Harold F. Heady is Professor of Range Management and James Bartolome is Lecturer in Range Management at the Department of Forestry and Conservation, University of California, Berkeley. Acknowledgments This study was principally funded by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. The objectives of the study were developed jointly by the Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, and the authors. The authors wish to express their appreciation to personnel of both the Vale, Oregon, District and others in the Bureau of Land Management and to the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Many persons in both organizations enthusiastically contributed to this study. This report will be used as a case study in the United Nations Environment Program on Desertification. This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife-- if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers. Mention of products by name does not constitute and endorsement by the U.S. Department of the Interior or the U.S. Department of Agriculture. THE VALE RANGELAND REHABILITATION PROGRAM: THE DESERT REPAIRED IN SOUTHEASTERN OREGON Reference Abstract Heady, Harold F., and James Bartolome. 1977. The Vale rangeland rehabilitation program: The desert repaired in southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Sen. Resour. Bull. PNW-70, 139 p., illus. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Discusses the initiation, execution, and outcome of an 11-year program of range rehabilitation on public domain lands in southeastern Oregon. Initiated primarily to benefit the livestock industry, the investment of $10 million in range improvements also profoundly affected other multiple uses. The analysis of this large and successful program should serve as a useful guide for monitoring other range programs. KEYWORDS: Range management, range development, rehabilitation, revegetation, environment, economics (rangeland). RESEARCH SUMMARY Resource Bulletin PNW-70 1977 This report evaluates the large-scale rangeland rehabilitation program in the Vale, Oregon, District of the Bureau of Land Management. Sagebrush in combination with two grasses, the native perennial bluebunch wheatgrass and the introduced annual cheatgrass, dominates the vegetation on 90 percent of the 60- by 175-mile (100- by 180-km) area of the district. Cold winters and dry summers characterize the climate; annual precipitation averages from 7 to 12 inches (180 to 300 mm). About 24,000 persons live in the district but they are concentrated in a small region of irrigated croplands. More than half the 419 ranchers in the district had grazing permits on Federal lands in 1975. The history of livestock use and human settlement, beginning with the arrival of the fur trappers in the early 1800ts, is discussed. Major impacts came from travelers along the Oregon Trail, mining after 1863, and exploitive livestock grazing and homesteading from 1880 until 1934. Passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 initiated management of the public domain lands. The destruction of the vegetation and soil was related to the types of use. The nature of the climax vegetation, the pattern of destruction, and present range condition are inferred. Congress appropriated approximately $10 million over an 11-year period beginning in 1963 to halt erosion, stabilize the livestock industry, and benefit other land uses. The money was used to control brush on 506,000 acres (205,000 ha), to seed 267,000 acres (108,000 ha) to desirable forage species, and to build over 2,000 miles (3 330 km) of fence, 1,600 water developments, and 463 miles (741 km) of pipelines. Supervision and management of the land uses were large parts of the Vale Program. The major sagebrush control practices used either disk plows or aerially applied 2,4-D. Absence of native forage species necessitated seeding of introduced species, primarily crested wheatgrass. Attempts at reseeding without site preparation usually failed. Burning as a land treatment was not seriously considered. Extensive sampling of treated areas revealed that most attempts at land rehabilitation succeeded. Treatments reduced brush, yet rarely were all brush plants killed. Reinvasion of sagebrush occurred in almost all areas, especially shortly after treatment. Where perennial grass stands were dense, cheatgrass was usually absent, and big sagebrush only reinvaded to about 25 percent cover. Under proper management, stands with brush no more than a quarter of the total cover should last indefinitely. Livestock management formed an integral part of the Vale Program from its beginning. Currently, several hundred pastures are used in a myriad of different patterns of seasonal and-rotational use. Of 144 pastures examined, 15 percent were grazed at the same time every year; 33 percent were rotated during the growing season and every year after seed had ripened. Systems emphasized deferment until seed ripening rather than no grazing for a whole year. The original plan to use crested wheatgrass primarily for the spring turnout pastures gradually changed during the course of the Vale Program. Crested wheatgrass seedings are now managed in the same patterns as the native bluebunch wheatgrass range. The Vale Program has increased the district's estimated grazing capacity from 285,000 animal unit months (AUM's) in 1962 to 438,000 AUM's in 1975. As only 8 percent of the total district was treated with brush control and seeding, most of the increase in grazing capacity resulted from improvement of native range. Use values other than for livestock increased because of the project. The nearly 2,500 wild horses are rapidly increasing. Pronghorn antelope and bighorn sheep have increased, if not because of improved range conditions, at least along with the rehabilitation. Other wildlife species exhibited varied responses in relation to their particular habitat requirements, but none seems to have been damaged permanently by the land treatment. Water developments for livestock benefited waterfowl, and new fisheries were established. Range restoration, stimulated by the need for livestock production and made necessary by past abuses in livestock management, favorably served other range users as well. Except for soil damage from off-road vehicles, accelerated erosion has been essentially eliminated. An economic analysis of the overall program reveals that at the current $1.51 fee for an AUM costs exceed benefits by about $5 million. At the $3 market value of an AUM in the region, costs exceed benefits to livestock by only $500,000. Many continuing costs are associated with upkeep of the physical improvements, especially water developments. Users, such as hunters, campers, rockhounds, and fishermen, have benefited from the project to an amount which probably exceeds the difference between livestock income and costs. We believe the nonmarket values of the Vale Program to society, including restoration of abused and exploited natural resources, exceed even the $5 million not covered by livestock grazing at the $1.51 fee per AUM. Contents Page INTRODUCTION ............................... 1 THEVALEDISTRICT ............................ 2 LocationandExtent .......................... 2 Physiography .............................. 2 Climate ................................ 2 . Soils ................................. 8 Vegetation ............................... 8 DEMOGRAPHY AND ECONOMIC PROFILE OF MALHEUR COUNTY, OREGON ........ 20 Population ............................... 20 Economy ................................ 20 HISTORY OF LAND USE AND ITS EFFECTS ................... 22 Prior to 1934 ............................. 22 1934 to 1962 .............................. 24 Vegetation before Grazing by Domestic Animals ............. 26 Destruction of Cover .......................... 28 Pattern of Range Deterioration ..................... 28 Wild Animals 1776-1962 ......................... 30 Range Rehabilitation Prior to 1962 ................... 32 THE VALE REHABILITATION PROGRAM ..................... 36 Theoriginal Proposal ......................... 36 Passage Through Congress ........................ 37 Budget ................................. 37 Land Treatment Projects ........................ 37 THE RANGELAND REHABILITATION OPERATION .................. 43 District Planning ........................... 43 Siteselection ............................. 44 Brush Control ............................. 46 Seeding ................................ 49 Fire .................................. 52 Water Developments, Fences, and Roads ................. 55 Errors and Lack of Compliance with Contracts .............. 59 Continued Upkeep After the Vale Program Ended ............. 61 GRAZING MANAGEMENT ............................ 64 Permitted Grazing Load ......................... 64 Season of Grazing Use ......................... 67 Grazingsystems ............................ 67 Control of Animal Distribution and Management .............. 73 Monitoring of Grazing .........................