BLM LIBRARY

Successful Strategies
for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

3 itana BLM

.E573 irian Technical Bulletin No. 4

1998 jary 1998

itana Forest and Conservation
Experiment Station

US Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Montana State Office
Billings, Montana

Successful Strategies
for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin l\lo. 4

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office
Dan K. Hinckley, Project Coordinator

Prepared by

Robert C. Ehrhart and Paul L. Hansen

Riparian and Wetland Research Program
Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station
School of Forestry The University of Montana

Missoula, Montana
January 1998

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our
public lands. It is committed to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a
manner to serve the needs of the American people for all times. Management
is based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation’s
resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific
technology.These resources include recreation;rangelands;timber;minerals;water-
shed; fish and wildlife; wilderness; air; and scenic, scientific, and cultural values.

BLM/MT/ST-98/00 1 + 1 6 1 0

The Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station Publications Program
prepared this USDI Bureau of Land Management Technical Bulletin for publication.

Nick Baker, Station Editor
1998

Acknowledgments

This report would not have been possible without the support and assis¬
tance of a great many persons. First, we want to thank the Montana State Office
of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and especially Dan Hinckley, for finan¬
cial support and encouragement. We also appreciate the additional funding for
this publication provided by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
the Missoula Conservation District, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), and the Montana Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative Steering Com¬
mittee.

Thanks also are due to numerous individuals at each of the BLM Resource Ar¬
eas in Montana who guided us through their files and pointed us in the direction
of possible study sites. Likewise, conscientious persons at NRCS and Montana
State University Agricultural Extension Service offices throughout the state went
out of their way to identify possible ranches for inclusion and to lay the ground¬
work with operators. Chris Phelps of the Montana Land Reliance also provided
suggestions on possible participants, several of whom were included in the
study. Thanks, too, to Scott Godfrey, who tolerated long hours and hard miles sup¬
porting this project.

Our greatest debt is to the many operators and managers who graciously
gave us permission to poke around their riparian areas and who took time out of
busy schedules to talk about their ranches. Each of the following (and, where ap¬
propriate, their spouses) contributed greatly to whatever value this report might
have: Rick Anderson, Wayne Arnold, Ray Bannister, Jay and Neal Barnowsky,

Francis Blake, Leonard Blixrud, Ellis Boyd, Stewart Burns, Barbara Clark, Martin
Clark, Ken Cook, Lee Cornwell, Rod Coulter, Michael Curran, Dan Currie, Bob
Dafoe, Willie Doll, Fred Drga,Ted Flynn, Bill French, Jim Gelhaus, Les Gilman, Jim
Hagenbarth, Quinn Haughianjack Heyneman, Chase Hibbert, Bill Jones, Ronnie
Korman, Chris Kouncejohn Krutar, John Lane, Bob Lee, Tracy Manley, Dave and
Bert Mannix, Clay McAlpine,Tom McClure, Jack and Mike Meuli,Tom Milesnick,
Bill Milton, Richard Moe, George Morelia, Jim Morton, John Nesselhofjack
Norris, Steve Page, Charles Proff, Bob Pugsley, Mike and Mark Rafferty, Lon
Reukauf, Rob Reukauf, Don Ross, Phil Rostad, Steve Roth, Stew Schwartz, Bob
Scriver, Fred Sherrerjoe Skinner, Maynard and Meg Smith, Snowline Grazing As¬
sociation, Bert Twitchell, Larry Veverka, Craig Woodson, and Tony Zinne.

Finally, thanks to Nick Baker, University of Montana School of Forestry Re¬
search Station editor, for the layout and design of this book.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Contents

Acknowledgements . iii

Contents . v

Introduction . 1

Characteristics and Functions of Riparian Zones . 2

Characteristics of Riparian Areas . 2

Functions of Riparian Areas . 3

Principles and Techniques for Riparian Grazing . 5

General Principles of Riparian Grazing . 5

Determining Season of Use . 9

Reducing Intensity of Use by Influencing Distribution . 20

Conclusions . 30

Suggested Reading . 32

Literature Cited . 36

Appendices . 42

Appendix A. Delineating Season of Use . 42

Appendix B. Determining Season of Use . 43

Glossary . 46

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones v

VI

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Figure 1. Little Powder River south of Broadus, Montana.

Introduction

D espite their small proportion of the total landscape, riparian areas are
ecologically and economically important from any perspective. These
include water quality, biological diversity, wildlife and fisheries habitat, agricul¬
tural and ranching productivity, timber production, recreation, and
simple aesthetics.

One of the most extensive human-caused influences on riparian zones in
the western United States has been livestock grazing. It is well-known that im¬
proper grazing practices can adversely affect riparian areas. What is less obvi¬
ous is which grazing management techniques are compatible with maintaining
or improving these areas and under what conditions. This bulletin discusses
both general principles for grazing cattle in riparian areas and specific tech¬
niques ranchers in Montana have employed to graze their riparian areas with¬
out sacrificing either the ecological or financial condition of their land. It is
based on a review of the growing body of literature on this subject as well as
on field observations and evaluations of operations on more than 70 ranches
and numerous federal grazing allotments throughout Montana.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

1

Characteristics and Functions of Riparian Zones

Characteristics of Riparian Areas

Riparian areas are the “green zones” which lie between channels of flowing
water and uplands.They are the link between aquatic environments and upland,
terrestrial ecosystems. Even with the recent emphasis on “The Riparian Zone,” it
is essential to keep in mind the fundamental interrelationships among aquatic,
riparian, and upland ecosystems. An excellent reminder of these relationships is
the observation that “management of salmonid habitats does not begin at the
streambank but at the ridgeline [watershed boundary] ” (Kauffman 1995).

Riparian areas are intimately related to their adjacent waterways since the
presence of water for all or part of the growing season is their distinguishing
characteristic. Moreover, the nature and condition of the riparian area abutting a
stream channel fundamentally affects the aquatic ecosystem.

In addition to water, three other components of the riparian area essential
for management consideration are soil, vegetation, and land form. In a healthy ri¬
parian ecosystem, the four are in balance and mutually supporting one another.
While all four components are important, one might suggest that water and soil
are the fundamental elements which define a riparian area and that vegetation
reflects the nature and condition of the geomorphological and hydrological situ¬
ations. Nevertheless, from a management perspective, vegetation is critical since
often this is the element over which the manager has the most control, which is
the easiest to manipulate, and which responds the quickest to human influ¬
ences.

Riparian areas are usually much more dynamic than uplands (a term used in
this report to refer to any part of the landscape beyond the non-streamside
boundary of the riparian area). While plant communities may be especially sus¬
ceptible to rapid change, it is not uncommon for physical conditions to change
dramatically, often in relatively short periods. These changes might include: flood¬
ing (either temporary or more long term, as when caused by beavers); deposi¬
tion of sediment on banks and across floodplains; accumulation of organic
materials in areas such as wet meadows and bogs; dewatering of a site by a vari¬
ety of means (for example, irrigation diversions); and changes in actual channel
location. Each of these physical modifications can change the associated vegeta¬
tion negatively or positively. Conversely, vegetation, or the lack of it, may contrib¬
ute to each of the above phenomena.

The natural variation of riparian areas is an important consideration in seek¬
ing to understand and subsequently to manage these areas because it is often dif¬
ficult to distinguish between natural and human-caused impacts. In addition, the
inherently dynamic nature of riparian areas and their associated stream channels
is such that natural events may override human-caused impacts, including efforts
at in-stream and riparian rehabilitation.

2

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Functions of Riparian Areas

Healthy riparian areas provide several important ecological functions. These
functions include water storage and aquifer recharge, filtering of chemical and
organic wastes, sediment trapping, bank building and maintenance, flow energy
dissipation, and primary biotic production.

Riparian areas provide for water storage and aquifer recharge.

The soil in the banks and floodplains and the substrate under the channel
act as a sponge to retain water. In doing so, they reduce peak flows during
floods. This stored water is released as subsurface or groundwater over time, ex¬
tending the availability of water in the watershed for longer period in the sum¬
mer and/or recharging the under-ground aquifer.

Riparian vegetation dissipates the energy of flowing water and stabilizes
streambanks.

It thus reduces erosion and the introduction of excessive sediment into the
channel. Vegetation can also limit the movement of upland soil into the stream.
Floodplains also serve to reduce water velocity by allowing it to spread across a
wider area and providing more obstacles to create friction These functions are
particularly important during spring runoff periods and after major summer or
fall rains.

Riparian vegetation traps sediments carried by the stream and by overland flow
from the adjacent uplands.

Trapping of sediment may lead to the development of new banks and bars,
which become the location for new vegetation communities, further enhancing
stability. Sediment retention is also important because excessive sediment loads
reduce habitat quality for aquatic life (including fish) and destabilize the natural
hydrologic regime of the system. Healthy riparian systems enhance water quality
by filtering out organic and chemical pollutants before they reach the channel
and as they move downstream.

Riparian vegetation shields soil and water from wind , sunlight, and rain drop im¬
pact.

This reduces erosion due to wind and the disruptive impact of rainfall as
well as reducing evaporation. Vegetative canopy cover also provides shade
which reduces water temperatures and improves aquatic habitat. Dense vegeta¬
tion may limit soil compaction through the presence of healthy root systems and
by limiting accessibility of both domestic livestock and wild ungulates. Although
an increase in vegetation may increase evapotranspiration, in natural riparian sys¬
tems the overall benefits offset this loss.

Finally, riparian areas are rich in biotic production.

The presence of water and essential nutrients make them among the most
productive parts of a landscape, especially in such regions as the arid and semi-
arid western United States. This productivity enhances livestock use as well. Bio¬
mass on mountain meadows, for example, may be “10 to 20 times higher than

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

3

that of surrounding uplands” (Skovlin 1984). Roath and Krueger (1982) found
that the riparian area in a Blue Mountain pasture in eastern Oregon provided
more than 80 percent of the total herbaceous vegetation grazed by cattle, even
though it comprised less than two percent of the total area of the pasture.

The ecological importance of riparian zones far exceeds the proportion of
the landscape they comprise. Riparian areas provide innumerable wildlife spe¬
cies with water, food, cover, and travel routes. While riparian areas make up only
about two percent of the land area of the western United States, “It is believed
that, on land, the riparian/stream ecosystem is the single most productive type of
wildlife habitat, benefiting the greatest number of species” (Kauffman and
Krueger 1982). More than 75 percent of all wildlife species in southeastern Wyo¬
ming are dependent upon riparian habitats (Chaney and others 1990). In the
western United States, more bird species rely on riparian habitats than all other
western rangeland vegetation types combined (Chaney and others 1990).

Obviously, healthy riparian areas are ecologically vital. In addition, the ability
of riparian areas to perform their ecological functions provides numerous direct
benefits to people. They are among the most productive vegetative communities
on the landscape. Their moisture storage capabilities provide water for human
consumption, crop production, livestock and wildlife needs, and recreational en¬
joyment, while reducing the damage that might be caused by flooding. If ripar¬
ian areas are to provide these multiple benefits, however, they must be properly
managed. Because of the wide-spread use of riparian areas for livestock grazing,
an important element of riparian management is to consider ways in which such
grazing can occur without harming the riparian area. The next section of this re¬
port addresses this issue.

4

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Principles and Techniques for Riparian Grazing

General Principles for Riparian Grazing

While each ranching operation and grazing allotment is unique, there are
general guidelines which should be considered when determining an appropri¬
ate riparian grazing strategy. How they should be applied to specific situations
will depend on the conditions, objectives, and resources which characterize an
individual operation or situation. Nevertheless, the livestock operator or land
manager who seeks to maintain or establish healthy riparian areas would do well
to have these principles firmly in mind before undertaking any specific activi¬
ties.

Tailor the approach to the specific situation.

The dominant theme of virtually all the literature, experimental and anec¬
dotal, on approaches to grazing riparian zones and their companion streams is
that “no two stream systems are alike — each has its own level of ability
to withstand natural and/or human-induced stress” (Buckhouse and
Elmore 1993; italics in original). Accordingly, “no treatment or system of treat¬
ments will work everywhere” (Swanson 1986). This situation imposes a burden
on land managers, private and public, for it requires that they understand the na¬
ture of the particular riparian system with which they are dealing, including: hy¬
drologic and geomorphologic characteristics, current and potential plant species
and communities and their responses to grazing and browsing, animal behavior,
forage preferences, and the management feasibility of possible treatments
(Krueger 1996). According to Green and Kauffman (1995), “Our results indicate
that . . .basing management recommendation [s] on [only] 1 component ignores
the inherent complexity of riparian ecosystems.”

Tailoring one’s approach to a particular area also involves determining spe¬
cific riparian objectives. It is possible to maintain or even to improve riparian
zones without identifying specific objectives beforehand. Several of the ranchers
with whom we talked admitted they had undertaken actions to achieve a “non¬
riparian” goal and discovered one result was an improvement in their riparian
area. Such situations, however, are definitely the exception. Knowing where you
want to go is specially important to rehabilitate a riparian area in a degraded
condition. Only rarely will this happen without definite, positive steps on the
part of the manager.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

5

Ranchers and range conservationists traditionally have focused on herba¬
ceous plant growth and utilization. Development of riparian vegetation objec¬
tives may be viewed as a logical extension of this approach. On the other hand,
given the importance of residual vegetation (see below), it is necessary to invert
the emphasis from “what to take” to “what to leave” (Burkhardt 1979). In addi¬
tion, objectives in riparian areas must include less familiar aspects such as woody
species utilization and regeneration, streambank condition, and channel mor¬
phology. (Kinch [1989] and Krueger [1996] are especially good on what factors
need to be considered and how to look at them.)

