AWRA banner
Advancing Water Resources Research and Management

Proceedings: Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources

Determining Allowable Use Levels for Livestock Movement in Riparian Areas

Pete Bengeyfield and Dan Svoboda

ABSTRACT:

Effective management of riparian areas within grazing allotments involves moving livestock from pasture to pasture so as to ensure riparian function is maintained. Recognizing certain vegetative and physical indicators can facilitate these movements. The proposed guidelines are designed to restore/maintain riparian function in the presence of grazing by determining acceptable use levels for the following parameters: browse levels on riparian shrubs, stubble height, streambank alteration, and forage utilization. The use levels are arrived at by setting a desired future condition (DFC), and assessing the potential, sensitivity, and inherent stability of the riparian area. This approach has been successfully applied in real-world situations to both maintain functioning riparian areas and to begin recovery of functioning-at-risk riparian areas.

INTRODUCTION

Many public land livestock allotments today are managed with grazing systems designed to foster the health and production of upland vegetation. However, within many of those allotments exist riparian areas that have different needs and requirements if their function is also going to be maintained. Skovlin (1984) reports that there are no grazing systems that will ensure proper use of small riparian meadows within extensive upland range. In general, a single grazing system will not meet the needs of both the uplands and riparian areas. One way of meeting riparian needs is to establish use levels that indicate when adverse effects to riparian values are being approached. By managing livestock in accordance with these use levels, and within the dictates of the grazing system, grazing programs can continue on public lands while at the same time perpetuating a functioning landscape.

The development and implementation of effective use levels combines both the science and art that are inseparable components of land management. The approach presented here develops numerical use levels for four independent parameters that are used as indicators for moving livestock, either out of riparian areas and within the same pasture, or to the next pasture. The existing condition of the riparian area and the capability of the allotment are two dominant factors in the determination of those use levels. Success is based to a great deal on the working relationship between the agency and the permittee/riders. It is up to agency personnel to correctly interpret the landscape (the science part), and it is up to permittees/riders to effectively manage livestock within the constraints of the use levels and grazing system (the art part). Communication throughout the process is essential.

The concept of proper functioning condition (PFC) of riparian areas has recently been surfaced as guidance for the management of riparian areas on public lands. PFC entails maintaining the physical components of riparian areas in a fashion that dissipates stream energy, filters sediment, retains floodwaters, and develops root masses (BLM, 1993). Platts (1991) reported that livestock grazing can lead to loss of riparian vegetation, channel widening, and destabilization of stream banks. Riparian vegetation can be utilized to such an extent that the composition and vigor of existing communities is affected (Armour, et. al., 1991; Skovlin, 1984; Kaufman and Krueger, 1984), and direct mechanical alterations to the stream channel through trampling or "hoof shear" can change channel dimensions (Clifton, 1989; Kovalchik and Elmore, 1992; Platts, 1990). These types of effects to riparian vegetation and stream channels often make it difficult to maintain or restore PFC.

The process outlined here for determining and implementing allowable use levels for riparian areas has been succesfully employed on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.

DEVELOPING USE LEVELS

There are four steps in the process to develop use levels for specific riparian areas:

Set Desired Future Condition (DFC)
Choose Sensitivity Level
Determine Inherent Stability
Assess parameters important to riparian function, and determine limiting parameter.

Set DFC. The desired future condition describes the riparian area that future management is intended to produce. DFC is a management decision that is generally recommended by an Interdiciplinary Team (IDT), and agreed to by the land manager. The DFC reflects the capability of the landscape, the various laws and regulations that apply to an area, and the values, or "products" that are desired. The DFC is portrayed through descriptions of how an area would look and function. In most cases DFC will fall somewhere between a minimum of PFC and a maximum of Potential Natural Condition (PNC).

