Page 1
4/10/2013
1
KenTateandLeslieRocheUniversityofCalifornia,Davis
UCCooperativeExtensionSpringRangeTourTehama,Glenn,ColusaCounties
April13,2013
RangelandResearchUpdate
California Rangeland Watershed Laboratoryrangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu
IntegratedApproaches
• RangelandDecision‐MakingMailSurveyCaliforniaCattlemen’sAssociationWyomingStockGrowersAssociation
• Stakeholder‐PrescribedGrazingProjectSierraFoothillRECgrazingexperimentCentralPlainsExperimentalRange
• CARanchStewardshipProjectOn‐RanchInterviews& FieldSurveys
Page 2
4/10/2013
2
Research Practice
Findingeconomicallyandecologicallyeffectivestrategiestosustainrangelandresources.
IntegratedApproaches
ProjectLeaders:LeslieRoche,JustinDerner,ValerieEviner,MarkLubell,MelGeorge,TobyO’Geen,EmilyKachergis,BethanyCutts,LorienJasny,RickStandiford,LynnHuntsinger,KenTate
ProjectCollaborators:SheilaBarry,TheresaBecchetti,JoshDavy,JulieFenzel,LarryForero,MorganDoran,JohnHarper,RogerIngram,JeremyJames,RoyceLarsen,StephanieLarson,DavidLewis,DavidLile,NeilMcDougald,GlennNader,TracySchohr....
CollaboratorsandPartnersCollaboratorsandPartners
StakeholderFocusGroups
Russell L. RusticiResearch Endowment
Page 3
4/10/2013
3
WY Mail SurveyWY Mail Survey
RangelandDecision‐MakingSurveyRangelandDecision‐MakingSurvey
• Determinefactorsdrivinggrazingmanagementdecisions.
• Understandhowmanagersreceive,assess,anduseinformation.
• Perspectivesonadaptivegrazingmanagementformultiplegoals.
• 1700ranchersinCalifornia.
• 700ranchersinWyoming.
CA Mail SurveyCA Mail Survey
Private Owned
20%
Private Leased
25%
Public Leased
55%
MeanReportedAcresofGrazingLandTypes
3 Types49%2
Types38%
1 Type13%
PercentofRespondents ReportingNumberofGrazingLandTypes
Diverseoperationswithastrongrelianceonpubliclands.
RangelandDecision‐MakingSurveyRangelandDecision‐MakingSurvey
CaliforniaOperationCharacteristics
Page 4
4/10/2013
4
CA Mail SurveyCA Mail Survey
GOALS1. LivestockandForageProduction
2. WaterQuality,InvasiveWeedManagement,andSoilHealth
3. Riparian/MeadowHealthandWildlife
4. RecreationandCarbonSequestration
RangelandDecision‐MakingSurveyRangelandDecision‐MakingSurvey
CharacterizingOn‐RanchStrategiesCharacterizingOn‐RanchStrategies3 Classes of Strategies
• Rotational Grazing• Season‐Long Continuous Grazing
“I like to experiment with
new ways of doing things”
No. information sources ranked good/excellent
Rank of livestock production goal
prob. = 0.67prob. = 0.46
prob. = 0.26
prob. = 0.37
Neutral/Disagree
>5
1 or 2 3-9
Agree
‘California brand’ of rotational grazing42% of respondents
• Year‐Long Continuous Grazing
≤5
Page 5
4/10/2013
5
• Ranchers,rangemanagers,andconservationprofessionals.
• Prescribegoalsandmanagementstrategies(treatments).
• Implement,adapt,andmonitorwithstakeholderinput.