An important step toward the attainment of identified objectives is develop¬
ing a monitoring program designed specifically to track those aspects of the
system which will provide information on whether conditions are moving in the
right direction. For example, if a management objective is to increase willow
canopy cover along a stream, the regeneration and development of willow
plants must be monitored. It is not enough simply to monitor the growth and
utilization of herbaceous vegetation as traditionally done in upland pastures
(Hansen 1993). In the words of Wyoming rancher Jack Turnell, first recipient of
the National Cattlemen Association’s Environmental Stewardship Award, If you ’re
not monitoring, you’re not managing (1993).

Incorporate management of riparian areas into the overall
management plan.

Because riparian areas comprise only a small portion of the area on any
ranch or grazing allotment, they must be addressed within the context of an
overall management plan. This does not contradict the previous guidance. Rather
it recognizes the need to adopt approaches that are managerially feasible as well
as ecologically sound. It also recognizes the essential links among the stream
channel, the riparian zone, and the uplands: “Proper upland management is es¬
sential for obtaining a healthy riparian area, the two go hand in hand” (Tohill and
Dollerschell 1990).

This principle serves as a reminder that any actions or decisions taken with
regard to riparian zones will have an effect on other parts of the operation. Plan¬
ning when and how long to use pastures with riparian areas, for example, will in¬
volve decisions on where the animals will be the rest of the year. An aspect of
riparian management often overlooked is that the less time livestock spend in
the riparian zone, the greater proportion of time they will be in the uplands. In
situations in which wild ungulates also depend on upland forage, the impact of
this redistribution must be carefully considered.

Focusing too narrowly just on actions within the riparian area ignores the
full complement of possible steps which might contribute to maintaining or im¬
proving this zone. Some of the most significant steps Montana ranchers have
taken to improve their riparian systems have occurred well out of the
riparian area.

6

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Select season of use so grazing occurs, as often as possible, during
periods compatible with animal behavior, conditions in the
riparian zone, and riparian objectives.

Livestock will affect riparian vegetation and physical conditions differently
depending on many factors, including the site’s physical characteristics and con¬
ditions, the stage of plant development, the nature of the plant communities in
both the riparian area and the uplands, and current weather. To attain manage¬
ment objectives that mesh economic ends with ecological needs requires that
“soil physics, watershed (especially infiltration), plant growth and development
factors/ responses, and animal behavioral responses all must be factored in’’
(Buckhouse 1995).

While our study results suggested there is no universally applicable “best
time” in which to graze riparian zones, there is increasing evidence that different
seasons have identifiable characteristics that tend to result in fairly predictable
impacts — predictable enough, at any rate, to provide the basis for initial plan¬
ning. (See below for a discussion on seasons of use.) One key reason for having
clearly defined riparian objectives is to provide assistance in determining which
seasons of use will best move a particular riparian zone toward specific objec¬
tives.

There are often tradeoffs in potential impacts with regard to time of use, and
managers must keep in mind their objectives as well as the condition of the ri¬
parian area. For example, while late summer use will reduce trampling impacts
on streambanks, it may also result in heavy use of young woody plants. Varying
the season of use annually will change the nature and extent of the possible im¬
pacts which can result from livestock grazing.

Limit the time livestock spend in pastures with riparian areas.

While there are different opinions regarding the best season of use, there is
consensus that the length of time animals spend in a riparian area can be a sig¬
nificant factor in the condition of that area. According to Marlow and his col¬
leagues (1991), “The most critical aspect in any grazing plan for the protection of
riparian areas is the length of time cattle have access to a particular stream
reach.” Myers (1989), reviewing 34 allotments in southwestern Montana, con¬
cluded, “Duration in grazing treatments becomes a key factor in determining the
severity of damage” because of the tendency of cattle to hang out in the riparian
area even when not actively feeding. Marlow (1985) made the point that “the
length of the grazing period should be based on the areas cattle are actually us¬
ing, not the entire pasture.”

With the exception of winter grazing periods, less than 20 percent of the op¬
erations we evaluated as having healthy riparian zones exceeded 45 days in the
target pasture and most were considerably shorter. Those ranchers who did
graze a pasture more than 45 days had taken other steps to reduce the time live¬
stock actually spent in the riparian area.

Influence the distribution of livestock within the targeted pasture.

Left on their own, cattle tend to spend a disproportionate amount of time in

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

7

the riparian area and to overutilize the forage which grows there. According to
Clary and Webster (1989), domestic livestock will spend from “five to 30 times
longer” in a riparian area than might be expected based on the relative size of the
riparian area to the entire pasture. Bryant (1979) noted that, given the choice,
both yearlings and cows with calves preferred riparian areas over uplands for
much of the summer grazing season.

Riparian areas are often only two to three percent of the area of a pasture,
but they may produce 20 percent of the forage and receive up to 80 percent of
the use if measures are not taken to redistribute animals (Krueger 1984, cited in
Vavra 1984). In 23 of 25 cases in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada, cattle used streamside
vegetation twice as heavily as overall pasture use (Platts and Nelson 1985b). Nor
is the impact on vegetation the only concern. The presence of livestock has physi¬
cal impacts as well, including soil compaction, bank trampling, and degraded wa¬
ter quality due to waste materials entering the stream channel.

Determining the most appropriate season for grazing a particular pasture
with riparian areas is one method to control distribution because it allows the
manager to use natural conditions and animal behavior to advantage. There are
also numerous techniques to encourage livestock to venture away from the ripar¬
ian area. Both season of use and other techniques are discussed below.

Ensure adequate residual vegetation cover.

Vegetation cover is essential for maintaining almost all types of healthy ripar¬
ian ecosystems. Myers (1989) concluded that, through a combination of rest and
removing livestock in sufficient time to provide for regrowth, successful riparian
grazing systems provided residual vegetative cover 75 percent of the years,
whereas unsuccessful systems provided for this only 38 percent of the time. Al¬
though closely tied to utilization levels, an emphasis on residual vegetation cover
offers a different perspective. Rather than emphasizing what the animals get, the
focus is on the plants and their role in the ecosystem: “More important than
knowing how much herbage can be removed ... is knowing how much should
be left for ecosystem maintenance. Approaching utilization from this standpoint
provides for the physiological needs of the plant species” as well as for their ca¬
pacity to perform riparian functions (Thilenius 1979).

How much and what type of vegetation exists on a site determines how well
the riparian system performs its functions of reduction of flow velocity, sediment
trapping, bank building, and erosion protection. What constitutes “adequate”
cover depends on the location of the riparian pasture and the specific situation.

In a simulation study of riparian stubble height, Clary and others (1996) con¬
cluded different stubble heights are needed to fulfill the two processes of sedi¬
ment deposition (trapping) and sediment retention (bank building), with shorter
heights (0. 5-6.0 inches) better for the former and taller (8-12 inches) for the lat¬
ter. It is, at any rate, important to remember that the vegetation which exists on
site at the end of the growing season or at the end of a grazing period, whichever
conies last , is what matters since this is essentially what will be available during
the next runoff period. In many situations projections of residual vegetation must
also include consideration of probable wildlife use prior to spring runoff.

8

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Provide adequate regrowth time and rest for plants.

For plants to remain vigorous and productive, they must have time for
growth, seed development, and storage of carbohydrates. Continual grazing dur¬
ing the plant’s growth period eventually causes roots to die back, the plant to
lose vigor, and seed development to cease. The result can be a change in plant
community, usually from more productive, palatable species to a less productive
and less palatable group of plants. All of the studies which have identified steps
toward proper riparian grazing management stress the crucial need for adequate
rest or at least the cessation of grazing in time to allow plant regrowth to occur.

Be prepared to play an active role in managing riparian areas.

At first glance, this statement seems trite and blatantly obvious. However, it
gets to the heart of the matter. In their extensive review of riparian grazing litera¬
ture, Clary and Webster (1989) concluded, “Most riparian grazing results suggest
that the specific grazing system used is not of dominant importance, but good

management is — with control of use of the riparian area a key item _ ” They

also observed that, while specific “results” are often attributed to the implemen¬
tation of a particular grazing system, these effects may well have stemmed from
“the whole range management program” that accompanied the introduction of
that grazing system. In other words, success in maintaining or enhancing riparian
health is dependent more on the degree of operator involvement than on what
grazing system is employed.

There are a variety of specific techniques operators can use — and are us¬
ing — to translate the general principles outlined above to on-the-ground opera¬
tions. Which ones, or what combination of them, might be effective will depend
on the riparian area in question and the willingness of the manager to be’ ac¬
tively involved in their implementation. For ease of presentation, we have di¬
vided these activities into two broad categories: (1) determination of an
appropriate season for grazing the riparian zone and (2) methods for reducing
intensity of use in the riparian area through control and distribution of livestock
within a pasture.

Determining Season of Use*

Determination of an appropriate time of year for grazing a specific riparian
area is one of the first steps in developing a riparian grazing management ap¬
proach. Which season (or seasons) this might entail will depend on a broad
range of factors. Perhaps the three most significant are: (1) the predicted re¬
sponse of different plant species, (2) the impact on the overall plant communi¬
ties which can result from grazing, and (3) the degree of soil moisture on the
site. Not surprisingly, there are potential advantages and drawbacks to grazing
during each season. However, neither the potential advantages nor the possible
disadvantages are certain to occur in every instance. Those listed below for each
season should be considered potential, or even likely, outcomes, but none of
them is guaranteed. Moreover, because of the fluctuation in natural systems (for

* See Appendix A for time frames of seasons; see Appendix B for a summary of the material in this section.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

9

example, variations in temperature, timing and amount of precipitation, and veg¬
etation growth), the appropriateness of using a particular pasture may vary
somewhat from year to year. It is also possible that the nature of a given riparian
area makes no grazing the most ecologically viable solution.

Early Season (Spring) Use.

Evidence suggests early season use may be best for those situations in which:
(1) livestock can be attracted to the uplands by succulent, herbaceous forage; (2)
cool temperatures may discourage cows from loitering in the bottoms or
weather in the uplands is not such as to drive them into riparian areas; (3) soil in
the riparian area may be so wet as to discourage cows from entering; or (4) well-
drained soils reduce the possibility of compaction (Gillen and others 1985; Platts
and Nelson 1985a; Clary and Webster 1989; Kinch 1989; Clary and Booth 1993).
Potential advantages.

The availability of succulent upland vegetation may induce livestock to
spend time out of the riparian area and thus reduce use of riparian plants as well
as reduce the amount of soil compaction and bank trampling. In addition, early
use allows time for subsequent regrowth of plant species in the riparian area as
well as the uplands if animals are removed while sufficient soil moisture and ap¬
propriate temperatures remain (Elmore and Kauffman 1994).The presence of
palatable herbaceous plants reduces pressure on woody plant species and al¬
lows them opportunity for maximum growth during this critical period
(Kovalchik and Elmore 1992).

Platts and Nelson (1985a and 1985b) observed that livestock distributed
themselves better throughout pastures and concentrated less in riparian areas
during the spring. In a semi-arid portion of northcentral Wyoming, “relatively in¬
tense short-term grazing” in early summer apparently had little affect on the mor¬
phology of an ephemeral stream channel because cattle spent less time there
during that period than later in the summer or fall (Siekert and others 1985).

Both Crouse (1987) and Elmore (1988) reported improvements in riparian areas
as a result of grazing them only in the spring (cited in Clary and Webster 1989).
Krueger (1983) reported that forested riparian areas grazed in the spring had
less than half the cattle occupancy compared to fall use (cited in Kovalchik and
Elmore 1992).

Because of the essential role of woody species in maintaining riparian func¬
tions, reduced browsing pressure on trees and shrubs may be one of the most
significant benefits of early season use (Swanson 1987). In eastern Oregon, cot¬
tonwood and willow seedling density was “somewhat greater” with moderate
spring use than in moderate fall-grazed, season-long, or no grazing treatments
(Shaw 1988, cited in Clary and Webster 1989). According to Kovalchik and
Elmore (1992), early grazing “can be very beneficial to riparian areas, especially
in establishing woody plants.’They caution, however, that the impact of brows¬
ing during flowering and early seedling stages of willows, should this occur,
needs more study. Clary and Webster (1989) concluded, “While no one manage¬
ment approach is best for all situations, spring grazing has shown promise in
many areas of the Western United States.”

10

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Scheduling of early season grazing must allow time for vegetation regrowth
(Bryant 1985; Clary and Webster 1989;Kinch 1989; Kovalchik and Elmore 1992;
Buckhouse and Elmore 1993; Buckhouse 1995). In reviewing 34 grazing allot¬
ments in southwest Montana, Myers (1989) observed that the nine operations
which had healthy riparian zones allowed for an average of 35 days of vegetation
regrowth versus 21 days for unsuccessful operations. Failure to allow for re¬
growth after grazing ceases will, over time, not only impact vegetation in the ri¬
parian area, but will also reduce the vigor of upland plants and may result in
changes in plant communities (Marlow and Poganick 1986).

Possible disadvantages.