Choose Sensitivity Level. Often, streams within a watershed, landscape, or administrative unit exhibit a variety of values. Streams that contain threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish species, popular sport fisheries, municipal/domestic water supplies, and important irrigation sources are streams that are generally considered to have higher values that streams that to not have these attribuites. Additionally, the existing condition of streams varies a great deal, depending on their physical composition and management history. In many western states today, impaired streams have been classified as Water Quality Limited Streams, and as such require special management considerations under water quality laws (State of Montana, 1998). Because of these variations, managers often wish to give special management emphasis to certain streams, to either protect important values or move a stream that is not at PFC in that direction. To aid in that effort, streams are stratified by Sensitivity Level, a measure of the value and/or existing condition of a drainage as determined by an ID team and expressed as a percent of potential. This determination gives a manager the option of maintaining a stream at from 70 - 90% of its potential. Some of the considerations that can enter into a Sensitivity Level determination are: fisheries, soil sensitivity, stream type, recreation importance, (Table 1). There is no cookbook for determining Sensitivity Level. It is best arrived at through an interdisciplinary discussion within an IDT.

Determine Inherent Stability. Streams vary as to their inherent stability, and this must be taken into account when establishing use levels within a given riparian area. Platts (1989) pointed out the relationship between streambank stability, vegetative community types, and grazing strategies. OEA Research (1988) stratified undisturbed and minimally disturbed riparian areas by community types in central and southern Idaho. For each stratification, they measured the amount of altered streambanks. By applying their findings to a given riparian area, the expected amount of stable streambank that would exist in a functioning condition can be inferred. For example, the carex aquatilis (CARAQU) community types surveyed averaged 90% stable streambanks. If a CARAQU community type is encountered in an undisturbed riparian area, it could be expected that 90% of the streambanks would be in an unaltered condition. A complete list of community types and inherent streambank stabilities is given in Table 2.

Assess Parameters Important to Attaining/Maintaining DFC. In order to attain/maintain DFC, it is necessary to develop appropriate use levels for critical parameters. We have chosen three vegetative parameters - stubble height, forage utilization, riparian shrub utilization - and one physical parameter - streambank alteration - to be critical for assessing the effects of livestock grazing on DFC (Clary and Webster, 1989; Kinch, 1989; Skovlin, 1984; Platts, etalii, 1987; Hansen, 1993; and Clifton, 1989). By measuring these four parameters, impacts to the range of vegetative types (grasses, sedges, and shrubs), as well as physical alteration of the stream channel by livestock, can be addressed in any assessment of a riparian area. The use level for each parameter is figured independently of the others. Initial implementation of the use levels will define a limiting parameter for a particular location, and that parameter will then become the indicator as to when livestock should be moved (Dallas, 1996).

Using these four components, the process for determining appropriate use levels can be seen in the following examples:

Example 1

During the allotment planning process, the IDT and decision maker have assigned a Sensitivity Level 2 (80% of potential) to the stream in question, on the basis of its lack of critical fish habitat and the fact that both existing and potential stream types are B3. They have also decided that Moderately High Similarity to PNC is the desired future condition. Field investigations showed that the habitat type is spruce/bluejoint reedgrass (PICENG/CALCAN), which has an inherent stability of 80, and that the existing condition is Moderate Similarity to PNC.

Allowable Streambank Alteration:

Sensitivity Level 2 = manage for .80 of potential.
Potential stable streambank = .80 (from inherent stability for PICENG/CALCAN habitat type)
.8 x .8 = .64. To achieve DFC, 64 ft. out of every 100 would have to be stable, so 36 ft. could be altered.

Table 3 provides the vegetative use levels.

Allowable Stubble Height = 3" in August, 4" in September and October.
Allowable Riparian Shrub Utilization = 10% in June - August, None after August.
Allowable Forage Utilization = 45% in July and August, 20%-30% in September and October.

Explanation: In this example, the stream in question is a B3 stream type (Rosgen, 1996) under a forested canopy. Altogether a pretty stable situation. It is likely that the channel is pretty resistant to streambank erosion and physical alteration and that a moderate level of alteration (36 ft.) would maintain PFC. There are few riparian shrubs in this community type, nor do they play a major role in maintaining PFC. This is not the type of stream that relies on streamside vegetation to trap sediment and build banks. Given this information, it is not likely that allowable use levels for streamabnk alteration, riparian shrub utilization, or stubble height would come into play. Riparian forage utilization becomes the limiting parameter, and livestock would be moved when the allowable levels are reached.

