Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 156, Issue 1–4, pp 343–360 | Cite as

Multi-scale landscape factors influencing stream water quality in the state of Oregon

  • Maliha S. Nash
  • Daniel T. Heggem
  • Donald Ebert
  • Timothy G. Wade
  • Robert K. Hall


Enterococci bacteria are used to indicate the presence of human and/or animal fecal materials in surface water. In addition to human influences on the quality of surface water, a cattle grazing is a widespread and persistent ecological stressor in the Western United States. Cattle may affect surface water quality directly by depositing nutrients and bacteria, and indirectly by damaging stream banks or removing vegetation cover, which may lead to increased sediment loads. This study used the State of Oregon surface water data to determine the likelihood of animal pathogen presence using enterococci and analyzed the spatial distribution and relationship of biotic (enterococci) and abiotic (nitrogen and phosphorous) surface water constituents to landscape metrics and others (e.g. human use, percent riparian cover, natural covers, grazing, etc.). We used a grazing potential index (GPI) based on proximity to water, land ownership and forage availability. Mean and variability of GPI, forage availability, stream density and length, and landscape metrics were related to enterococci and many forms of nitrogen and phosphorous in standard and logistic regression models. The GPI did not have a significant role in the models, but forage related variables had significant contribution. Urban land use within stream reach was the main driving factor when exceeding the threshold (≥35 cfu/100 ml), agriculture was the driving force in elevating enterococci in sites where enterococci concentration was <35 cfu/100 ml. Landscape metrics related to amount of agriculture, wetlands and urban all contributed to increasing nutrients in surface water but at different scales. The probability of having sites with concentrations of enterococci above the threshold was much lower in areas of natural land cover and much higher in areas with higher urban land use within 60 m of stream. A 1% increase in natural land cover was associated with a 12% decrease in the predicted odds of having a site exceeding the threshold. Opposite to natural land cover, a one unit change in each of manmade barren and urban land use led to an increase of the likelihood of exceeding the threshold by 73%, and 11%, respectively. Change in urban land use had a higher influence on the likelihood of a site exceeding the threshold than that of natural land cover.


