precisely what happens when watersheds are used at a damaging intensity. When alterna- 

 tive project sites are too few or lacking, such use not only fouls the existing project, 

 it also makes the future installation of as yet unplanned projects more expensive and 

 more risky. 



Still another illusion, therefore, exists concerning analyses related to stabiliza- 

 tion and rehabilitation. The value of keeping sediment out of a reservoir is usually 

 weighed against the cost of physically removing it once deposited, or against the cost 

 of creating storage. However, this ignores the real cost of site deterioration on the 

 land from which the sediment came. It is obviously false to assuirie that accelerated 

 erosion caused by misuse of land does not have a cost to society. The productivity of 

 rangeland deteriorates, erosion increases, reservoirs and streams wash out or clog up, 

 and the results are expensive to repair, if indeed they can be repaired within a 

 reasonable time. 



In Joes Valley, the grazing intensity on North Dragon was about 1,200 to 1,500 

 AUM's (animal-unit-months) before the dam was built, and continued for several years. 

 The extent to which such use is damaging is reflected, though not precisely determined, 

 by two other figures. First, it is estimated that the potential safe grazing intensity 

 is about 550 AUM's. Second, the natural rate of sediment production on North Dragon is 

 estimated to be about 22 acre-feet per year; however, past grazing practices have 

 resulted in delivery of some 32 acre-feet of sediment per year. The natural, or geolog- 

 ic rate, can be achieved when reduced grazing intensity, better range management, and 

 rehabilitation are effected. 



It is doubtful that income from grazing at Joes Valley in excess of 550 AUM's 

 would ever equal the cost of removing sediment at some future time to keep the reservoir 

 operating at designed capability. Grazing reductions and better range management alone 

 (without rehabilitation treatments) would reduce sedimentation by about 5 acre-feet per 

 year. The estimated cost of removing sediment from the reservoir would be between 

 $1,326 and $3,978 per acre-foot; consequently, an additional 500 AUM's of grazing, 

 resulting in 5 acre-feet of sedimentation, would need to be worth approximately $6,630 

 to 519,890 to compensate for only the cost of handling the sediment created--a value 

 most difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. In simpler arithmetic, this amounts to 

 between $13 and $40 per cow month. This assigns no cost to the loss of soil that, 

 because of the deposition of soil on lands between erosion location and the reservoir, 

 exceeds 5 acre-feet per year. 



The public pressure for grazing is an important consideration in Joes Valley, as 

 in other areas. In fact, water project benefits to ranchers downstream were predicated 

 partially on the use of the watershed for summer grazing. There is a question as to 

 whether even nondamaging grazing is economical, or in the best interests of society; 

 the answer depends on the investment of all the resources required to provide a given 

 amount of grazing. 



The cost of fencing required for the management of a rest-rotation program on 

 North Dragon is estimated at $25,000. It is assumed that the 550 AUM's planned for the 

 area is a nondamaging level for the range and watershed resource. The annual receipts 

 from grazing fees would be less than $550, hardly enough to cover the administrative 

 cost of providing the grazing. The $25,000 would be largely subsidy to ranchers. On 

 areas where more than dollar resources are expended (i.e., soil loss from grazing) the 

 real cost of grazing is even more. The conclusion is obvious: utilizing forage on 

 critical watersheds, even when it can be done safely, often is a costly operation 

 because of the high cost of the developments needed to assure proper use and control. 



Obviously, balancing dollar costs of providing grazing with grazing receipts is 

 not the only consideration for public land management decisions relative to grazing. 

 There may, or may not, be other benefits, tangible or intangible, to consider. However, 



5 



