: Grazing that does not control the factors as listed above, or grazing that occurs when animal forage demand is higher than the 


available forage supply.
 

Smaller boxes within a larger box indicate that these communities will normally shift among themselves with slight variations in depth to permanent water 


table, herbivory, and other factors. Moving outside the larger box indicates the community has crossed a threshold (heavier line) and will require intensive treatment to return to community A, B, C, or D. Dotted lines indicate a reduced probability for success without major inputs (e.g., accelerating practices).
 


 
Figure 68. Overview of an example of a Rosgen C channel type. Figure 71. Example of a state between 3 and 1A. 

Figure 69. Example of state 1B. Figure 72. Braided Rosgen D channel type. Could become a 

state 3 or 4. (Photos this page by Bob Leinard, retired, NRCS.) 

Figure 70. Example of state 1A. 


 
Name of Riparian-Wetland Area:
 

Date: Segment/Reach ID:
 

Miles: Acres:
 

ID Team Observers:
 

Yes No N/A HYDROLOGY 

1) Floodplain above bankfull is inundated in “relatively frequent” events 

2) Where beaver dams are present are they active and stable 

3) Sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the landscape setting (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic region) 

4) Riparian-wetland area is widening or has achieved potential extent 

5) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian-wetland degradation 

VEGETATION 

6) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian-wetland vegetation (recruitment for maintenance/recovery) 

7) There is diverse composition of riparian-wetland vegetation (for maintenance/ 

recovery) 

8) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian-wetland soil moisture characteristics 

9) Streambank vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have root 

masses capable of withstanding high streamflow events 

10) Riparian-wetland plants exhibit high vigor 

11) Adequate riparian-wetland vegetative cover present to protect banks and dissipate energy 

during high flows 

12) Plant communities are an adequate source of coarse and/or large woody material (for maintenance/recovery) 

EROSION/DEPOSITION 

13) Floodplain and channel characteristics (i.e., rocks, overflow channels, coarse and/or large 

woody material) are adequate to dissipate energy 

14) Point bars are revegetating with riparian-wetland vegetation 

15) Lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity 

16) System is vertically stable 

17) Stream is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by the watershed (i.e., no 

excessive erosion or deposition) 

(Revised 1998) 


 

APPENDIX D 

PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION OF 

RIPARIAN-WETLAND AREAS 

ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST (LOTIC) 
________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Remarks 

Summary Determination 

Functional Rating: 

___ Proper Functioning Condition
 

___ Functional–At Risk
 

___ Nonfunctional
 

___ Unknown
 

Trend for Functional–At Risk: 

___ Upward
 

___ Downward
 

___ Not Apparent
 

Are factors contributing to unacceptable conditions outside the control of the manager? 

___ Yes
 

___ No
 

If yes, what are those factors? 

___ Flow regulations 

___ Mining activities 

___ Upstream channel conditions 

___ Channelization 

___ Road encroachment 

___ Oil field water discharge 

___ Augmented flows 

___ Other (specify) _________________________________________________________________ 


 
 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E 

EXAMPLES OF GOOD OBJECTIVES 

Objectives should be based on the current and 

potential condition of the site and allow for adjustments 

due to climatic conditions, monitoring methods, and 

adaptive management decisions. The PFC or other 

assessment methods, as well as other inventory data, 

should be used as guides to develop objectives. 

1.	 Increase the length of cross-valley transects having 

any late seral riparian area community types 

(Winward 2000) on Rose Creek from 55 to 

65 percent within 10 years (2015). 

2.	 Facilitate willow establishment on the point bars of 

Fish Creek in the south pasture (DMA 2) so that 

by 2015 at least 65 percent of the greenline has a 

willow overstory or a willow plant within 1 meter 

of the greenline. 

3.	 Increase bank stability along Sand Creek so that by 

2010 stable streambanks within DMA 3 increase 

from 50 percent to 65 percent. 

4.	 Allow aspen regeneration to escape at or near Rock 

Spring, resulting in an increase from 5 percent to 

10 percent in sprout and seedling age classes by 2011. 

5.	 Increase sprout and young willows along the 6-footwide, greenline-centered, belt transect at Greenline 

Monitoring Station 4 on Gravelly Creek so that 

there are more willows in sprout, young, and sapling 

than in dead age classes within 10 years after grazing 

plan has been implemented. 

6.	 Decrease perennial pepperweed by 90 percent of 

the known population in the Elderberry Creek 

watershed by 2010. 

7.	 Increase colonizing and stabilizing vegetation along 

the bottom of the now widened Gray Gulch Gully 

(DMA 4) so that the greenline to greenline width 

decreases from the approximate width of the gully 

to the width of a substantially narrower streambank 

along 80 percent of the reach within 5 years. 


 

 

 

1 

3 or more 

2 

Number of Defoliations Value 

+1 

0 

-1 

APPENDIX F 

GRAZING RESPONSE INDEX 

(Excerpt from USFS Rocky Mountain Region Rangeland Analysis 

and Management Guide) 


Exhibit GRI: Grazing Response 

Index 

R2 2200 GRI 

General Discussion 

The Grazing Response Index (GRI) is used to assess 

the effects of annual grazing pressures, and the effects 

of repetitive defoliation during the growing season. 

Understanding plant physiology and plant response 

to grazing is essential in the development of allotment 

management plans. Consequently, there is a need for a 

monitoring tool which adequately estimates rangeland 

use due to grazing. The tool must not only assess how 

much of the plant was grazed, but also when the plant 

was grazed and how many times it was defoliated during the growing season. GRI can be an effective tool to 

assess grazing systems or complications associated with 

situations such as early season big game use followed by 

livestock use. 

The Grazing Response Index was developed to assess effects of use during the current year, and to aid 

in planning the grazing pattern for the following year. 

Consequently, GRI is based on general determinations 

of annual grazing use. GRI is not intended to be the 

only method for resolving major conflicts. It should be 

used for situations where resource issues are considered low 

to mid level intensity, 

GRI considers three key concepts related to plant 

health: frequency, intensity, and opportunity. 

Frequency 

It is dependent on the length of time plants are exposed 

to the grazing animals. Approximately 7-10 days [are] 

required for a plant to grow enough to be grazed again 

during late spring or early summer when plants are 

experiencing rapid growth. Local knowledge of the area 

is needed to determine how fast the plants are growing. 