Nutrients Nitrogen Phosphorus Enterococci Grazing potential index GPI Logistic regression Oregon 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrew, M. H., & Lange, R. T. (1986). Development of a new biosphere in arid chenopod shrubland grazed by sheep 1. Changes to the soil surface. Australian Journal of Ecology, 11, 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APHA (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environmental Federation.Google Scholar
  3. Belsky, A. J., Matzke, A., & Uselman, S. (1999). Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54(1), 419–431.Google Scholar
  4. Belsky, A. J., Matzke, A., & Uselman, S. (2002). What the river once was: Livestock destruction of western waters and wetlands. In G. Wuerthner, & M. Matteson (Eds.), Welfare ranching: The subsidized destruction of the American West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  5. Betteridge, K., Andrews, W. G. K., & Sedcole, J. R. (1986). Intake and excretion of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus by grazing steers. Journal of Agricultural Science, 106, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, C. W. (1966). Factors affecting utilization of mountain slopes by cattle. Journal of Range Management, 19, 200–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DelCurto, T., Porath, M., Parsons, C. T., & Morrison, J. A. (2005). Management strategies for sustainable beef cattle grazing on forested rangeland in the Pacific Northwest. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 58(2), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. deSoyza, A. G., Whitford, W. G., & Herrick, J. E. (1997). Sensitivity testing of indicators of ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health, 3, 44–53.Google Scholar
  9. Ebert, D. W., & Wade, T. G. (2004). Analytical tools interface for landscape assessments (ATtiLA): User manual. EPA/600/R-04/083. Washington, DC, USA: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  10. Fleischner, T. L. (1994). Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology, 8, 629–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fusco, M., Holechek, J., Tembo, A., Daniel, A., & Cardenas, M. (1995). Grazing influence on watering point vegetation in the Chihuahuan desert. Journal of Range Management, 48, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillen, R. L., Krueger, W. C., & Miller, R. F. (1984). Cattle distribution on mountain rangeland in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management, 37, 549–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graetz, R. D., & Ludwig, J. K. (1978). A method for the analysis of biosphere data applicable to range assessment. Australian Rangeland Journal, 2, 126–136.Google Scholar
  14. Hagedorn, C., Robinson, S. L., Flitz, J. R., Grubbs, S. M., Angier, T. A., & Reneeau, R. B. (1999). Using antibiotic resistance pattern in the fecal streptococci to determine sources of fecal pollution in a rural Virginia Watershed. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 65, 5522–5531.Google Scholar
  15. Jarvie, H. P., Neal, C., Jürgens, M. D., Sutton, E. J., Neal, M., Wickham, H. D., et al. (2006). Within-river nutrient processing in Chalk streams: The Pang and Lambourn, UK. Journal of Hydrology, 330(1–2), 101–125, 30 October 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, K. B., Heggem, D. T., Wade, T. G., Neale, A. C., Nash, M. S., Mehaffey, M. H., et al. (2000). Assessing landscape condition relative to water resources in the Western United States: Strategic approach. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 64, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kauffman, J. B., & Krueger, W. C. (1984). Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: A review. Journal of Range Management, 37, 430–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kunishi, H. M., Taylor, A. W., Heald, W. R., Gburek, W. J., & Weaver, R. N. (1972). Phosphate movement from an agricultural watershed during two rainfall periods. Journal of Agricultural Food and Chemistry, 20, 900–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kurz, R. C. (1998). A comparison of rapid sand filtration, alum treatment, and wet detention for the removal of bacteria, viruses, and protozoan surrogate from storm water. Technical report. Southwest Florida Water Management District.Google Scholar
  20. Lange, R. T. (1969). The piosphere: Sheep track and dung patterns. Journal of Range Management, 48, 396– 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loucougaray, G., Bonis, A., & Bouzillé, J. B. (2004). Effects of grazing by horses and/or cattle on the diversity of coastal grasslands in western France. Biological Conservation, 116(1), 59–71, March.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacLusky, D. S. (1960). Some estimates of the areas of pasture fouled by excreta of dairy cows. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 15, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marsh, R., & Campling, R. C. (1970). Fouling of pastures by dung. Herbage Abstracts, 40(2), 123–130.Google Scholar
  24. Minshall, N., Starr, N. M., & Witzel, S. A. (1969). Plant nutrients in base flow of streams in southwestern Wisconsin. Water Resources Research, 5, 706–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell, C., Brodie, J., & White, I. (2004). Sediments, nutrients and pesticide residues in event flow conditions in streams of the Mackay Whitsunday Region, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 51(1–4), 23–36.Google Scholar
  26. Mueggler, W. F. (1965). Cattle distribution on steep slopes. Journal of Range Management, 18, 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nash, M. S., Jackson, E., & Whitford, W. G. (2003). Soil microtopography on grazing gradients in Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands. Journal of Arid Environment, 55, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nash, M. S., Whitford, W. G., deSoyza, A., & Van Zee, J. (1999). Livestock activity and Chihuahuan desert annual plant communities: Boundary analysis of disturbance gradients. Ecological Applications, 9, 814–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OCS (2008). Oregon climate service: Climate data. retrieved January 9, 2008 from
  30. ODEQ (2007). Oregon department of environment and quality: Oregon water quality Index for the Umatilla Basin, water years 1986–1995, retrieved August 30, 2007 from
  31. Oenema, O., van Liere, L., & Schoumans, O. (2005). Effects of lowering nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses in agriculture on the quality of groundwater and surface water in the Netherlands. Journal of Hydrology, 304(1–4), 289–301, 10 March.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olson, R. A., Army, T. J., Hanway, J. J., & Klimer, V. J. (1971). Fertilizer technology & use, 2nd edn. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
  33. Pinchak, W. E., Smith, M. A., Hart, R. H., & Waggoner, J. W. Jr. (1991). Beef cattle distribution patterns on foothill range. Journal of Range Management, 44, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roath, L. R., & Krueger, W. C. (1982). Cattle grazing and behavior on a forested range. Journal of Range Management, 35, 332–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Snyder, D. T., & Morace, J. L. (1997). Nitrogen and phosphorous loading from drained wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4097. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, A. W., Edwards, W. M., & Simposon, E. C. (1971). Nutrients in streams draining woodland and farmland near Coshocton, Ohio. Water Resources Research, 7, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. USEPA (2000). Beaches environmental assessment and coastal health act of 2000 (p. 9). Public Law 106–284—Oct. 10, 2000.Google Scholar
  38. US Geological Survey (2008a). National hydrography dataset home page. URL:
  39. US Geological Survey (2008b). USGS mapping information: Geographic names information system (GNIS). URL:
  40. US Geological Survey (2008c). Federal lands of the United States. URL:
  41. VanWagoner, H. C., Bailey, D. W., Kress, D. D., Anderson, D. C., & Davis, K. C. (2006). Differences among beef sire breeds and relationships between terrain use and performance when daughters graze foothill rangelands as cows. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 97 (2–4), 105–121, May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vogelmann, J. E., Howard, S. M., Yang, L., Larson, C. R., Wylie, B. K., & Van Driel, N. (2001). Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States from landsat thematic mapper data and ancillary data sources. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 67, 650–662.Google Scholar
  43. Wade, T. G., Schultz, B. W., & Wickham, J. D. (1998). Modeling the potential spatial distribution of beef cattle grazing using a geographic information system. Journal of Arid Environments, 38, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wickham, J. D., Nash, M. S., Wade, T. G., & Currey, L. (2006). Statewide empirical modeling of bacterial contamination of surface waters. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA), 42, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maliha S. Nash
    • 1
  • Daniel T. Heggem
    • 1
  • Donald Ebert
    • 1
  • Timothy G. Wade
    • 2
  • Robert K. Hall
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. EPALas VegasUSA
  2. 2.U.S. EPAResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.U.S. EPA Region 9San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations