Sixth Grazing Lands Forum

In response to its chartered purpose of promoting cooperation for improvement of stewardship on the Nation's grazing lands, the Forum had the following objectives:

To discuss and summarize environmental impacts on grazing lands in the areas of: - Use of reclaimed land for grazing, and - Chemical use on grazing lands

in order to improve management, productivity, and natural resource uses.

To develop plans for changing resource management procedures, policies, or political constraints that have adverse environmental impacts associated with chemical use on grazing lands and the use of reclaimed land for grazing.

Agreements and Disagreements

GLF's sixth Forum reached agreement in a number of specific areas, including the following:

GLF should cooperate with other organizations in convincing the U.S. Office of Surface Mines to be more flexible when requiring operators to restore mined grazing land to the original contour once mineral extraction is complete. Instead, GLF urges an individualized, case-by- case approach to encourage the creation of landscapes and land uses such as new grazing land, ponds, and open areas for wildlife while protecting natural resources.

GLF should communicate to the public that the quantities of chemicals used on grazing lands are small. However, action to correct identified regional problems or individual instances of chemical misuse that exist on grazing lands should be encouraged and supported.

Other findings and activities decided at the Forum are summarized at the end of this report.

Two panels of experts were organized to present background information relative to the issues planned for Forum discussion. Their presentations are summarized here and complete papers are published in a proceedings volume entitled "Environmental Impacts on Grazing Lands," available from GLF.

Issue 1: USE OF RECLAIMED LAND FOR GRAZING

Work began on research to establish grasslands on spoil materials from surface mines in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Interest increased with passage of the Stripmining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in 1977.

In the Great Plains, these lands have a high salt and sodium content. Because of low precipitation, alkalinity is more of a limiting factor than acidity or acid leaching. Positive reclamation results can be achieved if as little as 2 inches of topsoil are replaced. If toxicity is a problem, a deeper layer of topsoil may be required. The law requires that as much as 5 feet of soil must be removed and returned after mineral extraction to recover the site. As much as half of the reclaimed mine lands were used for grazing prior to mining and should be reclaimed to grazing. Most mines are on privately-owned land that is returned to the owner for use after reclamation.

There shall exist a diverse mix of different species, including warm and cool season grasses, on reclaimed lands similar to that on native grazing lands.

The first and second guidelines relate to the environmental or conservation protection offered by the reclamation, while the third and fourth guidelines relate to economic viability. The reference area is a part of the site set aside as a control for vegetative cover and species composition. Soil survey productivity data or Statistical Reporting Service production data may serve as alternative approved production standards, if included in the reclamation plan.

Comparative plot studies showed that lower live cover amounts on reclaimed seedings, compared with native cover, were offset by higher litter cover, yielding nearly equal total cover amounts at all levels of grazing intensity. They also found higher dry matter productivity on reclaimed sites than native cover or unmined sites, although with different species composition. Livestock performance, measured in average daily weight gain, was comparable on reclaimed and native sites in North Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado.

Heavy metals were hypothesized to present problems for reclaimed seedings, particularly molybdenosis or copper deficiency. If levels of molybdenum (mo) increase relative to copper (cu), toxicity may be a problem, while decreased copper may cause a deficiency. Studies found no difference in the cu:mo ratio in blood serum levels from cattle grazed on reclaimed versus native sites. A review of the literature indicates that toxicity may be less of a problem than copper deficiency.

Species diversity is usually the hardest SMCRA guideline to meet because warm season grasses are hard to establish. State requirements may supplement SMCRA guidelines in this area, making attainment even more difficult. Suggested ways to improve species diversity in the Northern Plains include:

This last method may jeopardize the 10-year bonded liability period required under SMCRA. Mining companies must be bonded to insure reclamation performance for 10 years following cover establishment in areas with less than 26 inches of rainfall (5 years in areas with more than 26 inches), during which additional measures to improve establishment are not allowed. This liability provision may also limit use of soil amendments, such as gypsum, to alleviate soil alkalinity after establishment.

