1. Transitions in Rangeland Evaluations David A. Pyke & Jeffrey E. Herrick Jornada Experimental Range Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

2. Rangeland Evaluations: Age of Discovery - 1800’s to 1930 –Rangeland Uses & Abuses –Observations Age of Inventory - 1930’s to 1970’s –Described Vegetation, Production, Soils –Taylor Grazing Act - Adjustments of AUM’s Age of Planning & Management - 1970’s to 1990’s –Condition & Trend –Broader Objectives Age of Sustainability - 2000 to ????

3. 1905

4. Age of Discovery What is the West? How can we use it? Settlers expected consistent moisture –Powell warned of the harsh environment Livestock successful use Livestock overuse observed by federal officials Powell Pinchot

5. Succession & Indicators Clements & Sampson Plant communities change with grazing –Grazing sensitive or preferred species are reduced –Grazing tolerant and non- preferred increase Basis of Clements 1920 book on indicators

6. Grazing Indicators Observations from - –Smith, Bentley, Griffiths, Sampson, Jardine, Wooton & Sarvis Certain species within communities are indicators of grazing abuse.

7. 1959

8. Age of Inventory Dust Bowl leads to Taylor Grazing Act –Required inventories of the amount of forage available for livestock Stoddart introduces rangeland condition classes Dyksterhuis relates Clementsian succession to condition classes Rangeland Classification –Dyksterhuis Proposes range site concept –Daubenmire Habitat types

9. Monitoring Techniques Begin BLM –Deming 2-phase Combination qualitative and quantitative (plot)data USFS –Parker 3-step 100 points on transect with loop frequency/cover K. W. Parker

10. Monitoring Focus Vegetation tends to dominate over soils –SCS still maintains soil-vegetation emphasis Forage plants & undesirable plants are indicators of rangeland status Upland communities are the focus –Lands around water sources tend to be sacrificed Wildlife habitat needs are secondary to livestock needs

11. 1978

12. Heady 1975 Rangeland Mgmt. Stoddart, Smith & Box. 1975. Range Management

13. Congressional Directions Forest & Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 –USFS Habitat types were mapped Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976 –BLM Soil Vegetation Inventory Method (SVIM) Soil & Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 –National Resources Inventory (NRI)

14. Inventory  Condition & Trend All agencies used some form of Dyksterhuis’ Condition Ratings Monitored trend using various techniques –Biomass or cover Theory behind cond. & trend was still Clementsian succession

15. Utilization becomes Important Measure of the percent production consumed –Direct via biomass –Indirect via height:weight Done on a species-basis Difficult to determine utilization of pastures –Estimated by ocular estimate maps

16. Key Species Utilization by species lead to key species being monitored. –Selected up to four species –Utilization consistent over season –Sufficient abundance and palatability for livestock –Should make up the majority of forage

17. Weakness of Key Species Concept Less abundant, highly palatable species are sacrificed –Rangelands recovering from excessive livestock grazing in the early 1900’s : Former dominant, but palatable species would be rare Some dominant or co-dominant palatable species might have been sacrificed. Possible example - Basin Wildrye

18. Introduction of New Ecological Concepts Biological Diversity –Species richness, evenness –Diversity among communities Non-equilibrium ecosystem dynamics –State & transition successional models –Thresholds of community change Riparian and wetland communities as integral parts of rangelands Ecosystem processes –Nutrient & water cycles, energy flow

19. Influential Documents in Changing Rangeland Evaluations

20. 2004

21. Age of Sustainability??? West 2003 - Risk Assessment, Sustainability, Desertification Evaluations not focused on single use Evaluations strive to incorporate multiple scales Upland & Riparian ecosystems often given equal weight in evaluations

22. Upland Evaluations & Community Dynamics Threshold Reference State Shrub - Annual Grass State Annual Grass State

23. Evaluations of Ecosystem Processes Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health –3 Attributes (Site Stability, Hydrologic Function, Biotic Integrity; 17 indicators with some overlapping –Qualitative with Quantitative methods proposed & being tested Landscape & Ecosystem Analysis (Tongway et al) –3 indices (Stability, Infiltration, Nutrient cycling); Multiple indicators) –Quantitative methods published Soil/Site Stability Hydrologic Function Biotic Integrity

24. Riparian, Wetland & Aquatic Water quality measures Stream Geomorphic Classifications Stream Cross sections Veg. Classification based on soil and water table depth. Greenline techniques Proper functioning condition Wetland & stream invertebrates Bear Cr. 1977 Season long use Bear Cr. 1987 Winter use

25. National/Regional Assessments Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable –5 criteria; measured indicators/criteria –Ecological, Social & Economic Heinz Center –10 national & 14 grassland & shrubland indicators –Many indicators not populated NRI –Rangeland NRI begun in 2003 –Non-federal lands National Resources Inventory Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable

26. Remote Sensing & GIS Combine soil, climate and current vegetation –Large areas –Allows for use of predictive models Invasion risk Erosion potential Useful for wildlife habitat assessments –Multiple scales Wisdom et al. 2003

27. Landscapes: Patterns, Processes, Resistance & Resilience Linkages across multiple scales Fragmentation monitoring Prediction  early ID of threats and drivers Interactions among multiple threats

28. Future Evaluations: Carbon? Carbon Credits on Rangelands –What could be included –How to measure? International politics may dictate the need