research update: grazing and environmental topics

Ken Tate, Leslie Roche, Rob Atwill 10/21/2014

1

ResearchUpdate:GrazingandEnvironmentalTopics

KenTate,LeslieRoche,andRobAtwillUCDavisandUCCooperativeExtension

UCCEMendocino&LakeCountiesUkiah,CA● 21October2014

• Waterquality

• Sensitivespeciesconservation

• Riparianhealth

• Timberharvest andwaterquality

• Waterquality

• Sensitivespeciesconservation

• Riparianhealth

• Timberharvest andwaterquality

Updates– Grazingand….

RangelandWatershedLaboratoryhttp://rangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu


2

• Microbialpollutants– Cryptosporidium,E.coli• Sediment– erosion• StreamTemperature– streamshade,tail‐water• Nutrients– nitrogenandphosphorus

Inthe1990’s,concerns about…Inthe1990’s,concerns about…

BayAreain1995‐ Cryptosporidium

Cryptosporidium

Livestock Pathogen DrinkingWater


3

• CohosalmonwasESAlisted• Sedimentandstreamtemperature• 1997TMDLconsentdecreefor22northernCaliforniacoastalwatersheds

RanchWaterQualityPlanningShortCourse

• PartnershipbetweenUC,livestockindustry,NRCD‐RCDs,waterboards,…

• 1995‐2013,>80coursestaught,1200+ranches,6+millionacres

• RanchWaterQualityPlan– tailoredtoranch,watershed,regulatoryvehicle


4

Survey– 10northcoastranches1. Determineprimaryon‐ranchsedimentsourcesandcauses.

2. CurrentManagementv.BackgroundorHistoricManagement

49 sites “current”

‐ 0.2Myd3 sediment

‐ 77%roads

‐ 1%livestock

56 sites “background”

‐ 41.0Myd3 sediment

19yearsofmicrobialWQstudy

Cryptosporidium

Salmonella

E. Coli O157:H7

? ?


5


6


7

Key FindingsCryptosporidiumeggsdieinonedayof78Fairtemperatureindirectsun.

Key FindingsE.Coli aretrappedinfecalpatorsoilwithin1yarddownslopeduringrunoff.

We are starting to find the same thing for hormones and pharmaceuticals….


8

The Key New FindingMostCryptosporidiumincattledoesnotappeartobethetypeinfectioustohumans.

The Key New FindingNewstatewideherdsurveyofrangecattleandcalves– 14%hadCryptosporidium.

Crytposporidium No. Observations

C. ryanae 61/81 (75%)

C. bovis 19/81 (24%)

C. andersoni 1/81 (1%)

C. parvum 0/81 (0%)

Speciesandsubtypesidentifiedareminimallyinfectiousforhumans.

Protozoal contaminationbycattlemaynotbethepublichealththreatoncethought. K.Floresetal.


9

SacBee,April2010USFS Grazing Allotments

“Livestock waste found to foul Sierra waters”

“…incredible weapon of mass destruction”

“No livestock above 5000 feet”

SacBee,April2010USFS Grazing Allotments

“Livestock waste found to foul Sierra waters”

“…incredible weapon of mass destruction”

“No livestock above 5000 feet”

USFSPublicGrazingAllotmentsinCA

500grazedallotments

8,000,000acres

430,000AnimalUnitMonths

~70,000headofcattle


10

COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY SURVEY

• 12USFSpubliclandsgrazingallotments,5NationalForests.• 320,000acres

• 155streamcollectionsites,monitoredmonthlyduringgrazing‐recreationperiod(Jun‐Nov,2011).• KeyGrazingAreas• RecreationAreas• AreaswithNoConcentratedUseActivities

• Totalof743watersamplescollected• FecalIndicatorBacteria:Fecalcoliform,E.coli• TN,NO3‐N,NH4‐N,TP,PO4‐P

PublicLandsGrazing&WaterQuality

RESULTS• Observednutrientconcentrationswereatleastoneorderofmagnitudebelowlevelsofecologicalconcern,andsimilartobackgroundestimates.

• Allbutthemostrestrictivefecalindicatorbacteria(FIB)waterqualitybenchmarkswerebroadlymet.

• Throughoutthestudyperiod,USEPArecommendedE.colibenchmarksweremetforover90%ofsamplescollectedandover83%ofsites(noexceedances).