To obtain an estimate of how many times plants were 

(or will be) defoliated during a grazing period, divide 

the number of planned grazing days by 7 (or up to 10 if 

growth is slower). Using 7 is more conservative, because 

it will give the highest probable number of times the 

plants could be grazed. An index value of +1 to -1 is 

assigned to as follows: 

Intensity 

Intensity of defoliation is the amount of leaf material 

removed during the grazing period. The primary 

concern is the amount of photosynthetically active leaf 

material remaining for the plant to recover from grazing. 

This is not an estimate of percent utilization; generally, 

less than 40 percent defoliation will not inhibit plant 

growth. It is related to stocking rate. Intensity is 

described using three general levels of use. 

Light < 40 percent 

40-55 percent 

> 55 percent 

+1 

Moderate 0 

Heavy -1 

Amount of Use Percent Value 

Frequency is the number of times forage plants are 

defoliated during the (actual or planned) grazing period. 


 
 

Opportunity to Grow 

or Regrow 

Value 

+2 

+1 

0 

-1 

-2 

Full season
 

Some chance
 

No chance
 

Most of season 

Little chance 

Opportunity 

Opportunity is the amount of time plants have to grow 

prior to grazing or regrow after grazing. This factor is 

related to time of use. Opportunity is the one factor 

most highly related to long term health and vigor of the 

vegetation. It [is] dependent on soil moisture, temperature, and leaf area. This factor is very important for 

sustaining healthy plants, thus the relative rankings for 

this attribute are doubled. 

The index values for opportunity to grow or regrow 

forage are as follows: 

Determining opportunity is a judgment call based on 

appearance of vegetation at the end of the growing 

season. If the plants look like they were not grazed or 

just barely used, then a value of +2 is appropriate. If the 

plants look like they were used, but regrew fairly well, 

then use +1. Obviously, if the area has the appearance of 

being heavily used with no regrowth, assign a -2 value. 

Even though opportunity is based upon appearance of 

the vegetation at the end of the growing season, there 

are some general guidelines that can help you make 

the determination. For example a pasture or allotment 

that is used season long can be expected to rate -2 (no 

chance). An allotment with 2 pastures will likely be 

in the 0 (some chance) or -1 (no chance) range. Allotments with multiple pastures that are used or rested at 

different times each year will usually receive the higher 

ratings of +2 or +1. These guidelines can help you get 

started, but the final rating should be based upon the 

appearance of the vegetation. 

Overall Rating 

The values for frequency, intensity, and opportunity 

are additive. The overall rating of the expected response 

to grazing is the sum of all three values. This result is a 

numerical value that is either positive, neutral, or negative. The index is a simple method to evaluate whether 

the grazing system has long term beneficial, neutral, 

or harmful effects to the rangeland forage. GRI gives a 

more comprehensive basis to plan future use that will 

maintain or improve plant health, structure, and vigor. 

This index is based on grazing use that occurs 

during the growing season. This only marginally 

applies to grazing use when plants are dormant. 

Dormant season usually occurs after plants have 

had full opportunity to grow prior to use, hence an 

opportunity value of +2. Also, intensity is not as 

critical a parameter during the dormant season, 

because we are not concerned with producing 

regrowth. 

Training 

The GRI method does not require intensive training. 

Examiners can develop their eye for estimating light, 

moderate, or heavy use. This coupled with practical 

observations of timing and time of use will provide the 

information needed. 

Personnel and Equipment 

With a small amount of training, an individual can 

assess the amount of use and correlate that use to both 

time and timing of the grazing period. Form R2-2200­

GRI is used to record data for each area of interest. 

Sampling Procedure 

Areas important to observe are: representative, special 

(critical or key areas), or treatment areas. The examiner 

should be familiar with the presence of these areas in 

the allotment or pasture to be rated. Also, it is important 

to have an idea of whether only one primary plant 

species, a group of species, or all forage plants in the 

area are to be monitored. The examiner should spend 

enough time to become familiar with grazing use patterns and levels of use across the area being rated. Rate 

the characteristics, record their ranking on the GRI 

form, and sum the rankings to obtain the GRI Index. 

0
 
 

1 +1 

2 0 

-1 

Full season 

Opportunity to 

Grow or Regrow 

Value 

3 Most of season 

Some chance 

# of Defoliations Value 

+2 

+1 

0 

Little chance -1 

-2 

Amount of Use Percent Value 

Light +1 No chance

Heavy -1 

<40 percent 

Moderate 40-55 percent 0 

>55 percent 

Pasture Frequency Intensity Opportunity Total GRI 

1 +1 

0 

+1 

+1 

0 

-1 +1 

+1 

+2 

-1 

0 

+1 

2 0 0 -1 -1 

3 0 +1 

4 -1 -1 -2 -4 

5 0 +3 

6 0 0 +1 +1 

7 +1 +1 

8 -1 0 -1 -2 

9 +1 +1 

10 0 -1 +1 0 

 

Grazing Response Index (R2-2200-GRI)
 

Forest 

Bighorn NF 

District 

Buffalo Rd 

Spatial ID 

FS 02 12 10 373010830 0045 94 

Allotment Name and Number 

Table Mountain 

Pasture 

Pat Park 

Kind/Class & Number of Animals 

825 C/C 

Period of Use 

6/1 - 7/15 

Actual Use 

1238 Animal Months 

Date 

07/21/94 

Examiner(s) 

J. Dawkins 

References: 

Caldwell, M.M. 1984. Plant requirements for prudent 

grazing. From: Developing strategies for rangeland 

management. Westview Press, Boulder CO. pp 117-152. 

Richards, J.H.; Caldwell, M.M. 1985. Soluble carbohydrates, concurrent photosynthesis and deficiencies 

in regrowth following defoliation: a field study with 

Agropyron species. Journal of Applied Ecology 

22:907-920. 

Pond, F.W. 1960. Vigor of Idaho fescue in relation to 

different grazing intensities. Journal of Range 

Management 13:28-30. 

Mueggler, W.F. 1972. Influence of competition on the 

response of bluebunch wheatgrass to clipping. Journal 

of Range Management 25:88-92. 


 
1 +1 

2 0 

-1 

Opportunity to 

Grow or Regrow 

Value 

Full season 

3 Most of season 

Some chance 

# of Defoliations Value 

+2 

+1 

0 

Little chance -1 

Light +1 No chance -2

Heavy -1 

<40 percent 

Moderate 40-55 percent 0 

>55 percent 

Amount of Use Percent Value 

Pasture Name Site ID Frequency Intensity Opportunity GRI (Total) 

Grazing Response Index 

Use this method to evaluate each pasture, or several sites within a pasture. Each row represents one GRI rating. 

