Draft, Remedial Measures Primer Pilot Version 1.0 32

Draft, Remedial Measures Primer Pilot Version 1.0

APPENDIX 4 - GRAZING SYSTEMS AND RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT

In a study of 34 grazing systems in operation for 10-20 years in southwestern Montana, Meyers (1989) found timing of grazing, duration of use and frequency of fall grazing were important factors in good management. The effectiveness of grazing management involving cattle was judged based on the vigour, regeneration, and utilization of woody species as well as bank stability. Successful systems were defined as those demonstrating good or excellent riparian condition or an upward trend if in fair condition.

Appendix Table 1. Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful grazing systems.

Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful grazing systems with means and 95% confidence levels. (Meyers 1989)

Grazing Systems
Characteristics	Successful	Unsuccessful
Number of grazing systems	9	25
Stocking rates (hectares/AUM)	4.9 (2.3)	3.8 (1.1)
Days of post-grazing regrowth (up to 9/15)	34.9 (17.8)	20.8 (7.3)
Percentage of grazing treatments providing residualcover through rest or regrowth	74.9 (12.8)	37.8 (13.2)
Duration (days) of hot season(7/1-9/15) treatments	12.5 (10.5)	33.4 (10.4)
Duration (days) of all grazing treatments	28.2 (3.7)	59.3 (8.1)
Duration (days) of fall grazing treatments (8/15-1/10)	21.0 (9.1)	36.5 (8.1)
Percentage of grazing treatments with fall use	31.1 (20.7)	51.1 (9.8)

Appendix Table 2. Platts 1989.

Evaluation and rating of grazing strategies based on the author’s personal observation, as related to stream-riparian habitats. (from Elmore and Kauffman, 1994)

Strategy	Level to which riparian vegetation is commonly used	Control of animal distribution (allotment)	Stream-bank stability	Brushy species condition	Seasonal plant regrowth	Stream-riparian rehabilitative potential	Rating
Continuous season-long (cattle)	Heavy	Poor	Poor	Poor	Poor	Poor	1*
Holding (sheep or cattle)	Heavy	Excellent	Poor	Poor	Fair	Poor	1
Short duration-high intensity (cattle)	Heavy	Excellent	Poor	Poor	Poor	Poor	1
Three herd- four pasture (cattle)	Heavy to moderate	Good	Poor	Poor	Poor	Poor	2
Holistic (cattle or sheep)	Heavy to light	Good	Poor to good	Poor	Good	Poor to excellent	2-9
Deferred (cattle)	Moderate to heavy	Fair	Poor	Poor	Fair	Fair
Seasonal suitability (cattle)	Heavy	Good	Poor	Poor	Fair	Fair	3
Deferred-rotation (cattle)	Heavy to moderate	Good	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair	4
Stuttered deferred-rotation (cattle)	Heavy to moderate	Good	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair	4
Winter (sheep or cattle)	Moderate to heavy	Fair	Good	Fair	Fair to good	Good	5

This table points out that:
(1) the level of management is the key to success of failure;
(2) almost any strategy can work if it pays attention to detail;
(3) where a site is degraded certain strategies will not allow recovery.

Rest-rotation (cattle)	Heavy to moderate	Good	Fair to good	Fair	Fair to good	Fair	5
Double rest-rotation (cattle)	Moderate	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Good	6
Seasonal riparian preference (cattle or sheep)	Moderate to light	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Fair	6
Riparian pasture (cattle or sheep)	As prescribed	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	8
Corridor fencing (cattle or sheep)	None	Excellent	Good to excellent	Excellent	Good to excellent	Excellent	9
Rest rotation with seasonal preference (sheep)	Light	Good	Good to excellent	Good to excellent	Good	Excellent	9
Rest or closure (cattle or sheep)	None	Excellent	Excellent	Excellent	Excellent	Excellent	10

*Rating scale based on
1 (poorly compatible with fishery needs) to 10 (highly compatible with fishery needs).

Note: Platts is a fisheries biologist working in Nevada.

Appendix Table 3. Generalized relationships.

Generalized relationships between grazing systems and willow and sedge response on willow-dominated plant associations (modified from Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

Undisplayed Graphic

Refer to "Woody Riparian Vegetation", Chapter 6 for text clarifying this table.

Slope	Flat = 0-2% ; moderate = 2 - 4%; steep = greater then 4%
Sediment load	high = turbid waters; usually bank and bottom materials tend toward clays, silts, and fine sands low = clear waters; usually, bank and bottom materials tend toward coarse sands, gravels, cobbles, and boulders.

Depending on objectives and the type of stream situation, a general grazing approach may be applicable. The matrix is designed to give an insight into the way a ‘typical’ stream type might respond to a given management step.

Example: Suppose you had a steep-gradient, gravel- and cobble-lined stream that carried little sediment, and you wanted to build banks by eliminating livestock use:

• enter the matrix under ‘Natural Conditions’ at the left hand column, ‘Steep, low sediment load’

• move down until you intersect the desired ‘Management Stress’ category at the left (in this example ‘No grazing’)

• the response indicates that lack of grazing probably won’t enhance your desired objective of building banks

If there is little sediment being transported in the system, there will be little opportunity for bank building, with or without livestock present.

Please interpret with care.

Appendix Table 4. Generalized relationships.

Generalized relationships among riparian vegetation response, grazing management practices and stream characteristics. (Buckhouse and Elmore, 1991)NATURAL CONDITIONS

Undisplayed Graphic