a rangeland assessment method: comparing two grazing management systems by gregg simonds and eric...
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
A Rangeland Assessment Method: Comparing Two Grazing Management Systems
Open Range Consulting (ORC) Gregg Simonds & Eric Sant
October, 2013
University of Idaho, Karen Launchbaugh and Eva Strand, with input from the SRM I&E committee.
Food and Fiber
Water Security
Carbon Cycle
Grazing is Ubiquitous
Cost Effective and Statistically Valid Monitoring
Historical Rangeland Assessment Spatially Limited
Historical Landscape Assessment
Historical Rangeland Assessment Spatially Limited
1964
1965
1966
Lee Sharp, 1990
Historical Rangeland Assessment Temporally Limited
ORC’s Rangeland Assessment
Historical Landscape Assessment
ORC’s Rangeland Assessment
Historical Landscape Assessment
ORC’s Rangeland Assessment
Historical Landscape Assessment
ORC’s Rangeland Assessment
Historical Landscape Assessment
ORC’s Rangeland Assessment
Historical Landscape Assessment
ORC’s Rangeland Assessment
Rancher Cowboy
Resource Specialist
Homer
ORC’s Rangeland Assessment
• Upland Assessment
• Riparian Assessment
• Three Creeks vs. DLL Comparison
• Bare Ground • Herbaceous • Litter • Shrubs
Focus on Functional Cover Types ORC’s Rangeland Assessment
Upland Assessment
On-The-Ground
High Resolution Photos
6x7 m 2mm 18 Million Pixels
• Bare Ground • Herbaceous • Litter • Shrubs
Upland Assessment
On-The-Ground
High Resolution Photos
6x7 m 2mm 18 Million Pixels
• Bare Ground • Herbaceous • Litter • Shrubs
Bareground 99%
Herbaceous 92%
Litter 95%
Shrub 90%
1m Accuracy R2
Bareground 0.92
Herbaceous 0.89
Litter 0.85
Shrub 0.91
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
4%
5%
5%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
PER
CEN
T TR
EATE
D
INC
HES
Crop Year Precipitation & Treatments
% Treated Crop Year Precip
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
10
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nt
Co
ver
Sagebrush Cover Continuous (1995 -2010)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
10
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nt
Co
ver
Bare Ground Continuous Cover (1995-2010)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
10
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nt
Co
ver
Herbaceous Continuous Cover (1993-2010)
Shrub Cover Change 1995-2010
• Warm Colors Decreasing Shrub • Cool Colors Increasing Shrub
Riparian Assessment Focus on Important Functional Ground Cover
• Upland Veg. • Bare Ground • Riparian Veg. • Water
Assess Within the Potential Riparian Area (PRA)
Riparian Assessment
Riparian Assessment
Water Table
Sediment PFC Fish
Populations
Water Temperature
Increasing Riparian Vegetation Within the PRA
Correlated to Positive Changes in the Following Riparian Indicators
Three Creeks vs. DLL Comparison
Elevation Climate Woodruff Weather Station • Temperature • Precipitation
DLL • Mostly Private • Adaptive, Time Controlled (1976) • 4.4 Acres/AUM Three Creeks • Mostly Public • Season Long Grazing • 6.75 Acres/AUM
Physically Similar
Different Management
Standards and Guidelines 1. Sufficient cover and litter to protect the soil surface from excessive water and wind erosion, promote infiltration, detain surface flow, and retard soil moisture loss by evaporation
USFS Objectives for Range Management 1. Manage range vegetation to protect basic soil and water resources
0
10
20
30
40
50
Perennial Grass Tall Sagebrush Short Sagebrush
Per
cen
t C
ov
er
Bare Ground by Dominant Landcover
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Bareground Sagebrush Herbaceous/Litter
Aver
age
% C
ov
er
Average Continuous Cover
DLL Three Creeks
Overall Comparison
Analysis Area
Semi Desert Loam
Analysis Areas
Deseret
Three Creeks ´0 2 4 6 8 101Miles
Semi-Desert Loam Comparison
15% 30% 35% 40% 20% 25%
DLL
3 Crks
28% 36%
NRCS ESD: Bare Ground Ranges from 25% - 35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Bareground Shrub Herb/litter
Average Cover (Semi-Desert Loam)
DLL Three Creeks
Standards and Guidelines 2. Riparian and wetland areas are in properly functioning condition….
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
NF FAR PFC
Percent of Streams in PFC Rating
DLL Three Creeks
Riparian PFC Comparison
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Allotments
1976
2006
2009
Allotment Comparison % Riparian Vegetation within the PRA
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%1
97
4
19
78
19
80
19
86
19
89
19
91
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
Pe
rce
nt
Rip
aria
n w
ith
in t
he
PR
A
Percent Riparian Vegetation withing the PRA (By Grazing Management)
Exclosure
Season Long
Time Control
Long Term Trend of Riparian Vegetation Within the PRA
Standards and Guidelines 3: Desired species, including native, threatened, endangered and special status species, are maintained at a level appropriate for the site and species involved.
Questions & Comments