To determine the GRI, add all three values (frequency, intensity, and opportunity) and record the sum in 

the Total column. Several sites within a pasture can be averaged to obtain an overall rating for the entire pasture. 

Complete the Site Information Form for each site or pasture. 

Unit Name_____________________________ Pasture Name____________________________________ 

Transect ID_______________________ Date __________ Observer_______________________________ 

Grazing System____________________________________ Season of Use ___________ to ____________ 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G 

LOW-STRESS STOCKMANSHIP 

For a description of low-stress stockmanship, see section 

III.D.2.c.(7). Benefits of low-stress stockmanship include: 

Riparian Benefits 

• Avoiding sensitive areas is easier. 

• The time of exposure to grazing and trampling is 

decreased. 

• Enhanced monitoring by the livestock operator is 

possible. 

• The area may be aesthetically more pleasing to 


some recreation users.
 

• Riparian conditions and trends improves. 

• Bank stability improves. 

• Water quality improves. 

Rangeland Benefits 

• Use of upland forages increases and use of riparian 

areas decreases. 

• Increased control over livestock allows the use of 

prescribed grazing as an ecological management 

tool. Livestock may be used as a tool to influence 

plant community composition, age structure, etc. 

• Rangeland conditions and function may be enhanced 

by improving the efficiency of the water, energy, 

and nutrient cycles. 

• Cattle can be placed on the range, eliminating 


problems in riparian areas and other hot spots.
 

• Plant nutrition, palatability, and productivity increase. 

• Herd effect is applied where it is appropriate or to 

achieve high density impacts to control brush, decrease 

fire hazard, and increase grass seed germination. 

• The proportion of plants grazed at a low to moderate 

level of use increases. 

Herd Health 

Low-stress stockmanship allows for decrease of fly 

problems as the herd can be moved before flies hatch; 

decrease in diseases such as pink-eye, pneumonia, 

leptospirosis, and scours; decrease or elimination of 

death losses and injuries from stress; high-strung and 

low-condition stock gain better and are healthier; and 

overall improved herd health. 

Economics and Sustainability of Ranching 

Operations 

Bradford and Allen (1999), Smith (1998), and Cote 

(2004) as well as numerous testimonials from Cote, 

Westfall, and Leonard suggest that using low-stress 

stockmanship methods: 

• Increases the pounds/acre of forage produced. 

• Increases overall weight gains of animals, particularly 

on the range. 

• Increases weight gains on weaned calves by reducing 

stress at weaning time. Animals go directly to feed 

and water. 

• Allows use for the full grazing season even during 

periods of drought, because permittees can increase 

the ability to avoid riparian grazing triggers. 

• Improves ease of handling and overall behavior 


in stock.
 

• Improves milk production. 

• Improves the ease of sorting and shipping. 

• Reduces expenditures by minimizing the need for 

fences and high-tech handling facilities. 

• Reduces fencing needed as stock can be kept 

together or moved and placed in large pastures. 

Pasture units may be divided and grazed separately 

without the use of cross fences. 

• Increases gains and improves health of previously 

high-strung and low-condition stock. 

• Allows greater flexibility in pasture management. 

• Increases carrying capacity on rangelands. 

• Increase the number of head of livestock that can 

be handled efficiently by an individual. 

• Saves time in gathering. 

• Stops livestock from leaving the range and returning 

home before desired. 


 
• Reduces dark cutters and bruising of meat caused 

by bumping, crowding, and shoving during sorting, 

loading, and routine handling. 

• Reduces damage to facilities such as loosened gate 

posts, bent panels, etc. 

• Improves the safety of livestock handlers. 

• Achieves higher conception rates. 

• Reduces pharmaceutical costs. 

• Improves working relationships among ranchers, 

ranch employees, agency personnel, and other 

interested parties. 

All results may not be achieved everywhere depending 

on past practices and performance. 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

Adaptive Management – an interdisciplinary planning 

and implementation process that identifies desired 

conditions, defines criteria for modifying management 

when progress toward achieving the desired conditions 

is not being made, and specifically defines the 

monitoring strategy and protocols. 

Capability – the highest ecological status an area can 

attain given political, social, or economic constraints, 

which are often referred to as limiting factors. 

Collaboration – the pooling of appreciations or tangible 

resources (e.g., information, money, or labor) by two 

or more stakeholders to solve a set of resource problems 

that no one party can solve individually. Also referred 

to as cooperation or coordination. 

Decreasers – For a given plant community, those 

species that decrease in amount as a result of a specific 

abiotic/biotic influence or management practice 

(SRM 2004). 

Dry Ravel – soil particles dislodging and rolling down 

a slope or bank under the influence of gravity. Ravel 

occurs most rapidly when a cohesionless soil on a steep 

slope dries out. Ravelling is dramatically increased 

when frost acts on the exposed soil. Ravel on some 

steep, bare cutbanks can quickly fill ditches and 

supply sediment that is then eroded and moved to 

nearby ditch relief culverts or streams by concentrated 

ditch flow (FishNet 4C et al. 2004). 

Dynamic Equilibrium – the approximate balance between work done and imposed load, as the landscape 

is lowered by erosion and solution, then is uplifted, or 

as processes alter with changing climate, adjustments 

occur that maintain this approximate balance. 

Eutrophication – designation of a body of water in 

which the increase of mineral and organic nutrients 

has reduced the dissolved oxygen, producing an 

environment that favors plant life over animal life. 

Facultative – Plants that are equally likely to occur in 

wetlands or nonwetlands (34-66 percent). 

Facultative Upland – Plants that usually occur in 

nonwetlands (67-99 percent) but are occasionally 

found in wetlands (1-33 percent). 

Facultative Wetland – Plants that usually occur in 

wetlands (67-99 percent) but are occasionally found 

in nonwetlands. 

Foci – center of interest or clarity. 

Greenline – the first perennial vegetation that forms a 

lineal grouping of community types on or near the 

water’s edge. Most often it occurs at or slightly below 

the bankfull stage. 

Historic Climax Plant Community – the plant community considered to best typify the potential plant 

community of an ecological site prior to the advent 

of European settlers. It may no longer be one of the 

potential plant communities for the site (SRM 2004). 

Increaser – For a given plant community, those species 

that increase in amount as a result of a specific abiotic/ 

biotic influence or management practice (SRM 2004). 