Some researchers stress desirability of intercommunity and landscape diversity across wider areas, in addition to intracommunity diversity across the entire reclamation site. That is, concentrations of different species with little diversity across the site may also be important. There may be a tradeoff between sustainability or persistence over time at each point on the site and landscape diversity.

Late-May through late-September grazing on native and reclaimed sites showed no difference in grazing productivity, indicating that high diversity, particularly seasonal diversity, may not be needed for successful grazing use.

Conclusions are that post-reclamation grazing land equals pre-reclamation production, protective ground cover can be attained, and species diversity is possible with additional inputs. More research is needed on the issue of achieving species diversity.

Grazing Reclaimed Lands in the Appalachian Region

The figures in table 1 give some indication of the extent of surface mine reclamation in the East. These figures illustrate differences in the State's willingness to approve reclamation projects and release them from the 5-year bond liability.

In the East, the emphasis on reclamation research has been on protective cover to prevent soil erosion, rather than potential for reuse. Much of the land in Southwestern Virginia and West Virginia is owned by mining and timber companies that have little interest in grazing use. By comparison, many mineral sites in Kentucky are privately owned. In these States, much of the land is reclaimed for hay or pasture use, although this may simply be grass cover.

Table 1--Reclaimed surface mine area in the Appalachian Region.

While thousands of reseach citations can be found on surface mine reclamation, fewer are found on establishing grass cover, even fewer are found on reuse for livestock production, and none are found that combine grazing use for livestock production and environmental protection. Much attention on mine reclamation focuses on offsite environmental protection, particularly acid mine drainage.

Many pre-SMCRA sites have a characteristic high wall and bench configuration because they are not reclaimed to approximate original contour. There is generally no restoration of fine soil material, even though the chemical composition of the rock fill is generally benign. Erosion on reclamation sites is generally due to poor cover establishment, loose replacement of fine soil materials, and high rainfall. High erosion on reclaimed sites may not be significantly worse than poorly-managed natural sites.

A progression of cool-season grass species has been planted on reclaimed sites since SMCRA was passed in 1977. Birdsfoot trefoil and crown vetch were popular in early reclamations, but tall fescue seems to be the species of choice now. However, there may be the beginning of a trend away from tall fescue seedings to increase plant diversity in reclamation projects. Eastern reclamation projects may require a climax vegetation of trees versus the grasses found in the West.

Despite the fact that SMCRA requires restoration to original contour, economic viability and resource protection, particularly from erosion, may be enhanced by wall and bench configurations. Studies of the economic impact of wall and bench reclamation have been done by Daniels in Virginia.

Reclamation produces an inherently immature soil situation where rocky materials are mixed into surface layers and break down at different rates. Infiltration may be increased by the random orientation of rocky material in the subsurface layers. The natural layering of soil materials in the topsoil is destroyed, even though the material is returned to the site. Soil characteristics, such as bulk density, infiltration, and texture, are changed and there is immature development of soil horizons.

The reclamation plan should examine the quality of the overburden and the subsoil components. In some cases, overburden materials may be more productive as soils than the subsoil material.

Reclaimed soils may have more rapid percolation than natural soils because of the random orientation of rock fragments, or they may be slower because of compaction from heavy machinery. Spatial variation in important soil characteristics will be greater on reclaimed soils, which may cause management problems in grass cover establishment. In general, the same management and conservation practices are needed for reclaimed sites as for natural sites. No grazing is allowed for the first two years of the 5-year liability period.

Abandoned mine reclamation is hampered by requiring assumption of total liability in cases of re-mining. Although the Rural Abandoned Mine Program is spending some money and states are doing some reclamation work, progress on abandoned mines is slow.

Surface mine reclamation in the East addresses direct environmental damages, such as soil erosion, but largely ignores indirect damage to biological diversity. Where narrow mined areas occur around generally forested hilltops, diversity is increased by establishing grasslands and creating edge effects for wildlife habitat.