There are possible drawbacks to early season grazing in riparian areas, how¬
ever. First, because of high soil moisture levels, the potential impacts in terms of
soil compaction, bank trampling, and subsequent erosion are greatest during this
period. Second, grazing occurs during the critical period of plant growth and de¬
velopment, and repeated grazing of desirable herbaceous species at this time
may affect plant vigor and may lead to changes in plant communities. Third, from
a livestock production standpoint, the nutritive value of upland forage may be
low and may require supplemental feeding. Finally, early season grazing may ad¬
versely affect wildlife in the area.

While wet soil conditions may discourage livestock from entering the ripar¬
ian area, these same conditions make the system susceptible to serious damage if
they do so. In a study at Red Bluffs Experimental Station west of Bozeman, Mon¬
tana, Marlow (1985) discovered the greatest bank damage occurred in late June
and early July when cattle use of the riparian zone was lowest, but soil moisture
content was 18-25 percent. By August soil moisture had declined to 8-10 percent,
and damage in the grazed riparian reach was no greater than that in the
ungrazed reach. In some well-saturated soils, grazing animals are more likely to
uproot plants in the spring than during other seasons (Kinch 1989). Underscor¬
ing the site-specific nature of this factor, Buckhouse (1995) cautioned that while
early spring grazing seemed to work on well-drained soils, it tended to result in
compaction on poorly drained soils. Livestock use of these zones in spring is
more likely in areas where steep topography inhibits livestock movements into
other parts of the pasture. Such situations will probably require additional man¬
agement actions such as installation of drift fences to reduce the tendency of
cattle to congregate and remain in the accessible bottoms. (See section on “Re¬
ducing Intensity of Grazing” below.)

Although the exact impacts of early season use on wildlife will depend on
the species involved and the site itself, they may include disruption of birthing
and nursing grounds and reduction in forage available to wild ungulates
(Holecheck and others 1982). With appropriate timing, however, early season
livestock grazing can “prepare” a pasture for later wild ungulate use by removing
vegetation that would otherwise become rank and unpalatable (Anderson and
Scherzinger 1975;Frisina and Morin 1991; Buckhouse 1995). Conflicts with
ground-nesting birds, particularly those which nest and raise their young on the
ground, are likely during this season (Bock and others 1993). Grazing during this

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

11

or any other period does not impact all bird species the same, however, since the
effects depend on the particular habitat involved, the bird species most likely to
use that habitat, and the time of year (Dale 1984; Kantrud and Higgins 1992).
Possible impacts of early season grazing on small mammals include loss of hiding
cover and reduced food materials.

Study reaches.

Forty -three of the stream reaches reviewed in our study were grazed at least
some years during the early part of the grazing year. Three of these alternated
years between early use and late use (with the length of use ranging from 20 to
45 days). Six operators used the same pasture both early and late; the length of
the grazing period ranged among the different operators from 0.5 days to 30
days during the early period. Five streams were grazed only during the early sea¬
son and in a variety of ways. Three of them were used for 22-35 days, but live¬
stock were removed by late May. One was a short duration operation used for
less than eight days in the spring. A pasture on the Little Powder River in south¬
east Montana was grazed annually from the middle of May until mid-July (about
60 days). Its healthy condition may be attributed to the quality of offstream wa¬
ter (in contrast to that in the stream channel) and to the presence of older cot¬
tonwood groves away from the river which provide shade as temperatures rise.

Twelve stream reaches were part of short duration strategies which included
early season use for no more than eight days during the course of any one year.

Of the 19 stream reaches which were part of strategies that included more than
eight days of early use during a grazing season, only one operator went into his
pasture about the same time annually, but not earlier than June 20. The others
varied season of use either within a definite rotation pattern or based on their
assessment of their pastures. Significantly, all provided for early season rest at
least one out of three years (if not more frequently) or moved livestock out of
the pasture before the end of the growing season.

Late Season (Fall) Grazing.

Deferring grazing use until fall may offer distinct benefits to maintaining the
health of a riparian area under the following conditions: (1) when riparian plant
communities consist of herbaceous rather than tree or shrub (“woody”) species;
(2) when cool season grasses stimulated by timely precipitation provide palat¬
able forage in the uplands; (3) where offstream water near accessible forage
sources is available, or other inducements (for example, cold air pockets stream-

side or the absence of hot temperatures in the uplands) draw cattle out of the ri¬
parian area.

Potential advantages.

The primary advantages of late season grazing are that soils are drier, which
reduces the probability of compaction and bank trampling; most plants have
completed their growth cycle, and grazing will not adversely affect plant devel¬
opment; and, generally, there is less impact on wildlife habitat.

Compared with spring use, fall grazing occurs when soil moisture is greatly
reduced (Marlow 1985). This difference can be particularly significant where

12

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

fine-textured soils are highly susceptible to compaction when wet. In Oregon,
Buckhouse and Bunch (1985) determined there were no significant differences
between streambank erosion in pastures moderately grazed in the fall and
ungrazed control pastures. However, on a similar stream in the same area other
researchers concluded, “The late season grazing was found to significantly in¬
crease streambank erosion,” although it did not appreciably affect soil compac¬
tion (Kauffman and others 1983).

One of the most important advantages of late season grazing is that for many
herbaceous species seed set has already occurred, and defoliation will have less
impact than during earlier development stages (Kauffman and Krueger 1984;
Gillen and others 1985). In addition, with adequate precipitation, regrowth of
upland forage may draw cattle out of the riparian bottoms. Swanson (1987) sug¬
gested grasses, sedges, and rushes in Nevada can do well under late season use,
and researchers in Oregon agreed late season grazing may be appropriate for
herbaceous-dominated streams without natural woody components (Buckhouse
1995). Green (1991) found productivity and density of riparian meadows were
maintained with late season grazing at moderate use levels (cited in Elmore and
Kauffman 1994).

Late season grazing avoids conflict with ground-nesting birds (Kauffman and
others 1982;Vavra 1984; Bock and others 1993) It may, however, reduce the for¬
age available for winter ungulate use and limit cover density for small mammals
prior to the following year’s green up (Kauffman and others 1 982). Kauffman
(1982) suggested late season grazing in eastern Oregon resulted in minimal
short-term disturbance to wildlife as well as limited soil disturbance, improved
livestock performance, and allowed for good plant vigor and productivity (cited
in Kauffman and Krueger 1984).

Possible disadvantages.

Late season use may be detrimental to the health of riparian areas. Where re¬
duced soil moisture and declining temperatures are the norm, regrowth after the
cattle are removed will not occur. This may limit the capability of plant commu¬
nities to fulfill their riparian functions during the succeeding spring runoff. In
addition, livestock are much more likely to browse woody species during this
period. Finally, unless provided with incentives, cattle are less likely to range
away from the riparian areas; moreover, the natural incentive of palatable upland
forage often is not present.

While regrowth of cool season grasses and cooler weather may draw cattle
out of the riparian area in the fall, should weather in the uplands remain unpleas¬
ant or should palatable forage not be available there, they are likely to congre¬
gate in the riparian area (Platts and Raleigh 1984; Green and Kauffman 1995).
Even when positive conditions prevail, cattle are still less likely to distribute
themselves as broadly as in the spring. Under these conditions, cattle have a ten¬
dency to remain in the riparian area and to continue to graze vegetation there
even when the nutritive value of that forage has declined (Gillen and others
1985). Thus, it is particularly important to monitor the extent of residual vegeta¬
tion to ensure enough remains to perform sediment trapping and streambank

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

13

protection functions as well as to provide for continued plant vigor (Marlow
1985;Clary andWebster 1989).

Where woody species (trees and shrubs) are part of the potential natural
community of a riparian site, perhaps the most detrimental aspect of late season
grazing is its possible impact on shrubs and trees (Cheney and others 1990;
Buckhouse and Elmore 1993; Krueger 1996). Cattle preference for woody spe¬
cies often increases significantly in late summer and fall.This seems to be due in
the first instance to greater palatability and higher protein content when com¬
pared with most surrounding herbaceous species (Kovalchik and Elmore 1992).
Higher browse use may also reflect the fact that cows are spending more time in
the riparian area and have already consumed significant portions of the available
herbaceous forage. While observing that riparian meadows remained healthy un¬
der moderate fall use, Green and Kauffman (1995) noted woody growth and suc¬
cession on gravel bars were adversely affected.

Based on extensive experience in Nevada, Swanson (1987) recommended
shrub-lined streams should be grazed in the spring and early summer since they
are adversely affected by heavy late summer, fall, or winter grazing. Myers (1989),
who considered the condition of woody plant communities as a paramount cri¬
terion for a “successful” riparian grazing program, noted successful systems in¬
volved “significantly less” late season grazing than unsuccessful systems (an
average of 21 days versus 36.5 days) and less frequent grazing late in the year
(31 percent of the years as opposed to 51 percent). One of the criticisms of
many three pasture rest rotation systems is that the fall grazing period, even
though only occurring every three years, may remove two to three years of wil¬
low growth, thus setting back succession or maintenance of willow communi¬
ties (Buckhouse and Elmore 1993).

Kovalchik and Elmore (1992) suggested willow use generally will remain low
as long as palatable herbaceous forage is available, and they tentatively identified
herbage utilization levels which trigger greater browse use. For initial planning,
they recommended ending mid- and late season grazing before herbaceous for¬
age use in the riparian area exceeds 45 percent. There is some evidence, how¬
ever, that in certain circumstances livestock may prefer woody browse over
herbaceous material even before some threshold of herbage utilization is
reached (Personal observations). In one of the short duration operations we ob¬
served, for example, cattle made frequent use of Acer negundo (box elder) sap-
lings snd seedlings the first day they went into the pasture and when palatable
herbaceous forage was present.

Green suggested herbaceous utilization levels on riparian meadows “were an
inadequate indication of willow recovery” (cited in Elmore and Kauffman 1994).
For this reason, managers must monitor woody browse use rather than relying
on traditional herbaceous utilization when healthy woody communities are a
management objective (Hansen 1993).

In many cases, the reduction of shrubs in riparian zones results primarily
from browsing of new, young plants rather than mechanical damage to older
plants (Clary andWebster 1989). Kovalchik and Elmore (1992) observed first

14

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

year seedlings are “very sensitive to grazing” and may easily be destroyed by
browsing, trampling, or being uprooted. If woody regeneration is an objective,
several years of non-use may be necessary to allow new plants to become estab¬
lished (Munther 1982;Skovlin 1984; Personal observations).

As with each of the other possible seasons of use, however, with proper
management late season grazing need not be detrimental to the health of ripar¬
ian zones. Manoukian (1994), evaluating 28 years of cattle grazing in the Centen¬
nial Valley of southwest Montana, determined that a four-pasture rest rotation
strategy which included late season use had not reduced tall willow growth or
development. Riparian areas in a BLM three-pasture rest rotation system on
Blucher Creek in southern Wyoming was grazed late every third year and had all
age classes of willows, good plant vigor, and predominantly stable streambanks
(Kinch 1989).

Study reaches.

Many of the ranchers we worked with grazed their riparian areas at least
sometimes during the late season. Ten stream reaches were used only in the fall.
Interestingly, all ten of these riparian areas were primarily woody habitat or com¬
munity types, and in all but one cattle remained in the pasture more than 30
days. Nevertheless, each of the reaches rated in healthy condition. Seven of the
ten (including those with the longest grazing times) contained alternate water;
one operator deliberately grazed his pastures very hard and then provided two
full years of rest; and two operators herded livestock regularly. Five operators
grazed the target pasture both early and late in the same year. Only one of these
did so for up to 45 days in the fall; the other four remained no more than 14
days. Again, ten reaches were part of short duration strategies which included
late season use for no more than eight days in any year.

Of the 19 ranch operations that included late use from between 9 and 21
days during a grazing season, none grazed the target pasture in the fall two years
in a row; many provided more rest than that. Although rotation systems by them¬
selves (particularly conventional three-pasture rest rotation) generally appear not
to be “the solution” to riparian grazing requirements, alternating or at least not
using a pasture the same time each year may alleviate the potential drawbacks to
both late and early season grazing strategies.

Hot Season (Mid-summer) Grazing.

Next to season-long grazing, which is universally recognized as detrimental
to riparian areas, repeated or extended grazing during the hot summer season is
generally considered most injurious to riparian zones. However, under certain
conditions, pastures with riparian areas can be grazed during the summer with¬
out harming the riparian area. The following situations are most likely to prevent
deterioration of riparian zones during this period: (1) when the operator closely
monitors conditions in the riparian area specifically and the period of grazing is
limited in duration and frequency (Clary and Webster 1989); (2) when effective
management actions have been taken to encourage livestock to move out of the
riparian zone; (3) when time of removal and climatic conditions provide oppor-

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

15

tunity for regrowth or cattle are not put into the pasture on an annual basis
(Swanson 1987).

Possible disadvantages.

Although there are some advantages to grazing during the hot period of the
summer (see below), the possibilities of adversely affecting riparian areas is very
high. These result from disadvantages of grazing during this period, including: (1)
the greater tendency of livestock to remain in the riparian area and accompany¬
ing stream channel; (2) reduced plant vigor and possible changes in vegetation
communities from the more intense use that results; (3) possible damage to tree
and shrub species that play vital roles in maintaining riparian zone health.

Drying out of upland herbaceous vegetation and high temperatures in the
uplands combine to push livestock into the riparian area during the summer.
Along an ephemeral stream in northcentral Wyoming, cattle were found in the
channel during the summer grazing period at a rate more than twice that at
which they were sighted there during the spring (Siekert and others 1985).

Once there, they tend to overgraze herbaceous plants even when the nutritional
value they receive declines (Gillen and others 1985). Compounding the effect of
this tendency is the increased vulnerability of the plant communities.