Intermittent or Seasonal – a stream that flows only at 

certain times of the year when it receives water from 

springs or from some surface source such as melting 

snow in mountainous areas. 

In Utero – during growth and development before birth. 

Low-Moisture Block – a free-choice nutritional 

supplement block for livestock containing not more 

than 5 percent moisture. Intake is controlled due to 

its hardness; it must be licked as it cannot be bitten or 

chewed. It may sometimes be referred to as a cooked 

block. 

Morphological – relating to structure, shape, or form. 

Obligate Upland – plants that may occur in wetlands in 

another region, but occur almost always (>99 percent) 

under natural conditions in nonwetlands in the 

region specified. 


 
 

 

 

 

Obligate Wetland – plants that occur almost always • improve floodwater retention and ground-water 

(>99 percent) under natural conditions in wetlands. 

Pathways – reversible changes in or among plant 

communities or phases within one state. 

Phenological – relating to a plant’s stage of growth. 

Plant Association – used to group together all those 

stands of climax vegetation occurring in environments so similar that there is much floristic similarity 

throughout all layers of the vegetation. 

Plant Community Type – a repeating classified and 

recognizable assemblage or grouping of plant species. Riparian community types represent the existing 

structure and composition of plant communities with 

no indication of successional status. They often occur 

as patches, stringers, or islands and are distinguished 

by floristic similarities in both their overstory and 

understory layers. 

Potential – the highest ecological status a riparianwetland area can attain given no political, social, or 

economic constraints. This status is often referred to 

as the potential natural community (PNC). 

Proper Functioning Condition – a riparian-wetland 

area is considered to be in proper functioning condition 

when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody 

debris is present to: 

• dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving 

water quality 

• filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain 

development 

recharge 

• develop root masses that stabilize streambanks 


against cutting action 


• develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics 

to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, 

and temperature necessary for fish production, 

waterfowl breeding, and other uses 

• support greater biodiversity 

Satiation – having had enough or more than enough so 

that all pleasure or desire is lost. 

Senesce – mature 

State – a recognizable soil and plant complex that resists 

change and usually self-repairs after disturbance. The 

state reflects a site’s natural variability with a suite of 

plant communities specific to the functioning of the 

ecological processes. 

Threshold – a “boundary” between two states that, 

once crossed, does not allow the community to 

“self-repair” to a former state because one or more 

ecological processes has become too degraded. 

Transition – changes in vegetation or soil ecological 

processes (natural or management-induced) that will 

make one state change to another. Transitions can 

be reversed until a threshold has been crossed to 

another state. 

Wolfy – plants containing accumulated standing dead 

material from previous growth. They often have a larger 

size due to selective use of nearby nonwolfy plants. 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

LITERATURE CITED 

Abernethy, B. and I.D. Rutherford. 2001. The distribution and strength of riparian tree roots in relation 

to riverbank reinforcement. Hydrological Processes 

15:63-79. 

American Fisheries Society, Western Division. 1982. 

The best management practices for the management 

and protection of western riparian stream ecosystems. 

Riparian Habitat Committee. 45 pp. 

Bailey, D.W. 2004a. Can we improve livestock distribution with selection? In: Abstracts of Papers, 57th 

annual meeting, Society for Range Management, Salt 

Lake City, UT. 

________. 2004b. Management of cattle distribution 

patterns through strategic supplement placement and 

herding to protect riparian areas and increase uniformity of grazing in rugged rangeland. In: Abstracts 

of Papers, 57th annual meeting, Society for Range 

Management, Salt Lake City, UT. 

________. 2004c. Management strategies for optimal 

grazing distribution and use of arid rangelands. J 

Anim Sci 82 (E. Suppl.):E147-E153. 

________. 2005. Identification and creation of optimum 

habitat conditions for livestock. Rangeland Ecol & 

Manage 58:109-118. 

Bailey, D.W., M. Keil, and L.R. Rittenhouse. 2004a. 

Research observations: Grazing patterns of hill 

climbing and bottom dwelling cows. J Range Manage 

54:11-22. 

Bailey, D.W., D.D. Kress, D.C. Anderson, D.L. Boss, 

and K.C. Davis. 2001a. Evaluation of F1 crosses from 

Angus, Charolais, Salers, Piedmontese, Tarentaise and 

Hereford sires, V: Grazing distribution patterns. Proc, 

West Sec Amer Soc Anim Sci 52:110-113. 

Bailey, D.W., D.D. Kress, D.C. Anderson, D.L. Boss 

and E.T. Miller. 2001b. Relationship between terrain 

use and performance of beef cows grazing foothill 

rangeland. J Anim Sci 79:1883-1891. 

Bailey, D.W., K. Long, and B. Long. 2004b. Evaluation 

of low-moisture blocks and pressed blocks for manipulating cattle grazing distribution. In: Abstracts 

of Papers, 57th annual meeting, Society for Range 

Management, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Bailey, D.W., H.C. VanWagoner, and R. Weinmeister. 

In Press. Individual animal selection has the potential 

to improve uniformity of grazing on foothill rangeland. 

Rangeland Ecology & Management. 

Bailey, D.W. and G.R. Welling. 1999. Modification of 

cattle grazing distribution with dehydrated molasses 

supplement. J Range Management 52(6):575-582. 

________. 2002. Comparison of low-moisture molasses 

blocks and loose dry mineral mixes as delivery systems 

for supplementing trace minerals to rangeland cattle. 

In: Abstracts of Papers, Society for Range Management. 

Kansas City, MO. 

Bailey, D.W., G.R. Welling and E.T. Miller. 2001c. 

Cattle use of foothills rangeland near dehydrated 

molasses supplement. J Range Manage 54:338-347. 

Banister, R. 2005. Rancher. Banister Ranch, MT. 

Personal communication. 

Barker, W.T., K.K. Sedivec, T.A. Messmer, K.F. Higins, 

and D.R. Hertel. 1990. Effects of specialized grazing 

systems on waterfowl production in southcentral 

North Dakota. North Dakota State University Animal 

and Range Sciences Department. 

Bartos, D.L. and R.B. Campbell, Jr. 1998. Water 

depletion and other ecosystem values forfeited when 

conifer forests displace aspen communities. In: Potts, 

D.F. (ed.). Rangeland management and water resources: Proceedings of the AWRA specialty conference. 

American Water Resources Association, Reno, NV. 

pp. 427-434. 