Total U.S. pesticide use has increased exponentially, climbing xx percent from the 1930's. Pesticide use increased from yy million pounds of active ingredients to over zz billion pounds in 1990. Insecticide accounted for much of the increase from the 1930's to the late 1960's, while increased herbicide use was responsible for the steep increases that have occurred since 1970. Agricultural pesticides accounted for about xx percent of the zzz billion pounds of active ingredients used in the U.S. in 19XX: about yyy billion pounds.

Public and scientific attitudes towards pesticides have also changed dramatically over this period. The early organochlorine pesticides, such as DDT, were once viewed as providing unmitigated benefits. Only later did problems of persistence and bioaccumulation appear that alerted the public to the negative aspects of pesticide use and misuse.

One problem associated with increasing pesticide use is development of resistance in target insect and weed pest species. Exponential growth in the number of insect and weed species resistant to commonly used pesticides has accompanied exponential growth in insecticide and herbicide use. More than xxx insect pest species and yy weed species are now resistant, despite increasingly sophisticated mixes and rotations of materials.

Despite the rapid increase in pesticide use, there is evidence that U.S. crop losses, expressed as a percentage of the total crop, have not decreased. Average losses over the entire period from 19XX to the present have remained in the range of 10-13 percent for insect pests and 12-14 percent for weeds. While the crop mix, cultural practices, weather, and economic conditions have not remained constant over this period and there are many caveats regarding these data, they do bring into question the size of benefits from pesticides.

It is important to consider the full "cradle-to-grave" consequences of pesticide use, not just the direct consequences of applying these materials. Other points of environmental and health exposure include oil drilling and transport, all phases of manufacturing, transportation, storage, use, and disposal of pesticides.

Directly related to pesticide use on grazing lands is the limited success achieved in noxious weed control with chemicals. Are biological controls and grazing practices, or some combination of methods, more effective and safer than complete reliance on chemical controls? We need to substitute longer-term approaches and solutions for the high-tech, quick fix solutions now being pursued. However, there is little short-term political support for such a change. Damages from pesticide misuse include the following:

Criteria for least toxic pesticides require that they have no unreasonable adverse effects during manufacture, small quantities are needed to be effective, they have minimal impact delivery systems, all testing is completed, they have minimal overall toxicity (including low acute toxicity and no negative carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, reproductive, immunotoxic, and delayed or chronic neurotoxic effects), and that they have few environmental or ecological effects.

Progress in pesticide regulation is slow, despite legislation in place. Some 671 pesticides out of 800 are subject to re- registration requirements legislated in 1972, but only 7 have been successfully re-registered. Materials that are not registered for use on food crops have lower health and safety requirements, so they may not be proposed for use on food crops.

An example that is used widely on grazing lands is 2-4-D (toradon or picloram). It contaminates groundwater in 18 States and has well-recognized neuropathogenic and reproductive effects. It may be a carcinogen, particularly associated with greater incidence of non-Hodges lymphoma in farm operators with long exposure to the material. Breakdown components of the material can be more toxic than the active ingredient itself.

Strategies to reduce pesticide misuse, ranging from easiest to hardest, include decreasing the volume applied, reducing the toxicity of the materials applied (based on an overall measure that considers acute, chronic, species-specific, and breakdown component toxicity), altering consumers expenditures and marketing practices, and changing management practices. Changes needed include emphasis on preventing pest outbreaks rather than dealing with infestations when they occur, and avoiding "silver bullet" solutions.

Grazing Lands for Water Quality

The British have an almost inbred predilection for grass and a presumption that grasslands are "good" that is difficult for Americans to grasp. English water engineers have long recognized that grasslands can be an important element in the water industry, both in watershed protection and in "finishing" wastewater as a final filtering process. The ideal watershed catchment, from an English perspective, is one that contains no people, is totally in grass cover, and is grazed by sheep. [may want to substitute the quote used in the presentation]

This presentation had three purposes:

Existing U.S. water quality legislation for nonpoint source pollution, beginning with Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments in 1972, was primarily remedial and remains so to this day. It was not focused on preventing pollution from nonpoint sources at the outset, but at correcting problem conditions arising from nonpoint sources, particularly where they limited success from controlling point sources. The focus was ecological, stressing nutrient loadings contributing to eutrophication of lakes, for example, rather than motivated by public health considerations. Nonpoint sources, particularly those dealing with agriculture, were primarily educational and depended on voluntary compliance, sometimes involving cost-sharing.