The hot season is the “period of greatest stress in the plant community” be¬
cause there is less time for vegetative regrowth and for the replenishment of car¬
bohydrate reserves necessary to maintain the plants during their dormant cycle
(Kinch 1989). If grazing extends beyond the growing season, there will be no re¬
growth. Repeated grazing during this period (that is, every year) reduces the
vigor of individual plants and, over time, will result in a shift in the plant commu¬
nities from desirable to less desirable species. Often the latter are less capable of
performing the functions required for a healthy riparian ecosystem as well as be¬
ing less economically productive (Hansen and others 1995). Palatable shrubs
such as willows are also particularly vulnerable before they complete carbohy¬
drate storage processes (Kindschy, cited in Kinch 1989).

As payability of herbaceous forage declines through the summer, livestock
are increasingly likely to shift to browse species, often with detrimental effects.
According to Kovalchik and Elmore (1992), “Unless grazing systems allow for suf¬
ficient [herbaceous] forage height growth during the mid- to late-summer pe¬
riod, they will fail to maintain willow-dominated plant communities.”

In a four-year study in northeast Montana, Populus deltoides (Great Plains
cottonwood) seedlings sprouted readily, but were all eaten or trampled within
two weeks of the introduction of cattle during both summer and fall grazing pe¬
riods (Gjersing 1981). Following a ten year study in Oregon, Green and
Kauffman (1995) concluded, “Livestock browsing had significant [negative] af¬
fects on the density and height of woody species on gravel bar communities.”
Their study sites contained several tree and shrub species common to Montana,
including Populus trichocarpa (black cottonwood), Salix bebbiana (Bebb wil¬
low), Salix exigua (sandbar willow), and Alnus incana (mountain alder).

In the course of our study, we observed summer use pastures with poor con¬
dition woody communities as a result of livestock use. Even in the sites we in-

15

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

ventoried there was evidence that cattle were browsing young willow and cot¬
tonwood plants during this period, sometimes in wet meadows which still had
herbaceous forage. Knopf and Cannon (1982) noted that, in addition to degrada¬
tion due to browsing, livestock also damage woody plants during this period by
rubbing against them and by breaking them as they seek other forage (cited in
Kovalchik and Elmore 1992).

Myers (1989) concluded that one significant difference between unsuccess¬
ful and successful grazing programs in southwest Montana was that the former
had almost three times the amount of hot season use as the latter. This relation¬
ship was seconded by the experience of the Snowline Grazing Association, also
in southwest Montana, where the difference in functioning condition between
two adjacent, similar reaches was determined to be twice as much hot season
use in the degraded reach as in that evaluated as properly functioning (Landgraf,
pers.com. 1995).

Potential advantages.

Despite these problems, there are some advantages to allowing cattle to
graze in riparian areas during this season , provided managers maintain close
control and monitoring (Clary and Webster 1989). Swanson (1987) noted that
while streambanks are more stable in summer than earlier in the year, there fre¬
quently is sufficient soil moisture to allow for regrowth. From a livestock produc¬
tion standpoint, herbaceous forage in the riparian area may be considerably
more palatable and nutritious than desiccated upland plant material. To avoid im¬
pacting plant vigor, Swanson recommended short grazing periods rotated be¬
tween years. Bohn and Buckhouse (1985) showed that, over a five year period,
grazing in September demonstrated “a positive hydrologic response, whereas
late-season grazing in October was negative — probably due to the onset of fall
rains and a change in soil moisture conditions.”

Study reaches.

Five ranchers grazed the inventoried pasture only during the hot season. One
did so only 1 0 to 20 days at different times each year; another grazed heavily
each August and followed this with two years of complete rest; and a third
grazed a mountain riparian zone every other summer with alternate water and
shade available. The other two operators grazed their pasture every summer. One
had taken other steps to induce cattle not to camp in the riparian area. Of the
ten ranchers (operating in 19 reaches) who grazed at various times between
April and December, including the hot period from mid-July to mid-September,
none grazed the study pasture every summer. In addition, 15 of the 19 pastures
contained alternate water, and most had shade available away from the riparian
area.

Hot season use can be less detrimental when there is both alternate water
and upland shade. Along Greyson Creek south ofTownsend cattle were in the
study pasture the third week of August, but had done little browsing on riparian
willows and had not appreciably impacted either herbaceous vegetation or
streambanks. This pasture contained wooded uplands and alternate water, and
the operator distributed salt along ridgetops well away from the bottoms. Con-

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

17

versely, several pastures we inventoried but rated as not functioning at potential
were summer use pastures in drier, eastern Montana with only limited woody
shade and that generally confined to riparian zones with intermittent streams. In
several of these operations, recent introduction of additional water tanks, and in
one case a change in pasture arrangement, may result in improved conditions.
When they were inventoried, however, insufficient time had elapsed to deter¬
mine this.

The need to monitor conditions especially closely during this period was il¬
lustrated by two operations in this study. Both had been in excellent functioning
condition when inventoried (one in 1994, the other in 1995). When we had the
opportunity to look at them again in 1996, both clearly showed heavy use in the
riparian area due to circumstances to which the operator did not respond
quickly enough or which were the result of climatic conditions affecting other
portions of the ranch. Fortunately, livestock were removed in 1996 while an op¬
portunity for regrowth remained. Because the reaches had been in high func¬
tioning condition, they should recover. Still, the visual differences between years
were great, and several consecutive years of such treatment would result in det¬
rimental long-term impacts.

Winter Use.

Winter use may be the least detrimental to riparian area health and may, in
fact, “benefit both range and riparian conditions by improving livestock distribu¬
tion and plant response” (Masters and others 1996). It can be an especially useful
management approach: (1) where soil type makes compaction and susceptibility
to streambank trampling and deterioration during other seasons a high probabil¬
ity; (2) when the pasture is large enough to supplemental feed cattle well away
from the stream; and (3) when drainages are colder than surrounding uplands or
open south-facing slopes reduce use of the riparian area.

Potential advantages.

The advantages of winter use are obvious. Soil compaction should be mini¬
mal, and bank trampling should be limited because of frozen ground (Severson
and Bolt 1978, Buckhouse and Skovlin 1979). Utilization of herbaceous species is
not detrimental to plants because no growing parts are exposed at this time of
year. In addition, this period may be the easiest in which to control livestock dis¬
tribution through location of watering facilities and feeding stations. Eleven op¬
erators in this study limited their use of the inventoried polygons to winter only,
ranging from 30-45 days up to 120-200 days.

Possible disadvantages.

There are potential drawbacks to winter grazing operations. In the first
place, grazing of dead standing material can reduce streambank protection capa¬
bilities and reduce sediment entrapment in the spring (Kinch 1989; Kovalchik
and Elmore 1992). Depending on the species and their locations, browsing of
shrubs and small trees remains a problem. For example, while sedge communi¬
ties in flat, broad valleys in Montana increased under a winter grazing regime,
shrubs continued to be overused (Myers, pers. com. cited in Elmore and

18

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Kauffman 1994). Even if there is little browsing, livestock can do significant
physical damage to trees and shrubs by trampling and rubbing. Discussions with
several ranchers and personal observations suggest bulls are especially likely to
cause such damage.

Woody draws and other woody riparian communities provide valuable pro¬
tection to livestock during extreme weather conditions, but repeated concentra¬
tion of animals in these areas can result in deterioration of the woody
community. This condition will be evidenced by a lack of regeneration and a pre¬
dominance of dead and decadent mature plants. Moreover, if livestock are still
present when spring thaw occurs, there is likely to be serious soil compaction,
bank trampling, and erosion as well as physical damage to emerging herbaceous
plants.

Significant damage, or at least changes, may occur during the winter as a re¬
sult of natural causes, such as ice flows and jams, anchor ice, and high water.
Buckhouse and Skovlin (1979) noted that overwintering periods (during which
no grazing occurred) along a streamside meadow in the Blue Mountains tended
to be more erosive than any of their summer grazing treatments (rest rotation,
deferred rotation, season-long) for both grazed and ungrazed areas. In his exten¬
sive review article, Skovlin (1984) referred to several researchers in various
states as agreeing that, frequently, whatever trends might be apparent after sum¬
mer grazing in different systems at moderate stocking levels “are erased by natu¬
ral events such as peak flows and river ice conditions over winter.” Additionally,
the effects of soil compaction and the amount of pugging (trampling) which oc¬
curs during the spring and summer may be ameliorated over winter by the alter¬
nation of freeze-thaw and wet-dry periods (Federer and others 1961, cited in
Skovlin 1984).

Season of use, then, is an important element to successfully grazing pastures
with riparian areas. Selecting a feasible season, however, does not constitute a
complete approach since the time livestock spend in the riparian area itself
must also be considered. Clary and Webster (1989) concluded, “The level of uti¬
lization occurring on a site — including riparian areas — is the most im¬
portant consideration” (bold in original). After reviewing 18 studies, Van
Poollen and Lacey (1979) stressed riparian vegetation is more affected by graz¬
ing intensity than by grazing system. On the other hand, Krueger (1996) argued,
“Intensity of use or stocking intensity is far less important than season of use,
within reasonable limits of intensity.”

Regardless of the relative importance of season and intensity per se, the
more time cattle spend in the riparian area itself, the greater the potential for
damage. Therefore, managers must look for ways to manage the amount of time
cattle spend in the riparian area.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

19

Figure 2 Water tank above Elk Creek in the foothills of the Adel Mountains, Cascade County, Montana.

Reducing Intensity of Use by Influencing Distribution

Finding ways to influence the amount of time livestock spend in the riparian
area is an essential component of proper riparian management. Selecting the ap¬
propriate season of use is one basic, and often relatively easy, strategy which can
contribute to this objective. There are other techniques to encourage livestock
to move out of the riparian area “by making the uplands more attractive to the
grazing animal (Krueger 1996). Of these, the single most important may be the
development of off-stream (alternate) water.

Off-stream water.

Clawson (1993) found that installation of a water trough in an Oregon moun¬
tain meadow pasture reduced use of the stream from 4.7 to 0.9 minutes per cow
per day, while use of a spring in the same pasture dropped from 8.3 to 3.9 min¬
utes per cow per day. Cattle watered out of the trough 73.5 percent of the time,
compared to only 3 percent from the stream and 23.5 percent from the spring.
During a winter feeding operation in Oregon, the presence of a water trough
100 yards from the riparian area reduced the time cattle spent at the stream by
90 percent (Miner and others 1992).

Wyoming rancher Jack Turnell, often cited for his outstanding stewardship,
declared that water developments are “the key” to successful grazing manage¬
ment (1993)- Demonstrating that no one approach works everywhere, however,

20

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Figure 3 ■ Insulated water tank, Custer County, Montana.

Bryant (1979) determined that neither alternate water nor mineral placement in¬
fluenced distribution significantly in another Oregon mountain meadow. The ap¬
peal of alternate water sources includes water quality, temperature, and better
footing (when excess water is piped away from the trough).

Developing water away from the riparian area may include running pipelines
from the stream, fencing out and developing seeps and springs with pipes lead¬
ing to troughs, and installing windmills. Technological improvements have signifi¬
cantly reduced the cost of such developments. For example, a hard, synthetic
pipe is now available which can be laid on top of the ground rather than having
to be entrenched and covered (Burleson, pers. com. 1995). This reduces the ex¬
pense of installation and provides some flexibility in moving tanks to meet man¬
agement objectives and local conditions.

The Snowline Grazing Association in Beaverhead County (southwest Mon¬
tana) has placed several troughs fed by over-ground pipes with good success
(Robinson, pers. com. 1996). Harding Land and Livestock Company east of Miles
City has dug water tanks (fed by pipelines) into hillsides and covered each with
a mound of dirt for insulation (Figure 3). These remain unfrozen and available to
livestock at temperatures down to -40 degrees F (Currie, pers. com. 1994).

Hydraulic ram pumps, portable solar-powered pumps, and animal-activated
(by nose) pumps are currently being used not only in Montana but in other
states and Canada (Robinson pers. com. 1996; Ducks Unlimited n.d.).

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

21

Figure 4. Gravel approachway on Ben Hart Creek, Gallatin County, Montana.

Except for those using short grazing periods or engaged in winter only op¬
erations, 70 percent of the ranchers with whom we worked have developed one
or more off-site water sources in the inventoried pastures. The significance of
this action was especially noticeable in those areas where hilly topography or
upland conditions would tend naturally to push and keep livestock in the ripar¬
ian area. While the majority of winter operations did not include off-site water,
one-third of them did. In addition, most winter use operators took care to feed
away from the riparian area. One rancher succinctly stated, “We never feed any¬
where near a shrub that we want to live.”

Stable access points.

A variation of off-stream water development is to encourage livestock use of
only a small part of the stream. Providing stable access points to water can sig¬
nificantly reduce streambank trampling. There is evidence livestock prefer stable
footing and clean water and will travel a considerable distance to reach them
(Kellogg, pers. com. 1995). Large-gravel approachways laid down perpendicular
to Ben Hart Creek north of Belgrade in a sedge-dominated meadow resulted in a
marked improvement in stability of streambanks which previously had suffered
considerable bank deterioration (Figure 4).