PublicLandsGrazing&WaterQuality

Roche,L.M.,L.Kromschroeder,E.R.Atwill,R.A.Dahlgren,andK.W.Tate.2013.WaterQualityConditionsAssociatedwithCattleGrazingandRecreationonNationalForestLands.PLOSONE 8(6):e68127.

“Ourresultsdonotsupportpreviousconcernsofwidespreadmicrobialwaterqualitypollutionacrossthesegrazedlandscapes,asconcludedinothersurveys.”


11

WaterQualityStandards

BenchmarkOverall

(% of 743)

Key Grazing Area

(% of 462)

Recreation Area

(% of 125)

No Concentrated Use Activities(% of 156)

FC > 20 cfu/100ml 50 48 46 58

FC > 200 cfu/100ml 10 10 6 13

E. coli > 190 cfu/100ml 5 4 4 6

E. coli > 235 cfu/100ml 3 3 3 4

NO3‐N > 300 µg/L 0 0 0 0

TP > 100 µg/L 2 2 2 <1

PO4‐P > 50 µg/L <1 1 0 0

Percentageof743streamwatersamplesexceedingbenchmarks

WQSummary• Waterqualityonextensivelygrazedrangelandsandforestsishigh.

• Managementcancreaterisktowaterquality.

• Rangelandshavegreatcapacitytoattenuatepollutantsfromlivestockandotherranchactivities– workwiththatpotential.

• Alargetoolboxoftested,feasiblepracticesexists.


12

GrazingManagement&ConservationofThreatenedorEndangeredSpecies

• YosemiteToad‐ ProposedforESAlisting• Believedtobedeclining• MountainMeadows=keytoadbreedingandrearinghabitat

• MountainMeadows=keyforageforlivestock

• Livestockapotentialdriverofdecline?

• 2005‐2010YosemiteToadStudy• USFS,UCDavis,UCBerkeley,andrangestakeholders.

CattleGrazing YosemiteToad

RESULTS• Observednutrientconcentrations1orderofmagnitudebelowlevelsofecologicalconcern.

• Waterqualityandhidingcovernotdifferentamonggrazedandungrazed treatments.

• Noincreaseintoadoccupancy,tadpole‐youngoftheyeardensityduetofencing.

• Nodifferencebetweenfencedandnotfencedpools.

CATTLE EXCLUSION EXPERIMENTS• 3meadowbreedingpoolfencingtreatments• Fenceentiremeadow• Fencebreedingpoolsonly• Notfenced

PublicLandsGrazing&YosemiteToad

Rocheetal.2012.RangelandEcology&Management.McIlroyetal. 2013.PLOSONE.


13

SURVEY OF COW AND TOAD HABITAT USE/COMPETITION• 3SierraNationalForestGrazingAllotments• 24Meadowsrangingfromwettomoist,allopentograzingcattle


CattleGrazing YosemiteToad

ForageQuality

MeadowWetness

Productivity

?

?

?


Thereissomethingatworkherebiggerthangrazing

X

Good riparian grazing management breaks this feedback


14

CattleGrazingandYosemiteToad(Bufo canorus Camp)BreedingHabitatinSierraNevadaMeadowsL.M.Roche,B.Allen‐Diaz,D.J.Eastburn,andK.W.Tate.2012.RangelandEcology&Management65:56‐65.

Cattlegrazingandconservationofameadow‐dependentamphibianspeciesintheSierraNevadaL.M.Roche,A.M.Latimer,D.J.Eastburn,andK.W.Tate.2012. PLOSONE.

DeterminingtheeffectsofcattlegrazingtreatmentsonYosemitetoads(Anaxyrus canorus)inmontanemeadows.S.McIlroy,A.J.Lind,B.H.Allen‐Diaz,L.M.Roche,W.E.Frost,R.L.Grasso,andK.W.Tate.2013.PLOSONE.

Cattlegrazingandconservationofamphibiansappeartobecompatiblegoals

Cattlegrazingandconservationofamphibiansappeartobecompatiblegoals

GrazingandMeadowHealth

USFSREGION 5MEADOW CONDITION AND TREND MONITORING

• SierraNevadaForestPlanAmendment(early2000s)– SetRipariangrazingutilizationlimits(i.e.browseonwillow,banktrampling,amountofannualforageconsumed).