Example 2

During the allotment planning process, the IDT and decision maker have assigned a Sensitivity Level 1 to a small tributary stream that has a population of Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Its potential stream type is an E4a, but it is presently a B4 due to streambank trampling altering the entrenchment and width/depth ratios. The desired future condition is to restore an E4a stream type, and attain Moderately High Similarity to PNC. Field investigations show that the potential community type is geyer willow/beaked sedge SALGEY/CARUTR, and moose/livestock browsing has reduced it to Moderate Similarity to PNC.

Streambank Alteration

Sensitivity Level 1 = manage for 90% of potential
Potential Stable Streambank = 94% (from Table 2 for SALGEY/CARUTR community type)
.9 x .94 = 85. To achieve DFC, 85 ft. out of every 100 ft. would have to be stable, so 15 ft. could be altered.
Allowable Stubble Height = No restrictions in June & July, 3" in August - October
Allowable Riparian Shrub Utilization = 10% in June & July, none in August - October.
Allowable Forage Utilization = June, 35%; July, 40%; August, 35%, September, 30%; October, 20%

Explanation: In this example, the E4a stream type is sensitive to streambank alteration, and the existing condition no longer classifies as PFC because the change in w/d ratio and entrenchment doesn't allow dissipation of stream energy or storing water in the floodplain. Depending on the amount of streambank exposed, it is likely that both streambank erosion and mechanical alteration would be tallied along this reach. These small headwaters valleys are often moose winter range, and, with the addition of livestock in the summer, willows get browsed throughout the year. The allowable use levels are essentially set for moose use early in the season. When livestock preference shifts to shrubs later in the season, it would be time to move them. In this example, trampling and browsing have created the existing condition, and it is likely that the allowable use levles for streambank alteration or woody browse would be the limiting parameters.

Example 3

The IDT and decision maker have assigned a Sensitivity Level 1 to a moderately large stream that has been heavily impacted by livestock grazing. Its potential stream type is an E4, but it is now a C5 because of a change in w/d ratio and sediment load as a result of streambank alteration. The existing community type is bluegrass (POAPRA), and has Low similarity to PNC. The potential community is uncertain, therefore we initially use similarity to existing community type. The DFC is to restore an E4 stream type, and attain a Moderately High similarity to PNC.

Streambank Alteration:

Sensitivity Level 1 - Manage for 90% of Potential.
POAPRA Community Type = .40 (from Table 2)
.40x.90 = 36 ft. To achieve DFC, the stream type would have to become an E4. However, it would first be necessary to stabilize the C5 in its existing condition. To accomplish this, 36 ft. out of 100 would have to be stable, so 64 ft. could be in an unstable or altered condition.
Allowable Stubble Height = N/A in June and July. 3" in August. 4" in September and October.
Allowable Riparian Shrub Utilization = 10% in June and July, None in August through October.
Allowable Riparian Forage Utilization = 30% in June, 35% in July, 30% in Aug-Sept., 20% in October.

Explanation: At first glance the 64 ft. of allowable unstable streambank seems high. However, it is likely that with a C5 stream type and a POAPRA community type, a high percentage of the banks are already unstable. This leaves little additional alteration that could come from livestock. If cattle were placed in this riparian area, the allowable use levels for streambank alteration would be reached quickly. This is a stream channel that relies on sediment trapped by vegetation along the stream margins to narrow the channel. Stubble height at the end of the season would be critical to accomplish this. In a POAPRA community type, riparian shrubs do not play a dominant role in maintaining the channel, so shrub utilization use levels are not likely to come into play until a willow community reestablishes itself. This is a very difficult management situation, with use levels for streambank alteration likely to be reached very quickly, and stubble height levels critical at the end of the season. These would be the limiting parameters in this scenario. The difficulty of managing livestock in this situation may lead to corridor fencing or the establishment of a riparian pasture to achieve the DFC.