The installation of concrete walkways, with incised troughs to maintain wa¬
ter flow, on Big Warm Creek in Phillips County south of Malta provided livestock
with easy access to water and a means to cross the stream without trampling the

22

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Figure 5 . Protected stream crossing, Beaverhead County, Montana.

banks. It had the additional benefit of reducing what had been the loss of about
a cow each year to mud and ice breakthroughs to none since their installation
about eight years ago. Rock dams along Larb Creek in Valley County have con¬
tributed to streambank stability and revegetation by concentrating livestock ac¬
cess. Such in-stream structures, however, can affect a stream’s hydrology and
must be carefully planned and installed.

Streams with a large percentage of bank rock greater than gravel-size have an
inherent stability which makes such devices less necessary. Since the majority of
operations in central and eastern Montana lack this characteristic, stable access
points merit serious consideration. Proven designs are now available which re¬
duce the impact of concentrating livestock at a few locations; these include “side
bars” of logs or rock and web matting as well as gravel approachways (Figure 5).

Salt and mineral block placement.

Although unlikely by itself to affect animal distribution significantly, place¬
ment of salt and mineral blocks can contribute to better distribution as well as
improved forage utilization. Kinch (1989) recommended salt and supplements
be placed a minimum of a quarter-mile from a stream and preferably at least a
half-mile. In conjunction with other steps such as alternate water, this can be ef¬
fective. None of the ranchers with whom we worked salted in the immediate vi¬
cinity of the stream. Twelve of them specifically commented on salt and mineral
placement as a deliberate part of their management strategy.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

23

Figure 6. Improving riparian vegetation resulting from chiseling of upland western wheat grass pastures,

Prairie County, Montana.

Improved upland forage.

Another approach to luring livestock out of the riparian area is to improve
upland forage (Storch 1979; Kinch 1989; Krueger 1996).Again,“It is important to
recognize that uplands must not be excluded from consideration of riparian ar¬
eas, because they are an integral part of the system” (Elmore 1990). Several activi¬
ties we observed in the field underscored the value of considering riparian
zones within the context of an overall management plan. By disking and planting
introduced species, including Medicago sativa (alfalfa) and Agropyron
cnstatum (crested wheatgrass) in his uplands, a rancher along the North Fork
of Snow Creek north of Brusett not only increased forage production almost 100
percent, but also enticed stock out of the vulnerable streamside areas. The pay¬
ability of this succulent early season vegetation also allowed native species sev¬
eral additional weeks of unimpeded growth.

In Prairie (Figure 6), Custer, Phillips, and McCone counties, chiselling of up¬
land areas resulted in significant increases in Agropyron smithii (western wheat-
grass) production. This, in turn, pulled livestock out of the adjacent bottoms in
the early spring when streambanks and adjacent meadows are most vulnerable
to trampling and compaction.

The vigorous upland vegetation communities which have resulted from a
system which includes extended rest between grazing uses contribute to the ex¬
ceptionally healthy woody draws found on a ranch in Wibaux County. Sagebrush

24

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

reduction has also been used successfully to increase forage production on both
private and public grazing lands.

Riding.

Riding is increasingly being used as a method to move stock out of riparian
areas, especially by large operations (Storch 1979). Many ranches and grazing as¬
sociations routinely ride their herds to check on their animals. Thus, applied to
riparian management, riding represents an expansion of a traditional activity
rather than implementation of a new technique. The purpose of the riders in this
case is to move the cows away from the streamside area. Such activity has been
used with some success by the Upper Ruby Grazing Association along the Ruby
River south of Sheridan, by the Snowline Grazing Association south of Lima, and
by the Lane Ranch in the foothills of the Adele Mountains south of Cascade. The
efficiency of this technique is enhanced by the presence of alternate water to re¬
duce the incentive to return to streamside immediately.

The experience of these operations indicates that ensuring the riders know
what is expected and the reasons behind such actions is critical to success.
Poorly conducted riding can cause more harm to the riparian system and to live¬
stock performance than having the cows remain in the riparian area. Obviously,
using riparian areas as gathering areas and collection points is exactly the oppo¬
site of riding to disperse cattle. Not unexpectedly, the results inevitably demon¬
strate this.

Figure 7. Dead woody material placed across streamside trails to deflect cattle uphill, Beaverhead County, Montana.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

25

Related to the idea of providing incentives to encourage cows to distribute
more widely throughout the pasture is the issue of home ranges. According to
Roath and Krueger (1982), cattle have home ranges much like wild ungulates, and
animals which remain near the riparian area pass this behavior pattern to their off¬
spring. Several authors have suggested this could be one basis for culling decisions
(May and Davis 1982; Kinch 1989). To our knowledge, the economic feasibility of
such an approach has not been investigated, and it may not be feasible on a large
scale. However, it may be worth considering for animals that are especially prone
to such behavior or in situations where a riparian ecosystem is particularly impor¬
tant for its ecological role or because of human values.

Drift fences.

In hilly topography or incised channels, livestock are likely to use the riparian
area and the streambed itself as a corridor and routinely meander up and down.
Drift fences or other obstacles which deflect movement out of and away from this
corridor can greatly reduce pressure on the riparian area and streambanks
(Figure 7).

Turn-in location

A common sight in pastures on private and public land alike is the location of
gates near, if not immediately adjacent to, a riparian area. Often, particularly in the
case of hilly terrain, this reflects the fact that the riparian and stream corridor is the
easiest point of access since the lay of the land makes it a funnel for movement up¬
hill and down. In a study in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, Gillen and others
(1985) observed that the turn-in location can delay up to two weeks the arrival of
cattle to the riparian area. In an allotment in the Sula Ranger District south of
Darby, moving the cattle directly to grassy, open hilltops above the narrow riparian
bottoms combined with the development of water in these uplands significantly
improved distribution (McClure, pers. com. 1994). Similarly, the Snowline Grazing
Association has relocated a gate into one of their pastures. Although it is too early
to determine the long-term effect of this step, it appears to be improving distribu¬
tion and easing the pressure on the riparian area (Robinson, pers. com. 1996).

Along several study reaches in central and eastern Montana we observed that
Bromus inermis (smooth brome) not only provided excellent soil stability, but also
acted as a barrier to livestock when these pastures were grazed in late fall and win¬
ter. The coarseness of the plant reduces its palatability and enhances its capacity as
a physical barrier.This is particularly the case when there are “designated” access
points to the stream or, better, alternate water sources are available.

Riparian pastures.

A major tool to control the time livestock spend in riparian areas (and thus re¬
duce the intensity of use) is the establishment of riparian pastures (Kauffman and
others 1983; Swanson 1987; Elmore 1990).These can be defined as “a small pasture
within an allotment that is set aside to be managed independently to achieve a spe¬
cific vegetative response.” (Platts and Nelson 1985b). In three tributaries on USDA
Forest Service allotments in Idaho, utilization of forage was less in the riparian area
than in the upland portion of specifically designed riparian pastures. Researchers

26

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Figure 8. Riparian pasture along Smith Creek has resulted in increased vegetation and improved streambanks,
Gallatin County, Montana.

attributed this to the ratio of upland to riparian forage, the fact that the entire
pasture was in the livestock’s home range, and the placement of salt away from
the stream (Platts and Nelson 1985b).

The purpose of riparian pastures is not to fence out the riparian areas, but to
provide for closer management and control of their use (Figure 8). Such pastures
should include not just narrow riparian strips but upland areas with sufficient
forage so that cattle will not be forced into the riparian area for feed (Kinch
1989). Skovlin (1984) suggested a minimum size of 30-40 acres for mountain ri¬
parian pastures. Use patterns may have to be different from upland pastures be¬
cause the riparian pastures may have to be grazed at different times of the year
or for different lengths of time. Given the productive nature of many riparian ar¬
eas, it may be possible to graze these pastures more frequently although not for
so long a period of time at any one use (Myers 1989). Our experiences in this
study with short duration grazing operations, however, suggest this must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Smaller pastures.

Another variation of this approach is to establish smaller pastures with some
riparian area in each rather than having only a few large pastures with a limited
amount of riparian area (Elmore 1990). Smaller pastures can result in better dis¬
tribution and forage utilization throughout each pasture due to the resulting
higher stocking density (Marlow and others 1991). Along Birch Creek northwest

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

27

Figure 9 • Use of temporary electric fences to create smaller pastures has resulted in significant increase in vegetation along
Birch Creek, Pondera County, Montana.

of Valier (Figure 9), the creation of smaller pastures using easily portable electric
fence and short duration grazing has contributed to a significant increase in
young age classes (seedling and sapling) of Populus angustifolia (narrowleaf
cottonwood), Salix lutea (yellow willow), and Salix exigua (sandbar willow).
More pastures allow for greater control over the amount of time spent in any
one riparian zone since livestock can be moved more frequently when use in
each has reached the desired limit. Because of the higher stocking density, it is
imperative to monitor herbaceous utilization, browse levels, and streambank
conditions closely.

Fencing.

Exclusion of livestock through fencing is a riparian management technique
that works. In some instances, permanent— or at least long-term— exclusion may
be the easiest, most convenient, and most economical option to restore riparian
areas. In a few situations, it may be the only ecologically feasible method. It is
not, however, the optimum approach in most cases. None of the operations we
studied in this project involved total exclusion, yet the riparian areas in each were either
functioning properly or recovering from a previously degraded condition.

There seems little doubt that “livestock exclusion [from riparian zones] has
consistently resulted in the most dramatic and rapid rates of recovery” (Elmore
and Kauffman 1994). Fencing out reservoirs and running pipes to outside
troughs provided clean, cool water for livestock while simultaneously providing

28

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

excellent habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife on the Diamond Willow Ranch
south of Malta. Use of water gaps can provide access to water along reaches
which are temporarily or permanently fenced (Figure 10).

On the other hand, total exclusion may not be required to maintain riparian
zones, including their stream channels, in properly functioning condition or to
restore those that are not functioning as they should. Wayne Elmore and J. Boone
Kauffman (1994), two of the most experienced practitioners and researchers in
the field, recently concluded, “Livestock grazing can be present in some areas
while streams are improving.” Implementation of one or more of the other tech¬
niques discussed above — accompanied by clear objectives and an ad¬
equate monitoring program — may be sufficient for rehabilitation. While
most of the sites we evaluated were being maintained in proper functioning
condition, at least six were clearly improving due to management changes (four
with shortening of the grazing period, one by adding an alternate water source,
and one by converting to winter use instead of season long).

Temporary fencing to allow for the restoration of riparian systems which are
not functioning properly may be necessary or at least may be the quickest
method for reestablishing healthy and productive riparian areas (Platts and
Wagstaff 1984). In four operations in this study in which at least two full years of
rest had been provided within the five or six years prior to being inventoried,
this rest was reflected in the amount of young shrubs and trees. Restoration of
degraded woody plant communities is especially likely to require either com-

Figure 10. Water gap beside the Little Blackfoot River, Powell County, Montana.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

29

plete rest for several years or, at the least, limited early season use only (Platts
and Raleigh 1984; Clary and Webster 1989; Personal observations).

How much time is required to rehabilitate a degraded riparian ecosystem to
functioning condition is a matter of some debate (See Skovlin [1984] and Platts
and Raleigh [1984] for excellent summaries of this dialogue). Not unexpectedly,
the answer must be site-specific and consider such factors as current physical
and hydrologic conditions, existing plant communities, potential and desired
plant communities, topography, hydrology, and climate. At any rate, technical im¬
provements in electric fencing and solar-powered batteries make temporary
fencing more feasible than in the past.

Whether by total rest or by improved management techniques, restoration of
degraded riparian ecosystems is rarely immediate. Vegetation will often respond
within a few years. If the soil and hydrologic characteristics are severely de¬
graded, however, restoration to properly functioning condition may take an ex¬
tended period (Platts and Raleigh 1984; Hubert and others 1986).

Canadian Lome Fitch, co-author of a recent riparian grazing publication
(Adams and Fitch 1996), has suggested exclosure fencing is an admission that we
can t out-think a cow (pers.com. 1995). This homily, humorous on the surface,
bears a fundamental truth: to out-think a cow requires that we do think, as well
as implement, monitor, and respond to developments (Figure 1 l).The days when
streamside zones could be written off as “sacrifice areas” are past. Successful
management of cattle in riparian areas requires active management both in plan¬
ning and in on-the-ground activities. As the operations in this study demonstrate,
however, the rewards for this effort include both ecologically healthier ecosys¬
tems and economically more productive livestock operations.

Conclusions

For people who seek simple answers to complex issues or problems, the
conclusions of this report will be disappointing.There is no single— let alone
simple— solution on how to graze livestock in riparian areas in ecologically and
economically feasible ways. Nor are there boiler-plate solutions that can be easily
hammered into a shape to meet any situation (Myers 1989). What is required is
not a catch-all remedy, but a carefully considered prescription drawn up to ad¬
dress the conditions at a specific site with its unique circumstances and desired
objectives (Anderson 1993; Buckhouse and Elmore 1993).This approach, re¬
ferred to as prescription grazing, is well-summarized by Dr. William Krueger
(1996, emphasis in original): “By understanding the nuances of specific water¬
sheds, in specific settings, during specific weather patterns, with specific live¬
stock or big game herds, and involving specific people, a program with a high
degree of potential for success can be developed

There are numerous techniques available for developing and implementing
an appropriate prescription for any given riparian ecosystem. The only required
ingredients are a serious commitment and personal involvement on the part of
operators and managers. The one theme which pervades both the riparian graz-
ing literature and the operations studied in our project is that the manager is
more important than a particular approach.