• 1998:USFSinitiatedlong‐termmeadowconditionandtrendmonitoringprogram.• 1)Documentbaselinemeadowconditionsasnewriparian

uselimitswerecomingintouse.

• 2)Examinelong‐termtrendsinmeadowconditionfollowingimplementationoflimits.

• UCDavisRangelandWatershedLabpartneringwithUSFStoanalyzethesedata.


15

• 850Permanentplots– Readevery5years– Over270with10yearsofdata

• Plantspeciescomposition– Diversity– Richness– SoilStabilizationScore

• Currentdataanalysis– MeadowCondition– TrendsinCondition– WeatherxSiteTypexManagement

MeadowConditionMonitoring1999‐2013

ComparingGrazingw/RiparianUseLimitstoNon‐GrazedConditions

Inyo National Forest

Four Allotments2000‐20102 closed to grazing2 grazed with riparian use limits

25 monitoring plots16 grazed9 non‐grazed


16

ComparingGrazingw/RiparianUseLimitstoNon‐GrazedConditions

?

Tested the hypothesis that meadow conditions would improve more in the non‐grazed compared to grazed allotments.

Non-grazed

Grazed

MeadowHealth

Year 1 Year 10

Results Livestock exclusion did not lead to greater rates of meadow recovery compared to grazing to achieve riparian use limits.

Grazing management implemented to achieve riparian use limits did not degrade meadow health.

Demonstrates the effectiveness of 1. setting riparian utilization objectives, and 2. grazing management practices (i.e., herding, rest, rotation).


17

Rangeland Literature SynthesisConservationBenefitsofRangelandPractices:Assessment,Recommendations,andKnowledgeGapshttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/ceap/?cid=stelprdb1045811

Somerecentrelevantreviews

Western Land Managers will Need all Available Tools for Adapting to Climate Change, Including Grazing: A Critique of Beschta et al. EnvironmentalManagementTonySvejcar•ChadBoyd•KirkDavies•MatthewMadsen•JonBates•RogerSheley•ClaytonMarlow•DavidBohnert •MikeBorman•RicardoMata‐Gonza`lez •JohnBuckhouse •TamzenStringham•BarryPerryman•ShermanSwanson•KennethTate•MelGeorge•GeorgeRuyle •BruceRoundy•ChrisCall•KevinJensen•KarenLaunchbaugh •AmandaGearhart•LanceVermeire•JohnTanaka•JustinDerner•GaryFrasier•KrisHavstadhttp://rangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu/main/GrazingPublicLandsClimateChange/index.html

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

USFSGrazingPolicyoverthenext40years?

“best available science”


18

AquaticEcosystemResponsetoTimberHarvestingforthePurposeofRestoringAspen

Jones,B.E,M.Krupa,andK.W.Tate.2013.PLOSONE.


Jones,B.E,M.Krupa,andK.W.Tate.2013.PLOSONE.

An 8 year study of stream response to use of commercial timber harvest as a tool to liberate riparian aspens encroached by conifers.

Manyriparianaspenstandsencroachedbyconifers Coniferremovalisaneffectivereleasestrategy


19

SomeConcerns

Reduce stream canopy

cover?

Increase stream

temperature?

Degrade water quality

and aquatic habitat?

Compact soils?

Noimpact?Shorttermimpact?Longtermgain?

StudySites


20

260acrestreated

5,910 feetonPineCreek

3,590feetonBogardCreek

Oversnowandlatesummertreatments

15to125feetfromstream

LassenNFPine‐Bogard Creek



• Over1000watersamplescollected,>80%belowdetectionlimitsfornitrogenandphosphorus,noneabovelevelsofecologicalconcern.

• Noincreaseinsediment,nutrients,temperatureduringorfollowingtimberremoval.

• Streammacroinvertebrate communitiesindicativeofhighqualityhabitatthroughoutstudyperiod.

• Withcarefulplanningandimplementation,coniferremoval(harvest)canbeconductedwithoutdegradingaquaticecosystems.

Results


21

Whatisallthisresearchtellingus?

With good management – livestock & timber production, clean water, healthy riparian areas, and conservation of sensitive species are compatible goals. It takes work and goal setting.

Substantial new science supports this conclusion.

Make certain this science is integrated into policy and management decision making – best available science.

Collaboration and communication between managers, policy makers, and scientists is essential.

rangeland watersheds

RangelandWatershedLaboratoryhttp://rangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu

research update: grazing and environmental topics

Documents