This policy, as typified by the Model Implementation Program applied to agricultural runoff from animal waste in an upland watershed for New York City's drinking water supply system, has to be considered a failure even though the required practices were largely installed at a public cost of over $6 million. This is so because the technology-based program, focused on adoption of best management practices (BMPs) asked what practices could be applied, not how effective they would be in alleviating the problem and preventing pollution.

The emerging regulatory environment is being driven not by ecological considerations, but by requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In this context, regulation will be applied to protect public health and will try to prevent nonpoint source pollution from occurring, rather than remedy perceived failures of agricultural practices that create pollution.

To see this, consider that New York City has a 2,000 square mile water catchment serving their public water supply system, possibly the largest in the world. They will be pursuing every means to protect the quality of the water entering that system, rather than treating dirty water when it reaches the City. Their efforts naturally focus on preventing pollution. A logical step, now being given great consideration, is to turn to pasture-based agriculture versus field crop agriculture to reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff.

A principal problem is manure disposal from confined feeding dairy operations that can be partly solved by pasturing. Pasturing reduces soil erosion and, if legumes are used, reduces nitrogen input. Pasture has an increased capacity to take up nutrients and degrade or take up pesticides.

Some possible flaws in this picture are that rotational pasture systems, in which pasture is part of a multi-year rotation with field crops, can release large quantities of nutrients when the pasture is plowed under. Pastures that will be effective in controlling runoff cannot be just poorly maintained "parking lots" for cows. There are also problems with pathogenic parasitic protozoa, such as giardia and cryptospredin (sp?). These are derived from long-lived spores that resist conventional water treatments, such as chlorination, and cause human health problems. Cattle are major carriers of these parasites, which poses problems for use of grazing land in watershed catchments unless grazing practices are adopted to restrict cattle from riparian zones. In fact, New York City is considering requiring treatment of animal manure on dairies to meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards.

Another aspect of meeting Safe Drinking Water standards is that funding for nonpoint source practices becomes available. New York City estimates the cost of filtration to eliminate pathogens at $6 billion, with an additional $200 million in annual operating costs. If the cost of managing livestock grazing on the 500 farms in New York City's watershed catchment promise to be lower than the treatment costs, the City will have every incentive to work with farmers to achieve the necessary management level. If it was necessary, the City could afford to purchase each of the remaining farms and manage their grasslands itself.

Forum discussion was organized into two groups to consider the issues of chemical use on grazing lands and use of reclaimed land for grazing. Each group was charged with producing a situation statement that clarified issues, characterized the severity, magnitude, affected area, or other measures of importance, and stated any recommendations for overcoming, moderating, or resolving the issue.

Summaries of both working groups' findings are presented below.

GROUP 1: Use of Reclaimed Land for Grazing

ISSUES:

A number of issues were identified and discussed in the issue working group.

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue working group recommended that all GLF organizations support greater flexibility in applying regulations for reclaiming lands to enhance resource protection and utilization.

ACTION:

A task force should be appointed to contact other organizations, such as the American Society for Surface Mining, and develop a position statement requesting that the Office of Surface Mines give regulatory authorities greater flexibility for resource protection and enhancement in reclamation plans. An individualized, case-by-case approach should be used to encourage creation of new landscapes and land uses, including grazing lands, ponds, and open areas for wildlife.

ISSUES:

A number of issues were identified and discussed in the issue working group.

Each of these issue areas was extensively discussed by the group.

EXTENT:

Chemical sources on grazing lands consist of fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, animal health products, and animal wastes (manure and urine). Chemical use on grazing lands includes applications to increase fertility, and control brush and weeds, problem insects, predators, and livestock parasites.