 
 

 

 

 

 

Behnke, R.J., and R.F. Raleigh. 1978. Grazing and the 

riparian zone: Impact and management perspectives. 

Proceedings of the symposium: Strategies for protection 

and management of floodplain wetlands and other 

riparian ecosystems. Callaway Gardens, GA. General 

Technical Report WO-12. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. pp.262-267. 

Berg, F. and S.K. Wyman. 2001. Livestock water access 

and ford stream crossings. Engineering Technical 

Note No. MT-13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 10 pp. 

Blenden, M. 2003. Nomination for Colorado Riparian 

Association 2003. Excellence in Riparian Management 

Award. 2 pp. 

Bousman, J. Eastfork Livestock Ranch, Boulder, WY. 

Personal communication. 

________. 2003. Voluntary cooperative monitoring. 

Presentation at grazing management for riparian areas 

workshop, Lander, WY. 

Boyd, C.S. and T.J. Svejcar. 2004. Regrowth and production of herbaceous riparian vegetation following 

defoliation. J Range Manage 57(5):448-454. 

Bradford, D. and S. Allen. 1999. Herding: how it works 

in the West Elks. Quivera Coalition 2(3). 20 pp. 

Buckhouse, J.C., J.M. Skovlin, and R.W. Knight. 1981. 

Streambank erosion and ungulate grazing relationships. 

J Range Manage 34(4):339-340. 

Butler, P.J. 2000. Cattle distribution under intensive 

herded management. Rangelands 22:21-23. 

Chamberlain, D.J. and M.S. Doverspike. 2001. Water 

tanks protect streambanks. Rangelands 23(2):3-5. 

Clary, W.P. 1999. Stream channel and vegetation responses to late spring cattle grazing. J Range Manage 

52(3):218-227. 

Clary,W.P. and W.C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble height 

as a tool for management of riparian areas. J Range 

Manage 53:562-573. 

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing 

of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. General Technical Report INT-263. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station, Ogden, UT. 11 pp. 

Cleary, C.R. and D. Phillippi. 1993. Coordinated 

resource management: Guidelines for all who participate. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 

Coffey, L. 2002. Sustainable goat production: Meat 

goats livestock production guide. Appropriate 

Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. 20 pp. 

Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of 

human capital. American Journal of Sociology 

94(Supplement):S95-S120. 

Cornwall, C.X. 1998. Stream stabilizing traits in six 

riparian graminoids common to semi-arid alluvial 

streams. Master’s thesis, Department of Botany, 

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. 

Cote, S. 2004. Stockmanship: A powerful tool for 

grazing lands management. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Boise, ID. 149 pp. 

Cowley, E.R. 1997. Idaho riparian proper functioning 

condition (PFC) assessment training material. 

Unpublished data. 

Cowley, E.R. and T.A. Burton. 2005. Monitoring 

streambanks and riparian vegetation–multiple 

indicators. Technical Bulletin No. 2005-2. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Boise, ID. 

Crane, K.K. 2002. Influence of cattle grazing on feeding 

site selection by Rocky Mountain elk. Ph.D. 

dissertation. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 

Crane, K.K., M.A. Smith, and D. Reynolds. 1997. 

Habitat selection patterns of feral horses in southcentral 

Wyoming. J Range Manage 50(4):374-380. 


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crowe, E.A. and R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane 

wetland plant associations of the Malheur, Umatilla 

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. No. R6-NRECOL-TP-22-97. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Curtis, K.R., W.W. Riggs, and B. Shulz. 2005a. 

Humboldt county cow-calf production costs and 

returns. University of Nevada, Reno, Fact Sheet. 

Curtis, K.R., W.W. Riggs, R. Torell, and T.R. Harris. 

2005b. Elko county cow-calf production costs and 

returns. University of Nevada, Reno, Fact Sheet. 

Dagget, D. 1998. Beyond the rangeland conflict: 

Toward a West that works. Good Stewards Project, 

Flagstaff, AZ. 104 pp. 

Damiran, D., T. DelCurto, S.L. Findholt, G.D. Pulsipher, and B.K. Johnson. 2003. Influence of previous 

cattle and elk grazing on the subsequent quality and 

quantity of diets for cattle, deer, and elk grazing 

late-summer mixed-conifer rangelands. Proceedings, 

Western Section, American Society of Animal Science 

54:325-328. 

Danvir, R. 2005. Wildlife Manager. Deseret Land and 

Livestock, UT. Personal communication. 

Darambazar, E., T. DelCurto, C. Ackerman, G. Pulsipher, and D. Damiran. 2003. Changes in forage 

quantity and quality with continued cattle grazing in 

a mountain riparian pasture. Proceedings, Western 

Section, American Society of Animal Science. 

54:325-328. 

Davis, J. 1982. Livestock and riparian habitat management - Why not? In: Proc. of 62nd Western Association 

of Game and Fish Commissioners Meeting. Las Vegas, 

NV. pp. 225-232. 

Duff, D.A. 1983. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic 

habitat in Big Creek, Utah. In: Menke, J.W. (Ed.) 

Proceedings of the workshop on livestock and wildlife– 

fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. Special 

Publication 3301. University of California, Berkeley, 

CA. pp. 129-142. 

Ehrhart, R.C. and P.L. Hansen. 1997. Effective cattle 

management in riparian zones: a field survey and 

literature review. Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 

3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Montana State Office, and Riparian 

and Wetland Research Program, Montana Forest and 

Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, 

University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 92 pp. 

________. 1998. Successful strategies for grazing cattle 

in riparian zones. Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 

4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Montana State Office, and Riparian 

and Wetland Research Program, Montana Forest and 

Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, 

University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 47 pp. 

Eisenberg, J. 2004. Litigation is the wrong answer for 

conservation (statement from Jeff Eisenberg, Executive 

Director, Public Lands Council and Director of Federal 

Lands for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association). 

Internet document. http://www.beefusa.org/ 

newslitigationisthewronganswerforconservation3558.aspx 

Elmore, W. and B. Kauffman. 1994. Riparian and 

watershed systems: Degradation and restoration. In: 

Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the 

west. Vavra, M., W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (Eds.). 

Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 297 pp. 

Evans, C. (Draft). Characteristics of successful riparian 

grazing systems on public lands in northern Nevada. 

Falconer, D.S. 1960. Introduction to quantitative 

genetics. Ronald Press, New York, NY. 

Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., G. Ruyle, and S. Jorstad 

McClaran. 2005. An evaluation of Arizona cooperative 

extension’s rangeland monitoring program. Rangeland 

Ecol & Manage 58(1):89-98. 

Field, P. and M. McKinney. 2004. Natural resource 

collaborative action and conflict management: environmental conflict management. Training Binder 

(course number 1620-25), Bureau of Land Management, National Training Center, Phoenix, AZ. 


 
 

 

 

 

FishNet 4C, MFG, Inc., Prunuske Chatham, Inc., and 

Pacific Watershed Associates 2004. Guidelines for 

protecting aquatic habitat and salmon fisheries for 

county road maintenance. 

Ganskopp, D. 2001. Manipulating cattle distribution 

with salt and water in large arid-land pastures: A 

GPS/GIS assessment. Appl Anim Behav Sci 73:251-262. 

________. 2004. Affecting beef cattle distribution in 

rangeland pastures with salt and water. Range Field 

Day Report 2004: Current Forage and Livestock 

Production Research. Special Report 1052. Eastern 

Oregon Agricultural Research Center. pp. 1-3. 

Gebhardt, K., S. Leonard, G. Staidl, and D. Prichard. 

1990. Riparian area management: Riparian classification review. TR 1737-5. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service 

Center, Denver, CO. 56 pp. 

Gillen, R., W. Krueger, and R. Miller. 1985. Cattle use 

of riparian meadows in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon. J of Range Manage 38(3):205-209. 

Glimp, H.A. and S.R. Swanson. 1994. Sheep grazing 

and riparian and watershed management. Sheep 

Research Journal, Special Issue:65-71. 

Gowan, C.M. and R.H. Camper. 2000. Low stress 

stockmanship: A method for handling livestock that 

results in increased productivity for the stockman, 

reduced riparian impacts and improved rangeland 

conditions. Presentation at Society for Range 

Management Annual Meeting, Boise, ID. 

Gray, B. 1985. Conditions facilitating interorganizational 

collaboration. Human Relations 38(10):911-936. 

________. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common 

ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass, San 

Francisco. 358 pp. 

Green, D.M. 1991. Soil conditions along a hydrologic 

gradient and successional dynamics in a grazed and 

ungrazed montane riparian ecosystem. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 236 pp. 

Gripne, S.L. 2005. Grassbanks: Bartering for 

conservation? Rangelands 27(1): 24-28. 

Hagener, L. Range Conservationist. Bureau of Land 

Management, Dillon, MT. Personal communication. 

Hall, F.C. 2001. Ground-based photographic monitoring. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-503. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 340 pp. 

________. 2002. Photo point monitoring handbook: 

Part A—Field procedures. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-526. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR. 48 pp. 

Hall, F.C. and L. Bryant. 1995. Herbaceous stubble 

height as a warning of impending cattle grazing 

damage to riparian areas. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-362. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR. 9 pp. 

Hall, F.C. and T. Max. 1999. Technical note: Test of 

observer variability in measuring riparian shrub twig 

length. J Range Manage 52(6):633–636. 

Hansen, P.L., R.D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B.J. Cook, J. Joy, 

and D. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and management 

of Montana’s riparian and wetland sites. Misc. Publications No. 54. Montana Forest and Conservation 

Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of 

Montana, Missoula, MT. 

Hart, R.H., J. Bissio, M.J. Samuel, and J.W. Waggoner, 

Jr. 1993. Grazing systems, pasture size, and cattle 

behavior, distribution and gains. J Range Manage 

46:81-87. 

Herbel, C.H. and A.B. Nelson. 1966. Activities of 

Hereford and Santa Gertrudis cattle on the southern 

New Mexico range. J Range Manage 19:173-181. 

Hilliard, M. Wildlife Biologist. Bureau of Land 

Management. Boise, ID. Personal communication. 

00
 
 

Hormay, A. 1976. Telephone conversation with Bruce, 

Smith, Fisheries Biologist, on rest-rotation grazing 

management. BLM Memo 1220-3806-NR-01 to 

Manager, BLM Rock Springs District, WY. 

Howery, L.D., F.D. Provenza, and R.E. Banner. 1998. 

Social and environmental factors influence cattle 

distribution. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 55:231-244. 

Howery, L.D., F.D. Provenza, R.E. Banner and C.B. 

Scott. 1996. Differences in home range and habitat 

use among individuals in a cattle herd. Appl Anim 

Behav Sci 49:305-320. 

Interagency Technical Team. 1996. Sampling vegetation 

attributes. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, National Applied Resource 

Sciences Center, Denver, CO. 172 pp. 

Jensen, S., R. Ryel, and W.S. Platts. 1989. Classification 

of riverine/riparian habitat and assessment of nonpoint source impacts, North Fork Humboldt River, 

Nevada. Report to U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

White Horse Associates, Smithfield, UT. 165 pp. 

Kinch, G. 1989. Riparian area management: Grazing 

management in riparian areas. TR 1737-4. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Service Center, Denver, CO. 44 pp. 

Kindschy, R. Wildlife Biologist. Bureau of Land 

Management, Vale, OR. Personal communication. 

Kirby, D. and K.L. Grosz. 1995. Cattle grazing and 

sharp-tailed grouse nesting success. Rangelands 

17(4):124-126. 

Knight, J.E. 2004. Big game influences on ranch 

sustainability. Mountains & Minds. Montana State 

University. 2 pp. 

Kovalchik, B. 1987. Riparian zone associations—Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National 

Forests. No. R6 ECOL TP-279-87. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region. 

Kovalchik, B. and W. Elmore. 1991. Effects of cattle 

grazing systems on willow-dominated plant associations in central Oregon. In: Symposium on ecology 

and management of riparian shrub communities. Sun 

Valley, ID. pp. 111-119. 

Krueger, W.C. 1996. Managing ungulates to allow 

recovery of riparian vegetation. In: Proceedings of sustaining rangeland ecosystems. Agriculture Experiment 

Station Special Report 952. Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR. pp. 160-164. 

Kuipers, A. 2002. Winter watering with frost free nose 

pumps. Prairie Water News. 12(1). 

Legge, T.A., D.J. Herman, and B. Zamora. 1981. 

Effects of cattle grazing on mountain meadows in 

Idaho. J of Range Manage 34(4):324-328. 

Leonard, S., G. Kinch, V. Elsbernd, M. Borman, and S. 

Swanson. 1997. Riparian area management: Grazing 

management for riparian areas. TR 1737-14. 

U.S.Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Service Center, Denver, CO. 63 pp. 

Lucas, R.W., T.T. Baker, M.K. Wood, C.D. Allison, and 

D.M. Vanleeuwen. 2004. Riparian vegetation 

response to different intensities and seasons of grazing. 

J of Range Manage 57(5):466-474. 

Manning, M.E., S.R. Swanson, T. Svejcar, and J. Trent. 

1989. Rooting characteristics of four intermountain 

meadow community types. J Range Manage 

42(4):309-312. 

Marlow, C.B. 1985. Controlling riparian zone damage 

with little forage loss. Montana Agricultural Research 

Station. 2(3):1-7. 

Marlow, C.B. and R. Finck. 2002. Using a greenline 

approach for monitoring livestock grazing in riparian 

zones: A critique of the method. Abstracts, 55th 

annual meeting, Society for Range Management, 

Kansas City, MO. pp. 31. 

0
 
 

 

Marlow, C.B. and T.M. Pogacnik. 1985. Time of grazing 

and cattle-induced damage to streambanks. In: Proc. 

of the First N. Am. Riparian Conf. General Tech. 

Report RM- 120. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. pp. 279-284. 

Maser, C. 1988. Six guidelines for framing and writing 

objectives. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management. 

Massman, C. (Ed.). 1998. Riparian grazing successes 

on Montana ranches. Conservation Districts Bureau, 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation, Helena, MT. 30 pp. 

Masters, L., S. Swanson, and W. Burkhardt. 1996a. Riparian grazing management that worked: I. Introduction and winter grazing. Rangelands 18(5):192-195. 

________. 1996b. Riparian grazing management that 

worked: II. Rotation with and without rest and 

riparian pastures. Rangelands 18(5):196-200. 

McInnis, M.L. and J. McIver. 2001. Influence of 

off-stream supplements on streambanks of riparian 

pastures. J of Range Manage 54(6):648-652. 

Meehan, W.R. and W.S. Platts. 1978. Livestock grazing 

and the aquatic environment. Journal of Soil and 

Water Conservation 33(6):274-278. 

Micheli, E.R. and J.W. Kirchner. 2002. Effects of wet 

meadow riparian vegetation on streambank erosion. 

1. Remote sensing measurements of streambank 

migration and erodibility. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms 27:627-639. 

Milesnick, T. Rancher. Belgrade, MT. Personal 

communication. 

Miller, M. State Biologist. Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. Albuquerque, NM. Personal 

communication. 

Miner, J.R., J.C.Buckhouse, and J.A. Moore. 1992. 

Will a water trough reduce the amount of time 

hay-fed livestock spend in the stream (and therefore 

improve water quality)? Rangelands 14(1):233-236. 

Mosley, J.C. 1996. Grazing management to enhance 

riparian habitat. Presentation at 25th annual Pacific 

Northwest Range Management Short Course, Boise, ID. 

________. 1999. Influence of social dominance on 

habitat selection by free-ranging ungulates. Grazing 

behavior of livestock and wildlife. Idaho Forest, 

Wildlife and Range Experiment Station Bulletin #70, 

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. pp 109-118. 

Myers, L. Wildlife Biologist. Bureau of Land 

Management, Dillon, MT. Personal communication. 

________. 1981. Grazing on stream riparian habitats in 

southwestern Montana. In: Proc. Montana Chapter 

of the Wildlife Society Meeting. 

________. 1989. Grazing and riparian management in 

southwestern Montana. Fifteen years of experience. 

Proceedings: Practical Approaches to Riparian 

Resource Management an Educational Workshop. 

Billings, MT. pp 117-120. 

Olson, N.C. 1989. Quality assessment of twenty 

allotment management plans from the Surprise Valley 

Resource Area. Master’s thesis, University of Nevada, 

Reno. 89 pp. 

Olson, N.C. and J.W. Burkhardt. 1992. Land 

management planning: An assessment. Rangelands 

14(3):150-152. 

Padgett, W.G., A.P. Youngblood, and A.H. Winward. 

1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah 

and southeastern Idaho. Tech. Paper R4-ECOL-89­

01. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 191pp. 

Parsons, C.T., P.A. Momont, T. Delcurto, M. McInnis, 

and M.L. Porath. 2003. Cattle distribution patterns 

and vegetation use in mountain riparian areas. J 

Range Manage 56(4):334-341. 

Pfister, J.A., G.B. Donar, R.D. Pieper, J.D. Wallace, 

and E.E. Parker. 1984. Cattle diets under continuous 

and four-pasture, one-herd grazing systems in southcentral New Mexico. J Range Manage 37:50-54. 

0
 
 

 

Pieper, R.D., G.B. Dohnart, E.E. Parker, and J.D. 

Wallace. 1978. Livestock and vegetation response to 

continuous and 4-pasture, 1-herd, grazing systems 

in New Mexico. Proceedings, First International 

Rangeland Congress, Society for Range Management 

1:560-562. 

Pieratt, B. 2005. Rangeland Management Specialist. 

Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, OR. 

Personal communication. 

Pizel, D. 2004. Ranch Manager. Rio Oxbow Ranch, 

CO. Personal communication. 

Platts, W.S. Research Fishery Biologist. Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Boise, ID. 

Personal communication. 

Platts, W.S. and R. Nelson. 1985. Will the riparian 

pasture build good streams? Rangelands 7(l):7-10. 

Platts, W.S. and R. Raleigh. 1984. Impacts of grazing 

on wetlands and riparian habitat. In: Developing 

Strategies for Rangeland Management. National 

Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. 

Westview Press, Boulder, CO. pp. 1105-1128. 

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K. 

Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. Mitchell, and J. 

Staats. 1998. Riparian area management: A user guide 

to assessing proper functioning condition and the 

supporting science for lotic areas. TR1737-15. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource Sciences Center, 

Denver, CO. 126 pp. 

Provenza, F.D. 2003. Foraging behavior: Managing to 

survive in a world of change. Department of Forest, 

Range, and Wildlife Sciences, Utah State University, 

Logan, UT. 63 pp. 

Rasmussen, A.G., M.P. O’Neill, and L. Schmidt. 1998. 

Monitoring rangelands: Interpreting what you see. 

Utah State University Cooperative Extension Service 

NR 503. 41 pp. 

Reed, F., R. Roath, and D. Bradford. 1999. The grazing 

response index: A simple and effective method to 

evaluate grazing impacts. Rangelands 21(4):3-6. 

Reed, Jr., P.B. 1988. National list of plant species that 

occur in wetlands. Biological Report 88 (24). U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Research and Development, Washington, DC. 244 pp. 

Reynolds, D.A. (comp.) 1998. Rangeland monitoring 

manual: A field reference for managers. B-1065. 

University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension 

Service. 54 pp. 

Riggs, W. Extension Educator, University of Nevada, 

Reno. Eureka, NV. Personal communication. 

Roath, L.R. and W.C. Krueger. 1982. Cattle grazing 

and behavior on a forested range. J Range Manage 

35:332-338. 

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland 

Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. 390 pp. 

Schumm, S.A. 1977. The fluvial system. John Wiley & 

Sons. New York. 338 pp. 

Secrist, G. Range Conservationist. Bureau of Land 

Management. Washington, DC. Personal 

communication. 

Simonds, G. Manager. Deseret Ranch, Woodruff, UT. 

Personal communication. 

Sipple, E. and S. Swanson. 1995. Photo-point analysis 

of winter and spring grazing effects on temperate 

streams. In: Fifth International Rangelands 

Congress. Society for Range Management. Salt Lake 

City, UT. p. 520. 

Skovlin, J. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and 

riparian habitat: A review of our knowledge. In: 

Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. 

National Research Council/National Academy of 

Sciences. Westview Press. Boulder, CO. pp. 1101- 1103. 

0
 
 

 

 

Smith, B. 1998. Moving ‘em: A guide to low stress 

animal handling. The Graziers Hui, Kamuela, 

Hawaii. 351 pp. 

Smith, P. 2002. Citizen participation observed: social 

distance in planning and zoning hearings. 

(Unpublished manuscript). 10 pp. 

Smoliak, S. 1960. Effects of deferred rotation and continuous grazing on yearling steer gains and shortgrass 

prairie vegetation of southeastern Alberta. J Range 

Manage 21:47-50. 

Staats, J. 2000. Hydrologist. National Riparian Service 

Team, U.S. Forest Service, Prineville, OR. Personal 

communication. 

Society for Range Management. 2004. Glossary of 

terms used in range management, 4th Edition. 32 pp. 

Stillings, A.M., J.A. Tanaka, N.R. Rimbey, T. Delcurto, 

P.A. Momont, and M.L. Porath. 2003. Economic 


implications of off-stream water developments to 


improve riparian grazing. J Range Manage 


56(5):418-424.
 

Stoddart, L., A. Smith, and T. Box. 1975. Management 

for proper range use. In: Range Management, 

Third Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, 

NY. pp. 256-289. 

Stringham, T.K. Assistant Professor. Department of 

Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR. Personal communication. 

Stringham, T.K., W.C. Krueger, and P.L. Shaver. 2003. 

State and transition modeling: An ecological process 

approach. J Range Manage 56(2):106-113. 

Stuth, J.W. 1991. Foraging behavior. In: Heitschmidt, 

R.K. and J.W. Stuth (Ed.). Grazing management: An 

ecological perspective. Timber Press, Inc., Portland, 

OR. 259 pp. 

Svedarsky, D and G. Van Amburg. 1996. Integrated 

management of the greater prairie chicken and livestock 

on the Sheyenne National Grassland. North Dakota 

Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. 113 pp. 

Swanson, S. 1994. Viewpoint: Integrating CRM (Coordinated Resource Management) and NEPA (National 

Environmental Policy Act) processes. J Range Manage 

47(2):100-106. 

Swickard, T. Rancher, Five Dot Land & Cattle 

Company, Susanville, CA. Personal communication. 

Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. Riparian 

zones in managed rangelands—their importance to 

wildlife. In: Proc. of the Forum on Grazing and 

Riparian Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited. 

Denver, CO. pp. 21-31. 

Trlica, M.J., E.A. Nibarger, W.C. Leininger, and G.W. 

Frasier. 2000. Runoff water quality from grazed and 

ungrazed montane riparian plots. Proc.: International 

Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management 

in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. Portland, 

OR. pp. 263-268. 

USDA. 1999. Sustaining the people’s lands: Recommendations for stewardship of the national forests 

and grasslands into the next century. Committee of 

Scientists Report. Washington DC. 193 pp. 

USDA NRCS. 2001. Stream corridor inventory and 

assessment techniques: Watershed Science Institute 

Technical Report. U.S. Deparment of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 30 pp. 

________. 2003. National range and pasture handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. Washington, DC. 

________. 2005. Grazingland and spatial analysis tool 

(GSAT). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service. In production. 

USDA USFS. 1996. Rangeland analysis and management training guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. 

________. 2004. Allotment monitoring under the 

cooperative rangeland monitoring program MOU 

with the public lands council. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service official letter 

(2200/2260-1). Washington, DC. 2 pp. 

0
 
 

 

 

USDI BLM. 2004. Cooperative rangeland monitoring 

letter/memorandum of understanding (MOU) and 

request for permittee/lessee list of participants. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum No. 2004-179. 

Washington, DC. 2 pp. 

VanWagoner, H.C., D.W. Bailey, D.D. Kress, D.C. 

Anderson, and K.C. Davis. 2006. Differences among 

beef sire breeds and relationships between terrain use 

and performance when daughters graze foothill rangelands as cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci 97(2):105-121. 

Walters, M.A., R.O. Teskey, and T.M. Hinckley. 1980. 

Impact of water level changes on woody riparian and 

wetland communities. Vol.VII: Mediterranean Region, 

Western Arid and Semi-Arid Region. FWS/ORS 

78/93. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services Report. 

Weixelman, D., D. Zamudio, and K. Zamudio. 1996. 

Central Nevada riparian field guide. No. R4-ECOL96-01. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Region. 

Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation 

resources in riparian areas. General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-47. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 pp. 

Winward, A.H. and W.G. Padgett. 1986. Special 

considerations when classifying riparian areas. In: 

Proceedings—Land classifications based on vegetation: 

Applications for resource management. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-257. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

pp 176-179. 

Wondolleck, J.M. and S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making 

collaboration work: Lessons for innovation in natural 

resource management. Island Press, Washington, 

DC. 277 pp. 

Yaffee, S.L, J.M. Wondolleck, and S.R. Lippman. 1997. 

Factors that promote and constrain bridging: A summary and analysis of the literature. Technical Report 

PNW 95-0728. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and 

University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources 

and Environment, Ann Arbor, MI. 43 pp. 

0
 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer. 

The mention of company names, trade names, 

or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the Federal Government. 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service