30

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Figure 11. Successful riparian grazing requires on-the-ground monitoring and
timely response to developing situations.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

31

Suggested Reading

In the past fifteen years, a considerable body of literature has evolved dealing
with various aspects of livestock grazing in riparian areas throughout the west¬
ern United States.To assist in finding these materials, several useful bibliogra¬
phies are now available. Particularly extensive, although somewhat dated (which
is an indication of how rapidly the field is developing), is A Bibliography of Ri¬
parian Research and Management (1992) by John Van Deventer and the Idaho
Riparian Cooperative. Oregon State University Extension Service has recently
published a more current compilation available on computer disk: Livestock In¬
fluences on Riparian Zones and Fish Habitat: A Bibliography (Larsen and oth¬
ers 1997).

This section makes no attempt to duplicate the works mentioned above. Its
purpose is to identify for interested readers, both agency people and livestock
operators, some of the most useful and available publications and to provide
some insight into the strengths of each. The focus is on management consider¬
ations important to those who deal with riparian grazing on a regular basis in
the field. Emphasis is on overview materials rather than specific studies or indi¬
vidual grazing strategies. Publication details are contained in the literature cited
portion of this report.

The most recent, and the best, How To” publication intended primarily for
private ranch operators is Caring for the Green Zone: Riparian Areas and
Grazing Management (1996) by Canadians Barry Adams and Lome Fitch. Pub¬
lic land managers will also find it extremely helpful. Effectively using photo¬
graphs and diagrams, the authors present information on riparian structure and
function, the ingredients of a successful grazing management program, and tech¬
niques by which these might be applied to a piece of ground.This glossy 36-

page pamphlet is must reading for those who wish to prepare and implement a
riparian grazing strategy.

Jon Skovlin’s 1984 article, “Impacts of Grazing on Wetlands and Riparian
Habitat: A Review of Our Knowledge,” contains a wealth of information on the
impact of livestock grazing on riparian and wetland ecosystems. Scholarly in
tone and presentation, it is an excellent starting point for understanding the im¬
pact of livestock on all aspects of riparian and wetland ecosystems, including
vegetation, soil erosion and stability, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat
and populations. Skovlin also briefly summarizes cattle behavior as it affects
their activities in riparian areas and the reasons for high use of these areas by do¬
mestic grazing animals. Although information on management practices is lim¬
ited, it does have an exceptional bibliography for those interested in more
detailed articles on the many issues the author addresses.

Contained in the same book ( Developing Rangeland Strategies ) is a com¬
mentary by William Platts and Robert Raleigh (1984) which expands on Skovlin’s
points. They particularly stress the importance of understanding the geomorpho-
logic and hydrologic aspects of individual sites and emphasize the extended
time periods which might be needed for full restoration of degraded reaches.

32

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Platts and Raleigh refer to their own extensive field experiences as well as to the
literature.

Although shorter than Skovlin’s, another essential overview of grazing effects
is “Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and Streamside Management Impli¬
cations . . .A Review,” by J. Boone Kauffman and William Krueger (1984). In a con¬
cise yet illuminating manner, the authors cover the importance of riparian areas
to in-stream ecosystems, wildlife, and livestock. Having laid this background, they
present tersely but comprehensively the available knowledge on the demon¬
strated effects of livestock on aquatic ecology, terrestrial wildlife, riparian vegeta¬
tion, and soil and streambank stability. Again, given the date of publication,
references to successful grazing strategies are limited. The literature cited sec¬
tion, however, is extensive. The ready availability of this article (Journal of Range
Management , September 1984) enhances its value as a source for understanding
the nature of riparian zones and their associated in-stream systems and the im¬
pact that domestic grazing can have.

The two major land management agencies have also produced publications
with guidance for managing domestic grazing in riparian areas. The USDA Forest
Service’s technical report , Managing Grazing of Riparian Areas in the Inter¬
mountain Region (1989) by Warren Clary and Bert Webster, focuses on that re¬
gion, but is applicable to many parts of the West. The authors pay particular
attention to the stubble heights required to maintain riparian functions, with rec¬
ommendations on appropriate stubble height to retain when grazing in different
seasons. Densely packed appendices address the relative merits of focusing on
grazing system, stocking rate, intensity of use, and season of use as guidelines for
developing proper grazing strategies. An additional appendix includes A H.
Winward’s guide to calculating ecological status and resource value ratings in ri¬
parian areas.

The USDI Bureau of Land Management’s contribution, Grazing Manage¬
ment in Riparian Areas by Gene Kinch (1989), is a somewhat longer document.
After stressing the importance of management objectives, Kinch reviews the ma¬
jor considerations in grazing management, including season of use, distribution
of use, appropriate utilization levels, and timing, duration, and frequency of graz¬
ing based on both a review of the literature and examples from BLM experi¬
ences. He notes briefly specific management activities which can influence
distribution of livestock within a pasture. A large portion of the document pre¬
sents examples of successful grazing treatments on BLM allotments broken out
by season of use or specific grazing system.

For a review of the negative impacts of livestock grazing on western range-
lands, including riparian areas, written from the perspective of conservation biol¬
ogy, a solidly written article is Thomas Fleischner’s “Ecological Costs of Livestock
Grazing in Western North America” (1994).

One of the most recent comprehensive reviews of livestock grazing manage¬
ment for maintaining and restoring riparian functions is Wayne Elmore’s and J.
Boone Kauffman’s “Riparian Watershed Systems: Degradation and Restoration”
(1994), in the Society of Range Management’s excellent Ecological Implications

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

33

of Herb ivory in the West. After touching on the historical situations which led to
present conditions, the authors’ emphasis is on management strategies and their
probable impacts. An extra bonus is the inclusion of tables which summarize key
articles by Platts (1989), Myers (1989), Kovalchik and Elmore (1992), and
Buckhouse and Elmore (1991, reprint in 1993). Although not comprehensive, the
literature cited section does contain the more current materials.

Bernard Kovalchik’s and Wayne Elmore’s “Effects of Cattle Grazing Systems
on Willow-Dominated Plant Associations in Central Oregon” (1992) is one of the
few studies which looks specifically at a variety of grazing strategies and willow
species. The authors evaluate eleven common grazing systems and their impact
on willow-dominated communities. While the study sites were in central Oregon,
most of the plant communities are found in other locations as well.

One of the best short articles on the relationship between riparian vegeta¬
tion and livestock grazing is “Managing Ungulates to Allow Recovery of Riparian
Vegetation (Krueger 1 996). Stressing the need to develop grazing approaches
based on site-specific vegetation responses, Krueger addresses briefly but effec¬
tively basic principles of animal behavior, forage palatability, plant responses to

grazing, plant community responses, hydrology, and economic and social feasibil¬
ity.

Lew Myers’ 1989 paper on “Managing Livestock to Minimize Impacts on Ri¬
parian Areas ” analyzes 34 grazing systems in operation in southwest Montana. As¬
sessing riparian communities largely on the basis of their woody species
components, Myers compared “successful” (properly functioning) and “unsuc¬
cessful” (not functioning properly) systems in terms of season of use, length of
use, residual herbaceous material, stocking rates, duration of grazing in different
seasons, and percentage of treatments with fall use.

The often negative impacts of livestock grazing on fisheries was one of the
major reasons generating interest in grazing of riparian areas William Platts, a
leader in this effort, has authored or co-authored numerous articles on aspects of
the topic. Perhaps the most comprehensive of these is his chapter entitled “Live¬
stock Grazing in Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmo-
nid Fishes and Their Habitats (1991). After a brief history of grazing in the
western United States and the current condition of riparian areas, Platts reviews
the importance of riparian vegetation in terms of fish habitat, streambank stabil¬
ity, stream temperature, and production of fish prey. The meat of the chapter fo¬
cuses on the effects which must be considered on streambanks, water column,
stream channel, and riparian vegetation when developing a grazing strategy. He
then evaluates the compatibility of 17 livestock grazing strategies (including dif¬
ferent kinds of animals) with fishery needs.

Given the current emphasis on “stability” of stream and riparian ecosystems,
the study by Thomas Myers and Sherman Swanson, “Variation of Stream Stability
with Stream Type and Livestock Bank Damage in Northern Nevada” (1992), is
useful in pointing out the significance of different stream types w hen making de¬
cisions in such areas as setting local use standards, writing management objec¬
tives, or determining grazing strategies. Specifically, the authors relate the

34

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Pfankuch (1975) stream stability rating procedure to Rosgen’s stream type classi¬
fication system (1996).

Although not dealing specifically with grazing of riparian areas, an excellent
short discussion of the physical features of small streams useful to land managers
and operators seeking to understand riparian and stream systems is “Morphologi¬
cal Features of Small Streams: Significance and Function” (1986) by Robert
Beschta and William Platts. While focusing on physical characteristics, they are
also good on stressing “the important role of riparian vegetation” in stream stabi¬
lization efforts.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has produced two eye-catching
publications intended for the general public and private land managers and pre¬
pared by three key figures in research and management of riparian grazing: Ed
Chaney, Wayne Elmore, and William Platts. The first, Livestock Grazing on West¬
ern Riparian Areas (1990), touches on the functions and values of western ri¬
parian zones, the causes and effects of degradation, and possible approaches to
successful riparian grazing. The bulk of the pamphlet consists of case studies of
riparian areas throughout the West which have been enhanced by management
actions. A particular strength of the book is the photographs (especially the se¬
ries of “before and after” comparisons) and diagrams which help to explain the
points being made.

Managing Change: Livestock Grazing in Western Riparian Areas (1993) is
a companion pamphlet aimed specifically toward “the men and women who
move the stock.” Its purpose is to get people to consider riparian areas from a va¬
riety of perspectives and to stimulate thinking about possible management im¬
provements. Again, the use of “before and after” photographs as well as computer
enhancements of site potential overlaid on photos of existing conditions are par¬
ticularly useful in understanding the key points. Although brief, the discussion of
considerations for developing a riparian grazing strategy will be helpful to many
operators.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Literature Cited

Adams, B., and L. Fitch. 1995. Caring for the
green zone: riparian areas and grazing manage¬
ment. Alberta Riparian Habitat Management
Project, Lethbridge, Alberta.

Anderson, E. William. 1993. Prescription grazing
to enhance rangeland watersheds. Rangelands
15(1)31-34.

Anderson, E. William, and Richard J. Scherzinger.
1975. Improving quality of winter forage for
elk by cattle grazing. Journal of Range Manage¬
ment 28(2): 120-1 25.

Beschta, Robert L., and William S. Platts. 1986.
Morphological features of small streams: Sig¬
nificance and function. Water Resources Bulle¬
tin 22(3):369-379.

Bock, Carl E., Victoria A. Saab, D. Rich Terrell, and
David S. Dobkin. 1993- Effects of livestock
grazing on neotropical migratory landbirds in
western North America. In: Status and man¬
agement of neotropical migratory birds. Ed¬
ited by D M. Finch and P.W Stangel. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report RM-
229. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experi¬
mental Station, Fort Collins, CO. pp. 296-309.

Bohn, C. C., and John C. Buckhouse. 1985. Some
responses of riparian soils to grazing manage¬
ment in northeastern Oregon. Journal of
Range Management 38(4):378-381.

Bryant, Larry D. 1979. Livestock response to ri¬
parian zone exclusion. M.S. Thesis, University
of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Bryant, Larry D. 1985. Livestock management in
the riparian ecosystem. /rc; Riparian ecosys¬
tems and their management: Reconciling con¬
flicting uses. R. Roy Johnson, Charles D.
Ziebell, David R. Patton, Peter F. Ffolliott, and R.
H.Hamre, Technical Coordinators. First North
American Riparian Conference, April 16-18,
Tucson, AZ. USDA Forest Service General Tech¬
nical Report RM-120. Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins,
CO. pp. 285-289.

Buckhouse, John C. 1995. Lessons learned con¬
cerning livestock in riparian zones and the as¬
sociated uplands of rangeland watersheds. /rc;
Eastern Oregon Agriculture Research Center
Field Day annual report. Oregon Agricultural
Experiment Station Special Report 95 1 . Or¬
egon State University, Corvallis, OR. pp. 34-39.

Buckhouse, John C.,andThomas Bunch. 1985. Ri¬
parian erosion inside and outside of exclo¬
sures on Mill and McKay Creeks: A validation
of management. In: Eastern Oregon Agricul¬
ture Research Center Field Day annual report.
Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station Spe¬
cial Report 95 1 . Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR. pp. 29-30.

Buckhouse, John C., and Wayne Elmore. 1991 [re¬
print 1993] . Grazing practice relationships:
Predicting riparian vegetation response from
stream systems. /^. Watershed management
guide for the Interior Northwest. Edited by
Thomas Bedell. Oregon State University Exten¬
sion Service, Corvallis, OR. pp. 47-52.

36

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Buckhouse John C., and Jon M. Skovlin. 1979.
Streambank erosion in a Blue Mountain
stringer meadow in response to livestock and
big game grazing management. In: Eastern Or¬
egon Agriculture Research Center Field Day
annual report. Oregon Agricultural Experi¬
ment Station, Special Report 549. Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR. pp. 2-4.

Burkhardt, Wayne. 1986. Unpublished notes from
BLM monitoring committee meeting held in
Washington, DC. Cited in Hayes, Art. 1992. An
annotated bibliography on the utilization of
grasses with emphasis on riparian areas. N.p.

Burleson, Wayne. 1995. Certified Range Consult¬
ant. Absarokee, MT. Personal conversation with
authors.