Fertilizer is most frequently applied on pasturelands. It is rarely applied to rangelands or other wildlands. On pastureland, its most frequent use is in the South and Southeast on bermuda grass and tall fescue. Nitrogen is used most extensively. On intensively-managed operations, when higher rates of nitrogen are used, phosphorus and potassium are also used. In the Northeast, there is little use of nitrogen while more extensive use is made of lime, phosphorus, and potassium. Phosphorus and potassium with limited nitrogen are used on irrigated pastures in the West.

While chemical use of all types on grazing lands is of low intensity, chemicals, such as toradon or picloram used to control brush, are found in runoff waters from grazing lands in some areas. In certain recharge areas, these chemicals may be entering groundwater resources.

PUBLIC CONCERNS:

Public concern about these chemicals include how they affect water quality, food chains, and species diversity. Activities to which attention should be directed include grazing management, insect control, herbicide use on brush, noxious weeds and other weed problems, and animal waste management. The group concluded that management should be designed to sustain grazing lands and related resources.

OPERATOR CONCERNS:

Operator concerns discussed by the group included options for pest management, options for nutrient management, producer costs and returns, attitudes toward personal and public environmental safety and health, and integration of these and other concerns into their operations through a holistic, systems approach.

EDUCATION, RESEARCH, AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:

Information concerns discussed included erosion of support for extension and research funding and fragmentation of effort resulting from crisis management versus long-term planning. A credibility gap is developing between the public and science (especially cloaking policy in a scientific aura), government, spokespersons for the agricultural sector, the press, and special interest groups.

RECOMMENDATION:

The group concluded that there is a need to convince the public that:

A strategy for accomplishing this should be developed by a task group of the Forum.

GLF ACTION ITEMS

The following actions were discussed in plenary session and agreed to:

Reclaimed Land--GLF should cooperate with other organizations in convincing the U.S. Office of Surface Mines to be more flexible when requiring operators to restore mined grazing land to the original contour once mineral extraction is complete. A task force consisting of Dennis Child (chair), Dan Merkel, and Peter Jackson will seek other organizations, such as the American Society for Surface Mining, to develop a statement and deliver it to the Office of Surface Mines.

Chemical Use--GLF should communicate to the public that the quantities of chemicals used on grazing lands are small. However, action to correct identified regional problems or individual instances of chemical misuse that exist on grazing lands should be encouraged and supported. These findings will be incorporated in the statement being prepared for distribution to the public discussed below.

Messages to the Public--Following up on an action recommended by the Fifth Forum, Greg Hendricks solicited messages to be conveyed to the public, sought GLF's priorities, and discussed alternative formats. The committee chaired by Hendricks was authorized to develop specific wording of the messages that GLF members wish to communicate to the general public about the social, economic, and environmental importance of U.S. pasture and range lands, including areas of chemical and nutrient use. Design of a brochure, including layout, photography, and text, will follow message development.

Future Forum Topics--In order to ascertain what activities would increase Forum participation by a broader range of interests, groups, and individuals, incoming President Deen Boe will initiate a canvass of likely producer, environmental, conservation, and public interest groups soliciting topics that would elicit their participation. Results will be discussed by the Executive Committee and presented at the Seventh Forum.

Seventh Grazing Lands Forum--Harlan DeGarmo expressed interest in exploring the topic of regulations affecting the use of grazing lands. What is the extent of regulation restricting landowners' use of grazing lands? What are the purposes of existing regulation? Are there more effective ways to achieve the purposes of regulation? What are the pros and cons of additional regulation? Since this topic coincided with the topic for the seventh Forum previously suggested at the fourth Forum's strategic planning meeting, GLF decided to adopt this as the new topic. The tentative title is "Public Policy and the Legislative Process," planned for discussion at GLF VII in Washington, DC in mid-November, 1992. Organizations or individuals interested in participating should contact one of the Forum's officers (see below).

Last updated November 29, 1995.