MEASUREMENT OF PARAMETERS

Subjectivity in measurement, whether choosing number and location of sites, or estimating sizes and distances, is inherent in all but the most rigorous of research applications. In the practical application of guidelines such as these, a combination of measurement and estimation is often employed by the practitioner due to time limitations or other constraints. What is more important than precise measurements, is an understanding of the reasons for the measurement of a specific parameter, and how a change in that parameter will affect riparian function. This is necessary for both agency people and permittees/riders. Once the concepts are understood, and use levels established, practitioners develop an "eye" for the threshold level for any given parameter (Dallas, 1996). As this level of competence is attained, discrepancies in the precision of measurement among observers becomes less important than an understanding of the relationships between specific parameters and the DFC.

The measurement of the four parameters takes place within 100 ft. transects that are located throughout a given pasture or allotment. The number and location of transects varies by the situation and condition that exists on the ground. Certainly they should be located to characterize conditions in a pasture, and should be numerous enough to give agency personnel and permittees/riders the level of comfort necessary to make a decision to move livestock.

Streambank Alteration. Alteration of streambanks by livestock/wildlife is recommended as a parameter to consider when assessing riparian effects (Kinch, 1989; BLM, 1997; Kleinfelder, etalii, 1992). In determining streambank alterations for use levels suggested here, the existing condition is compared to the reference community types found in Table 2. As such, both natural and management-induced sources of alteration are considered. Generally, alteration will fall into two categories: 1) bank erosion as a result of high streamflow, and 2) mechanical alteration of streambanks by the direct influence of livestock/wildlife.

Streamflow-induced bank erosion can be the result of natural conditions, or an indirect effect of livestock/wildlife on streambanks. It is measured linearly along the channel. Indications are raw, exposed banks where soil comes in contact with running water. Detachment of individual soil particles is facilitated by lack of vegetative protection. These banks are often found on the outside of meanders, but are also found on straight sections of channel.

There are many indicators of livestock/wildlife alteration of streambanks. Their importance often varies by stream type, and even position along the stream. The effect of trampling will always be a judgement call on the part of the observer, however the overriding concept behind that judgement is whether or not the type/intensity of streambank alteration is affecting PFC.

Some common indicators of streambank alteration are:

Raw soil is exposed to running water as a result of bank shearing. -
Roots of bank-stabilizing vegetation are exposed to air or water through hoof action.
Pioneering vegetation is being trampled.
Pedestals exist along or adjacent to the streambank
Sections of streambank have been "cut out" or "scalloped" by trampling, making it easier for water to erode behind them.
Tension cracks exist in conjunction with ungulate tracks, indicating bank has been weakened and is more easily eroded.
There has been an increase in bankfull width due to trampling.
The floodplain width/bankfull width ratio is decreasing (stream entrenchment is increasing) as a result of trampling.

The observer should check for these or additional indications of streambank alteration, and then assess whether or not they are affecting the ability of the stream channel to dissipate energy, filter sediment, retain floodwaters, and to develop/maintain root masses. In other words, to achieve/maintain PFC. If it is determined that streambank alteration is affecting the ability of a stream to preform its functions, then the amount of altered bank on both streambanks within the 100 ft. transect is totaled, divided by two, and expressed as a percent. With training and experience, observer error can be limited to less than 10%.

Stubble Height. A measurement of stubble height at the end of the grazing season has been an indicator of livestock use in riparian areas for a number of years (Taylor and Lacey, 1987; Skovlin, 1984; Kinney and Clary, 1994). Stubble height is determined as outlined in (Kinney and Clary, 1994; Hall and Bryant, 1995; Taylor and Lacey, 1987; Bonham, 1989).

Riparian Shrub Utilization. Riparian shrub and tree use can be measured using a number of acceptable methods, such as those presented by Taylor and Lacey (1987); or Bonham, (1989). However, the recommended method now used in southwest Montana is Keigley and Frisina, (1997). Use of this method gives current ecological conditions, but also builds an ecologic history dating back up to many decades.

Forage Utilization. Measurement of forage use in the riparian area is accomplished using standard techniques outlined in Taylor and Lacey (1987); Kinney and Clark (1994); or several other acceptable methods.