Chaney, Ed, Wayne Elmore, and William S. Platts.
1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian
areas. Northwest Resource Information Cen¬
ter, Inc., for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Eagle, ID.

Chaney, Ed, Wayne Elmore, and William S. Platts.
1993. Managing change: Livestock grazing on
western riparian areas. Northwest Resource
Information Center, Inc., for U.S. Environmen¬
tal Protection Agency. Eagle, ID.

Clary, Warren P, and Gordon D. Booth. 1993.

Early season utilization of mountain meadow
riparian pastures. Journal of Range Manage¬
ment 46:4 93-497.

Clary, Warren P.,and Bert E Webster. 1989. Manag¬
ing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermoun¬
tain Region. USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report INT-263 .Intermountain Re¬
search Station, Ogden, UT.

Clary, Warren P, Christopher I. Thorton, and
Steven R.Abt. 1996. Riparian stubble height
and recovery of degraded streambanks. Range-
lands 18(4): 137-140.

Clawson, Jeff E. 1993. The use of off-stream water
developments and various water gap configu¬
rations to modify the watering behavior of
grazing cattle. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Uni¬
versity, Corvallis, OR.

Crouse, Michael R. 1987. New approaches to ri¬
parian area management on public lands. In:
Wetland and riparian ecosystems of the Ameri¬
can West: Proceedings of the Society of Wet¬
land Scientists’ eighth annual meeting. May
26-29, Seattle, WA. N.p. pp. 32-35.

Currie, Dan. 1994. Manager, Harding Land and
Livestock Company, Ismay, MT. Personal con¬
versation with authors.

Dale, Brenda C. 1984. Birds of grazed and

ungrazed grasslands in Saskatchewan. Blue Jay
42(2): 102-105.

Ducks Unlimited, n.d. Quality water for livestock
[video], Available from Society for Range Man¬
agement, Denver, CO.

Elmore, Wayne. 1988. Stream processes and graz¬
ing strategies. Presentation at Riparian Man¬
agement Workshop: Challenges and
Opportunities. May 3. Elko, NV. Cited in Clary,
Warren P, and Bert F. Webster. 1989. Managing
grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain
Region. USDA Forest Service General Techni¬
cal Report INT-263 - Intermountain Research
Station, Ogden, UT.

Elmore, Wayne. 1990. Riparian responses to graz¬
ing practices. /w. Watershed management: Bal¬
ancing sustainability and environmental
change. Edited by Robert J. Naiman. Springer-
Verlag, New York, NY. pp. 442-457.

Elmore, Wayne, and J. Boone Kauffman. 1994. Ri¬
parian and watershed systems: Degradation
and restoration. 7>z: Ecological implications of
livestock herbivory in the West. Edited by Mar¬
tin Vavra, William A. Laycock, and Rex D. Piper.
Society for Range Management, Denver, CO.
pp. 212-231.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

37

Fleischner, Thomas L. 1994. Ecological costs of
livestock grazing in western North America.
Conservation Biology 8(3):629-644.

Frisina, Michael R.,and Forest G. Morin. 1991.
Grazing private and public land to improve
the Fleecer Elk Winter Range. Rangelands
13(6): 29 1-294.

Gillen, R. L.,W. C. Krueger, and R. F. Miller. 1985.
Cattle use of riparian meadows in the Blue
Mountains of northeastern Oregon. Journal of
Range Management 38(3):205-209.

Gjersing, Frank M. 1981 . Effects of grazing on ri¬
parian zones in northcentral Montana In: Man¬
agement of riparian ecosystems. Proceedings
of the Montana Chapter, Wildlife Society, Feb¬
ruary 3-5, Great Falls, MT.N.p.pp. 75-81.

Green, Douglas M. 1991. Soil conditions along a
hydrologic gradient and successional dynam¬
ics in a grazed and ungrazed montaine ripar¬
ian ecosystem. Ph D. Diss. Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR. Cited in Elmore,
Wayne, and J. Boone Kauffman. 1994. Riparian
and watershed systems: Degradation and res¬
toration. In: Ecological implications of live¬
stock herbivory in the West. Edited by Martin
Vavra, William A. Laycock, and Rex D. Piper. So¬
ciety for Range Management, Denver, CO. pp.
212-231.

Green, Douglas M., and J. Boone Kauffman. 1995.
Succession and livestock grazing in a north¬
eastern Oregon riparian ecosystem. Journal of
Range Management 48(4):307-313.

Hansen, Paul L. 1993. Developing a successful ri¬
parian-wetland grazing management plan for
the Upper Ruby River cattle and horse allot¬
ment in southwestern Montana. In: Riparian
management: Common threads and shared in¬
terests. Western Regional Conference on River
Management Strategies, February 4-6, Albu¬
querque, NM. USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report RM-226. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft
Collins, CO. pp. 328-335.

Hansen, Paul L., Robert D. Pfister, Keith Boggs,
Bradley J. Cook, John Joy, and Dan K. Hinckley.
1995. Classification and management of
Montana’s riparian and wetland sites. Montana
Forest and Conservation Station, School of
Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula,
MT

Hays, Art. 1992. An annotated bibliography on
the utilization of grasses with emphasis on ri¬
parian areas. N.p.

Holecheck, Jerry L., Raul Valdez, Sanford D.
Schemnitz, Rex D. Pieper, and Charles A. Davis.
1982. Manipulation of grazing to improve or
maintain wildlife habitat. Wildlife Society Bul¬
letin 10(3):204-210.

Hubert, Wayne A., Robert P Lanka, Thomas A.
Wesche, and Fred Stabler. 1985. Grazing man¬
agement influences on two brook trout
streams in Wyoming. In: Riparian ecosystems
and their management: Reconciling conflict¬
ing uses. R. Roy Johnson, Charles D. Ziebell,
David R. Patton, Peter F. Ffolliott, and R. H.
Hamre, Technical Coordinators. First North
American Riparian Conference, April 16-18,
Tucson, AZ. USDA Forest Service General Tech¬
nical Report RM-120. Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Ft Collins, CO.
pp. 290-294.

Kantrud, Harold A., and Kenneth F. Higgins. 1992.
Nest and nest site characteristics of some
ground-nesting, non-passerine birds of north¬
ern grasslands. Prairie Naturalist 24(2):67-84.

Kauffman, J. Boone. 1982. Synecological effects
of cattle grazing riparian ecosystems.

M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR.

Kauffman, J. Boone. 1995. An ecological basis for
the management and recovery of riparian
zones. In: Eastern Oregon Agriculture Re¬
search Center Field Day annual report. Oregon
Agricultural Experiment Station Special Re¬
port 95 1 . Oregon State University, Corvallis,

OR. pp. 27-33.

38

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Kauffman, J. Boone, and William C. Krueger. 1984.
Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystem and
streamside management implications — A re¬
view. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430-
438.

Kauffman, J. Boone, William C. Krueger, and Mar¬
tin Vavra. 1982. Impacts of a late season graz¬
ing scheme on nongame wildlife in Wallowa
Mountain riparian ecosystems. In: ^ Wildlife-live¬
stock relationships symposium: Proceedings
10. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and
Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID. pp.
208-218.

Kauffman, J. Boone, William C. Krueger, Martin
Vavra. 1983. Effects of late season cattle graz¬
ing on riparian plant communities. Journal of
Range Management 36(6):685-691.

Keller, Charles, Loren Anderson, and PaulTappel.
1979. Fish habitat changes in Summit Creek,

ID, after fencing the riparian area In: Proceed¬
ings: Forum-on grazing and riparian/stream
ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc., Vienna, VA.
pp. 46-52.

Kellogg, Warren. 1995. Water quality specialist,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Mon¬
tana Department of Water Quality. Helena, MT.
Personal conversation with authors.

Kinch,Gene. 1989. Riparian area management:
Grazing management in riparian areas. USDI
Bureau of Land Management Technical Report
1737-4. Denver, CO.

Knopf, Fritz L., and Richard W. Cannon. 1982.
Structural resilience of willow riparian com¬
munity to changes in grazing practices. In:
Wildlife-livestock relationships symposium:
Proceedings 10. University of Idaho Forest,
Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, Mos¬
cow, ID. pp. 198-207.

Kovalchik, Bernard L., and Wayne Elmore. 1992.
Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-
dominated plant associations in central Or¬
egon. In: Proceedings — Symposium on
ecology and management of riparian shrub
communities. Compiled by Warren P. Clary, E.
Durant McArthur, Don Bedunah, and Carl L.
Wambolt. May 29-31 1991, Sun Valley, ID. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report INT-
289, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,
UT.pp. 111-119.

Krueger, W. C. 1996. Managing ungulates to allow
recovery of riparian vegetation. In: W. D. Edge
and S. L. Olson-Edge, Editors. Sustaining Range-
land Ecosystems Symposium. Oregon State
University Special Report 953, Corvallis, OR.
pp. 160-165.

Landgraf, Barb. 1995. Range Conservationist,
Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Dillon, MT. Personal conversation with au¬
thors.

Manoukian, Mark Edward. 1994. Evaluation of tall
willows ( Salix spp.) within a livestock grazing
allotment in southwest Montana. M.S. Thesis,
Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.

Marlow, Clayton B. 1985. Controlling riparian
zone damage with little forage loss. Montana
AgResearch 2(3): 1-7. Montana State University,
Bozeman, MT.

Marlow, Clayton B., andThomas M. Pogacnik.
1986. Cattle feeding and resting patterns in a
foothills riparian zone. Journal of Range Man¬
agement 39(3):2 1 2-2 17.

Marlow, Clayton B., Douglas Allen, and Kathyrn
Olson-Rutz. 1991. Making riparian zone pro¬
tection a workable part of grazing manage¬
ment. In: Proceedings of the international beef
symposium. January 15-17, Great Falls, MT. Ani¬
mal Range Sciences Department, Montana
State University, Bozeman, MT. pp. 256-266.

39

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Masters, Linda, Sherman Swanson, and Wayne
Burkhardt. 1996. Riparian grazing manage¬
ment that worked: I. Introduction and winter
grazing. Rangelands 18(5): 192-195.

May, Bruce, and Barry Davis. 1982. Practices for
livestock grazing and aquatic habitat protec¬
tion on western rangelands. In: Wildlife-live-
stock relationships symposium: Proceedings
10. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and
Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID. pp.
271-278.

McClure, Thomas. 1994. Range Conservationist,
Sula Ranger District, Bitterroot National Forest,
Sula, MT. Personal conversation with authors.

Miner, J. Ronald John C. Buckhouse, and James 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 l4(l):35-38.

Munther, Greg L. 1982. Beaver management in
grazed riparian ecosystems./^: Wildlife-live-
stock relationships symposium: Proceedings
10. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and
Range Experiment Station, Moscow, ID. pp.
234-241.

Myers, Lewis H. 1989. Grazing and riparian man¬
agement in southwestern Montana./;?: Practi¬
cal approaches to riparian resource
management:An educational workshop. Ed¬
ited by Robert E. Gresswell, Bruce A. Barton,
and Jeffrey L. Kershner. May 8-1 1 , Billings, MT.
BLM-MT-PT-89-00 1-43 51. Bureau of Land Man¬
agement, Washington, DC. pp. 117-120.

Myers, Thomas J., and Sherman Swanson. 1992.
Variation of stream stability with stream type
and livestock bank damage in northeastern
Nevada. Water Resources Bulletin 28(4):743-754.

Platts, William S.,and Rodger L. Nelson. 1985a.
Impacts of rest-rotation grazing on stream
banks in forested watersheds in Idaho. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management
5:547-556.

Platts, William S., and Rodger L. Nelson. 1985b.
Will the riparian pasture build good streams?
Rangelands 7(4):7-l 1 .

Platts, William S., and Robert F. Raleigh. 1984. Im¬
pacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian
habitat. In: Developing strategies for rangeland
management. National Research Council/Na¬
tional Academy of Sciences. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO. pp. 1 105-1 1 18.

Rickard, W H., and C. E. Cushing. 1982. Recovery
of streamside woody vegetation after exclu¬
sion of livestock grazing. Journal of Range
Management 35(3):360-36l .

Roath, Leonard Roy, and William C. Krueger. 1982.
Cattle grazing influence on a mountain riparian
zone Journal of Range Management 35(1): 100-103.

Robinson, Art. 1996. Manager, Snowline Grazing
Association, Snowline, MT. Personal conversa¬
tion with authors.

Severson, K. E. , and Charles E. Boldt. 1 978. Cattle,
wildlife, and riparian habitats in the western
Dakotas. In: Management and use of northern
plains rangeland. Regional Rangeland Symposium,
February 27-28, Bismarck, N.D. N.p. pp. 90-103.

Siekert, Ronald E., Q. D. Skinner, M.A. Smith, J. L.
Dodd, and J. D. Rodgers. 1985. Channel re¬
sponse of an ephemeral stream in Wyoming to
selected grazing treatments. In: Riparian eco¬
systems and their management: Reconciling
conflicting uses. R. Roy Johnson, Charles D.
Ziebell, David R. Patton, Peter F. Ffolliott, and R.
H. Hamre, Technical Coordinators. First North
American Riparian Conference, l6-18April,
Tucson, AZ. USDA Forest Service General Tech¬
nical Report RM-120. Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Ft Collins, CO.
pp. 276-278.

Skovlinjon M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wet¬
lands 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. 1001-1103.