IMPLEMENTATION

Once allowable use levels have been determined, they must be incorporated into the management of an allotment. This process of integration is more of an art than a science. In many cases, moving livestock based on these use levels will be a new approach for permittees/riders. Dallas (1996) makes the following recommendations after successful implementation of this approach on three allotments in the Ruby River drainage in Montana:

Spend time with individual permittees/riders to develop an understanding between the parameters, DFC, and allowable use levels.
Determine the limiting parameter as quickly as possible, so that permittees/riders have only one thing to keep track of. The limiting (first threshold approached) parameter may change as existing condition changes with improved management.
Portray the use levels as tools in achieving DFC, rather than compliance standards.
Introduce the use levels in the context of current management, rather than "new" management.
The riparian use levels are used in addition to upland use levels.
Provide a 2-3 year learning period for permittees/riders to figure out how to move livestock while meeting the use levels.
Permittees/riders should do their own compliance monitoring.
It is anticipated that some "wrecks" will occur in the beginning. Encourage permittees/riders to report them, and to learn from them. Do not penalize permittees for trying new approaches, even if those approaches initially do not work.

RESULTS

The approach to livestock management presented here has been implemented since 1991 on three allotments in Montana's Ruby River drainage. The Forest Service and the permittees both feel that this has been a successful effort, and that conflicts over riparian areas on these allotments have essentially disappeared. Some significant findings from the first years of implementation are:

The parameter that caused livestock to be moved varied by site specific situation. Where a variety of E stream types and willow dominated riparian areas existed, streambank alteration was the limiting parameter. Where B3 stream types in forested settings existed, forage utilization was the limiting parameter.
On the Upper Ruby Allotment there are some existing cross-sections that are used for monitoring the effect of implementation. Two of the cross-sections were on a functioning-at-risk E stream type that was beginning to widen because of streambank alteration. After four years of implementation in which streambank alteration met the recommended levels, w/d ratios on these cross-sections were reduced from 3.7 to 3.2, and from 5 to 3.6. Twenty-five to thirty new willows have established naturally in this reach. On two other cross-sections that depicted functioning C stream types, the w/d ratios remained unchanged. On the Warm Springs Allotment, photographic monitoring has shown increases in vigor and density of existing riparian vegetation, and in many cases, the narrowing of stream channels.
Implementation of the allowable use levels has not led to any reduction in livestock numbers on any of the allotments.
Implementation of the allowable use levels provides for adaptive management of livestock. They provide an opportunity to be responsive to seasonal, and sometimes daily, fluctuations in weather conditions. Time in pastures is a product of effective riding, salting, water developments, and other components of livestock management. During the most severe drought year (1994), less than a week of grazing was lost from the permitted season. In most years livestock were allowed to remain on allotments well past the scheduled off date.
Implementation of the allowable use levels has led to an increase in the amount of livestock management that is necessary. Knowledge of the allotments by the permittees/riders in terms of where and how to move livestock has been invaluable.
Self-monitoring by the permittees/riders has been a success. It is a learning tool, and it gives them a sense of ownership in the process and the results.
As livestock management improves, the allowable use levels become easier to achieve. After a few years of moving livestock to attain the allowable use levels, that approach becomes, "the way things are done." Although use levels are still monitored, they are often not approached as much as they were during the early years of implementation.

SUMMARY

There will continue to be problems in attaining or maintaining riparian function on livestock allotments until a management approach is employed that meets the specific needs of riparian areas. Livestock management needs to respond to the necessity of maintaining the dimension, pattern, and profile of stream channels, so that water distribution throughout the riparian area can maintain riparian values and beneficial uses. The allowable use levels presented here are a conceptually sound and effective way to blend riparian management into an existing upland grazing system. The approach is extremely flexible in terms of matching a given parameter to the needs of a specific site, and the parameters employed cover the range of mechanisms that impact riparian vegetation and stream channels. There is ample opportunity for ID Teams, decision makers, and permittees to designate Sensitivity Levels and Desired Future Conditions. Recommended levels of use are based on sound concepts and/or established literature. They have been shown to be effective in improving riparian vegetation and stream channels without causing a reduction in livestock numbers. However, they are presented here as a starting point, and should be verified through monitoring whenever employed. Combining the "art" of implementation with the "science" of the use level determination, can lead to effective management that both improves or maintains riparian function while allowing livestock grazing to continue.