40

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Storch, Robert L. 1979. Livestock/streamside
management programs in eastern Oregon. In:
Proceedings: Forum-on grazing and riparian/
stream ecosystems.Trout Unlimited, Inc.,
Vienna, VA. pp. 56-59.

Swanson, Sherman. 1986. Options for riparian
grazing management. Nevada Cooperative Ex¬
tension Fact Sheet 86-77. University of Nevada,
Reno, NV.

Swanson, Sherman. 1987. Riparian pastures. Ne¬
vada Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 87-53-
University of Nevada, Reno, NV.

Thilenius,John F. 1979- Range management in
the alpine zone: Practices and problems./?*:
Special Management needs of alpine ecosys¬
tems^ symposium sponsored by the Society
for Range Management. Edited by Douglas A.
Johnson. February 14, Casper, Wyoming. N.p.
n.p.

Tohill,Al, and James Dollerschell 1990. “Live¬
stock” the key to resource improvement on
public lands. Rangelands 12(6):329-336.

Turnelljack. 1993- Presentation to Deer Lodge
Conservation District, July 10. Deer Lodge, MT.

Van Deventer, John S. 1992. A bibliography of ri¬
parian research and management: Fish, wild¬
life, vegetation, and hydrologic responses to
livestock grazing and other land use activities.
Idaho Riparian Cooperative, University of
Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Van Poollen, H.Walt, and John R. Lacey. 1979-
Herbage response to grazing systems and
stocking intensities. Journal of Range Manage¬
ment 32(4):250-253-

Vavra, Martin. 1984. Livestock production possi¬
bilities on streamside meadows./?*: Range
management short course. Oregon State Uni¬
versity, Corvallis, OR. pp. 35-44.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

41

Appendix A.

Delineating seasons of use.

Delineating seasons of use by such terminology as ’’early,” middle,” and “late” is
an artificial construct which provides only general time frames. For this report,
the categories we selected were: Early, Middle, Late, and Winter.

In general, Early season, or spring, encompasses the period from the end of
supplemental feeding to seed ripe and includes the time during which soil mois¬
ture levels are likely to be high due to snow melt and spring rain. The Middle pe¬
riod includes the hotter part of the summer during which upland forage has
dried, seed ripening has occurred, and soil moisture content in the riparian area
has declined. Late season covers the period after seed set and, except for cool-
season grasses benefiting from fall precipitation, the cessation of herbaceous
plant growth outside portions of the riparian area (i.e., the uplands). Winter cov¬
ers the period during which supplemental feeding usually occurs and soils are
usually frozen.

Obviously, the exact dates which each of these periods encompasses depend
on geography, topography, weather conditions, and range condition. In a state as
large and geographically varied as Montana, key indicators such as plant phenol¬
ogy and soil moisture may vary considerably. Readers should rely on their knowl¬
edge of plant growth and soil moisture to decide whether the broad time frames
listed below apply to their situation. For purposes of this report, the following
time frames apply:

late April/early May to early /mid July
early/mid July to mid/late September
mid/late September to late December/early January
late December/early January to late April.

Early:

Middle:

Late:

Winter:

42

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Appendix B

Determining season of use.

Which season or seasons of use will be most appropriate for grazing a given
riparian area will vary from site to site. Although it is possible to provide general
guidelines on the conditions within which each season is most likely to be suc¬
cessful, operators must weigh both the negative and positive potential impacts
and then must monitor the actual effects during and after the grazing period.

The following material summarizes the more detailed discussion found in
the text under “Principles and Techniques for Grazing in Riparian Zones.” Opera¬
tors must remember, however, that simply selecting an appropriate season does
not constitute a complete approach to riparian grazing. Since the more time
cattle spend in the riparian area, the greater the potential for damage, managers
must also look for ways to influence the amount of time cattle spend in the ri¬
parian area.

Early Season (Spring) Grazing

Early season use may be best for those situations in which:

• Livestock can be attracted to the uplands by succulent, herbaceous forage;

• Cool temperatures may discourage cows from loitering in the bottoms, or

weather in the uplands does not drive them into riparian areas;

• Soil in the riparian area may be wet enough to discourage cows from entering;

• Well-drained soils reduce the possibility of compaction.

The possible advantages of early season grazing include:

• Less streambank trampling and soil compaction if livestock spend most of

their time in the uplands;

• Time for regrowth of riparian and possibly upland vegetation;

• Less pressure on woody species in the riparian area.

Possible drawbacks to early season grazing in riparian areas include:

• High potential impact in terms of soil compaction, bank trampling, and

subsequent erosion because of high soil moisture levels;

• Repeated gracing during this period may affect plant vigor and lead to

changes in plant communities because utilization occurs during the critical
period of plant development;

• Nutritional value of upland forage may be low and may require supplemental

feeding;

• Early season grazing may adversely affect wildlife in the area.

Late Season (Fall) Grazing

Deferring grazing until fall may offer distinct benefits to maintaining the health
of a riparian area under the following conditions:

• When riparian plant communities consist of herbaceous rather than tree or

shrub species;

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

43

• When cool season grasses stimulated by timely precipitation provide

palatable forage in the uplands;

• Where offstream water near forage sources is available, or other conditions (for

example, cold air pockets streamside or the absence of hot upland tempera¬
tures) draw cattle out of the riparian area.

The possible benefits of late season grazing include:

• Drier soil conditions reduce the probability of compaction and streambank

shearing;

• Most plants have completed their growth cycle and will be less affected by

grazing;

• Generally, there is less impact on wildlife.

Late season use may be detrimental in the following situations:

• When regrowth after the cattle are removed will not occur due to reduced soil

moisture and declining temperatures;

• When there are no incentives to induce cattle to move out of the riparian area;

• When woody species maintenance or regeneration are objectives.

Hot Season (Mid-summer) Grazing

Repeated or extended grazing during the hot summer season can be injurious to
riparian areas.The following situations are most likely to prevent deterioration of
riparian area during this period:

• When the operator closely monitors conditions in the riparian area specifically

and the period of grazing is limited in duration and frequency;

• When effective management actions are taken to encourage livestock to move

out of the riparian area;

• When time of removal and climatic conditions provide opportunity for

regrowth or cattle are not put into the pasture on an annual basis.
Disadvantages of grazing during this period include:

• The greater tendency of livestock to remain in the riparian area;

Reduced plant vigor and possible changes in vegetation communities due to
the more intense use that results;

• Possible damage to tree and shrub species that play vital roles in the mainte¬

nance of riparian health.

Possible advantages to hot-season ( mid-summer) grazing may include:

• Drier and hence more stable streambanks;

• The possibility of regrowth of riparian vegetation after grazing ceases;

• Higher palatability of riparian forage compared to upland vegetation.

Winter Use

Winter use can be an especially useful management approach in the following
situations:

• When the pasture is large enough to feed livestock well away from the stream;

• When drainages are colder than surrounding uplands or open south-facing

slopes reduce use of the riparian area;

44

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

• Where soil type makes compaction and susceptibility to streambank damage

likely during other seasons.

Advantages of winter use may include:

• Minimal soil compaction and limited streambank damage;

• Utilization of herbaceous plants will not affect plant development;

• Livestock distribution can be influenced relatively easily through location of

watering facilities and feeding stations.

Detrimental effects of winter grazing may include:

• Grazing of dead standing material can reduce streambank protection capabili¬

ties and reduce sediment entrapment in the spring;

• Browsing and physical damage of shrubs and small trees can be a problem.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

45

Glossary

Beaver Dams. Dams built by beavers that span
the stream channel. In general, water is still
flowing through the riparian system.

Browse. Woody forage (from shrubs or trees)
consumed by wildlife.

Community (Plant Community). An assembly
of plants living together, reflecting no particu¬
lar ecological status.

Diversity. The kind and amount of species in a
community per unit area.

Ecosystem. All the land that has potential to
produce similar structural life forms and has
broad environmental characteristics
(nonvegetated, conifer, juniper, shrub, wetland,
grassland, etc.)

Ground Water. Water occupying the intercon¬
nected pore spaces in the soil or geologic
material below the water table; this water has
a positive pressure.

Healthy. A riparian system is considered

healthy” when it is capable of performing its
normal functions. These may include, but are
not limited to, water storage and aquifer
recharge, filtering of chemical and organic
wastes, sediment trapping, bank building and
maintenance, flow energy dissipation, and
primary biotic production. As used in this
report, “healthy” is synonymous with the
BLM s definition of Proper Functioning
Condition.

Herbaceous. Nonwoody vegetation, such as
graminoids and forbs.

Hydric Soil. A soil that is saturated, flooded, or
ponded long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part of the soil profile.

Hydrology. The science dealing with the
properties, distribution, and circulation of
water.

Intermittent Stream. A stream or reach of
stream which flows only at certain times of
the year when it receives water from springs
or from some surface source (e.g., melting

snow). Such streams are usually divided with
respect to the source of their water into
spring-fed or surface-fed intermittent streams.
These streams generally flow continuously
during periods of at least one month or more
during the year.

Irrigation Canal. Includes all types of canals
associated with irrigation systems.

Nonfunctioning. Riparian areas are considered
nonfunctioning when they are clearly not
providing adequate vegetation, landform, or
large woody debris to perform the functions
listed under Proper Functioning Condi¬
tion. The absence of certain physical at¬
tributes such as a floodplain where one
should be are indicators of nonfunctioning
condition.

Perennial Stream. A stream or reach of a
stream that flows continuously. Such streams
are generally fed in part by springs. Surface
water elevations are commonly lower than
water table elevations in adjacent soils.

Proper Functioning Condition. As defined by
the BLM (TR 1737-9 1993), riparian areas are
functioning properly when adequate vegeta¬
tion, 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 flood-water 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 the water depth, duration, and tempera¬
ture necessary for fish production, waterfowl
breeding, and other uses; and support greater
biodiversity.

Reservoir. An artificial (dammed) water body
with at least 8 ha (20 acres) covered by
surface water.

Rhizomatous. Describes species with under¬
ground, inter-connected root systems (rhi¬
zomes).

46

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

Riparian, adj. Of, on, or relating to the banks of
a natural course of water (Latin riparius , from
ripa , bank).

Riparian area. A geographically delineable area
with distinctive functions and characteristics.
Includes both the riparian ecosystem and the
adjacent aquatic ecosystem.

Riparian Wetlands (Lotic Wetlands). Riparian
wetlands are wetlands associated with run¬
ning water systems found along rivers,
streams, and drainageways. Such wetlands
contain a defined channel and floodplain. The
channel is an open conduit which periodi¬
cally or continuously carries flowing water,
dissolved and suspended material. Beaver
ponds, seeps, springs, and wet meadows on
the floodplain of, or associated with, a river or
stream are part of the riparian wetland.

Riparian or Wetland Ecosystem. The ecosys¬
tem located between aquatic and terrestrial
environments. Identified by hydric soil
characteristics and riparian or wetland plant
species that require or tolerate free water
conditions of varying duration.

Riparian or Wetland Species. Plant species
occurring within the riparian or wetland area.
Obligate riparian or wetland species require
the environmental conditions associated with
the riparian or wetland area .Facultative
riparian or wetland species are tolerant of
these environmental conditions, but also
occur in uplands.

Riparian Zone. A geographically delineated
portion of the riparian ecosystem based on
management concerns.

River. Rivers are usually larger than streams.
They flow year around in years of normal
precipitation and when significant amounts
of water are not being diverted out of them.

Shrub. A multi-stemmed woody plant generally
shorter than 4.8 m (16 ft).

Spring. A groundwater discharge area. In gen¬
eral, springs are considered to have more
flow than seeps.

Stream. A natural waterway that is defined as
first to third order (see Stream Order).

Streambank. That portion of the channel bank
cross-section that controls the lateral move¬
ment of water.

Stream Order. A classification of streams

according to the number of tributaries. Order
1 streams have no tributaries; a stream of
order 2 or higher has two or more
tributariesof the next lower order.

Stream reach. A specified length of stream, the
exact length depending on the objective.

Tree. A single-stemmed woody plant generally
taller than 4.8 m (1 6 ft).

Uplands. Any area that does not qualify as a
wetland because the associated hydrologic
regime is not sufficiently wet to elicit devel¬
opment of vegetation, soils, and/or hydrologic
characteristics associated with wetlands. Such
areas occurring in floodplains are more
appropriately termed “nonwetlands.”

Water Table. The upper surface of the zone of
saturation within the soil or geologic material.

Wet Meadow. A herbaceous wetland on mineral
soil. Generally, wet meadows occur in season¬
ally flooded basins and flats. Soils are usually
dry for part of the growing season.

Wetlands. Areas that under normal circum¬
stances have hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and wetland hydrology. They include
landscape units such as bogs, fens, carrs,
marshes, and lowlands covered with shallow
and sometimes ephemeral or intermittent
waters. Wetlands also include potholes,
sloughs, wet meadows, riparian zones, over¬
flow areas, and shallow lakes and ponds
having submerged and emergent vegetation.
Permanent waters of streams and water
deeper than 3 m (approximately 1 0 ft) in
lakes and reservoirs are not considered
wetlands.

Wetland Hydrology. Permanent or periodic
inundation or prolonged soil saturation
sufficient to create anaerobic conditions in
the soil.

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

47

.

.

.

.

.

'

'

■

-3

.

■

■

.

'

.

■

.

-

.

-

.

.

• ■ - -.s

.

■

-

.

.

.

• -

Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zones

• \

SF 85.3 .E573 1998
Successful strategies for
grazing cattle in riparian