LITERATURE CITED

Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff and W. Elmore. AFS Position Statement. Fisheries, Jan/Feb 1991, p. 7-11.

Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Bureau of Land Management. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. Montana State Office, May, 1997.

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region.

USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-263, Ogden, UT.

Clifton, C. 1989. Effects of vegetation and land use on channel morphology. In: Gresswell, R.E., B.A. Barton, and J.L. Kershner, eds. Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management. Printed by Bureau of Land Management, Billings, MT.

Dallas, Dan. 1996. Managing livestock in the Ruby River Watershed, unpublished report. Beaverhead NF, Dillon, MT.

Hall, F.C. and L. Bryant. 1995. Herbaceous Stubble height as a warning of impending cattle grazing damage to riparian areas. USDA, FS, Pacific Northwest Res. Sta., General Technical Report PNW-GTR-362. Portland, OR.

Hansen, P.L. 1993. Developing a successful riparian-wetland grazing management plan for the Upper Ruby Cattle and Horse Allotment in southwest Montana. In: Riparian Management: Common Threads and Shared Interests. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., General Technical Report RM-226, Fort Collins, CO.

Kaufman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. "Livestock Impacts on Riparian Plant Communities, and Streamside Management Implications, A Review." Journal of Range Management. 37(3): 430-437.

Keigley, R. and M. Frisina. 1997. Browse evaluation by analysis of growth form. USGS, Biological Resources Division, Bozeman, MT; Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena; and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, MT.

Kinch, G. 1989. Grazing management in riparian areas. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Reference 1737-4, Denver, CO.

Kinney, J.W. and W.P.Clary. 1994. A photographic utilization guide for key riparian graminoids. USDA, FS, Intermounatin Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-308.

Kleinfelder, D., S. Swanson, G. Noris, and W. Clary. 1992. Unconfined compressive strength of some streambank soils with herbaceous roots. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 56:1920-1925.

Kovalchik, B.L. and W. Elmore. 1992. "Effects of Cattle Grazing Systems on Willow Dominated Plant Associations in Central Oregon." Symposium - Ecology and Management of Riparian and Shrub Communities. GTR INT-289, USDA-FS. p. 111-119.

OEA Research. 1988. Middle Fork Salmon River; Upper Fork Salmon River: aquatic and riparian area inventory. OEA Research Consultants, Helena, MT.

Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, S. Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper, G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R. Sedell, and J.S. Truhy. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Sta., General Technical Report INT-221, Ogden, UT.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1989. "Characteristics of Riparian Plant Communities and Streambanks with Respect to Grazing in Northeastern Utah." In, Gresswell, et.al. Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management. Billings, Mt. BLM-MT-PT-89-001-4351.

Platts, W.S. 1990. "Managing Fisheries and Wildlife on Rangelands Grazed by Livestock." Unpublished Report, Nevada Dept. of Wildlife.

Platts, W.S. 1991. "Livestock Grazing," In: Meehan, W.R., ed. "Influence of Forest and Rangeland on Salmonid Fisheries and their Habitats. AFS Special Publication 19. pp. 389-423.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Co.

Skovlin, Jon M. 1984. Impacts of Grazing on Wetalnds and Riparian Habitats: A Review of our Knowledge. In: Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Boulder Co.

State of Montana. 1998. "1988 Waterbodies in Need of TMDL Development." Department of Environmental Quality.

Taylor, J.E. and J. Lacey. 1987. Monitoring Montana rangeland. Bulletin 369, Cooperative Extension Service, Montana State Univ., Bozeman.

USDI, BLM. 1996. Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. TR 1737-9.

Authors

Pete Bengeyfield, Hydrologist, Beaverhead/Deerlodge National Forest, 420 Barrett, Dillon, MT.

Dan Svoboda, Soil Scientist, Beaverhead/Deerlodge National Forest, 420 Barrett, Dillon, MT.