UCSierraFoothillResearchandExtensionCenterUSDA‐ARSCentralPlainsExperimentalRange
UCSierraFoothillResearchandExtensionCenterUSDA‐ARSCentralPlainsExperimentalRange
Stakeholder‐PrescribedAdaptiveGrazingManagementProject
HedgerowFarmsNaturalResourceConservationServiceNevadaIrrigationDistrictPlacerLandTrustPointReyesNationalParkPRBOConservationScienceSanFranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommissionTheNatureConservancyUCCooperativeExtensionUCDavisNaturalReserveSystemUSFish&WildlifeServiceUSForestService
UCSFRECAdaptiveManagementAdvisors
Ranchers&RanchManagersAudubonCaliforniaBealeAirForceBaseCADepartmentofFishandWildlifeCenterforNaturalLandsManagementCityofFairfieldContraCostaWaterDistrictDefendersofWildlifeDepartmentofFish&GameEastBayMunicipalUtilityDistrictEastBayRegionalParksEnvironmentalConsultants
ProjectPartnersProjectPartners
Page 6
4/10/2013
6
StakeholderWorkshopsStakeholderWorkshops
RequesttoStakeholderAdvisoryGroups
8pastures,1200acres
1) Primarynaturalresourceandagriculturalgoals.
2) Potentialchallengesandopportunitiesforgoals.
3) Adaptivemanagementstrategiestoachievegoals.
StakeholderGoalsandObjectivesStakeholderGoalsandObjectives
“Economically and Ecologically Sustainable”
Vegetation Livestock Habitat Soil health/ Water qualityG
OA
LS
SP
EC
IFIC
O
BJE
CT
IVE
S
• Increase native plant diversity
• Increase forage species diversity
• Increase forage production
• Reduce Medusahead
• Maintain or increase livestock weight gain
• Minimize operating/ practice costs
• Increase grassland bird diversity
• Increase variationin vegetation structure
• Increase native wildlife and habitat diversity
• Minimize compaction
• Restore soil fertility
• Maintain or restore water quality
Page 7
GrazingTreatments
T1 7monthseason‐longOak‐ 27steers;Grassland– 45steers
T2 4monthfall‐springgrazingOak‐ 63steers;Grassland– 85steers
T3 4monthfall‐spring,targetedOak‐ 65steers;Grassland– 82steers
T4 3monthwinterOak‐ 65steers;Grassland– 82steers
Adaptivelyimplementedandmonitoredwithstakeholderparticipation
StakeholderPrescribedAdaptiveGrazingExperiment– Year1StakeholderPrescribedAdaptiveGrazingExperiment– Year1
Page 8
4/10/2013
7
Nov Jun
Baseline datacollection
Grazing treatments and data collection
Jan 2013Dec
Advisory group
Advisory group
Monitoring Cattle gains, herbaceous forage production, plant functional group cover, grassland bird cover, fecal/pollutant loading
May 7th
SFREC Field day
May 2012
Workshops
TimelineTimeline
Fall grazing
Mar
Spring grazing
CaliforniaRanchStewardshipProject
On‐RanchInterviewsandFieldSurveys
Connectingthesocial,economic,andecologicaldotsofdecision‐making,implementation,andoutcomes.
• Connectresearchandpolicywithhowdecisionsgetmadeon‐the‐ground.
• Linkdecision‐makingtoagriculturalandecologicaloutcomes.
• Mergemanagementandscientificknowledgetoidentifyadaptivestrategiesformultiplegoals.
• Compiletheknowledgeandexpertiseofexperiencedranchersandrangelandmanagers.
Page 9
4/10/2013
8
InterviewsandFieldSurveysCross‐SectionalObservationalStudy
• ≥60case‐studiesspanningstate‐widetransects.• Diversestrategies&goals
• In‐person,semi‐structuredinterviews• Spring‐Fall2013
• Subsetoffollow‐upon‐ranchfieldsurveys.• Annualmonitoring• StartSpring2014
InterviewQuestions(examples)Operation&OperatorCharacteristics• 'AnnualForageClock'
• Bigpictureofdifferentlandandcattletypeswithinoperation
• GeneralMarketingStrategies; Diversification
Goals• Whatareyourgoals,andhowdoyouevaluatesuccess?
• Howmanygoalsdoyoumanagefor,andhowaregoalsprioritized?
• Wouldyoubeinterestedparticipatinginanecosystemmarketwhereyouwouldreceivepaymentstoproducespecificecosystemservices(e.g.,cleanwater,carbonsequestration,wildlifehabitat).
ManagementStrategies(~Goals)• Whatpracticeshavebeensuccessful/unsuccessful?
• Doyouseepotentialopportunitieswhereyoucouldchangeyourlandorlivestockmanagementstrategy(s)toprovideformultiplegoals?
AdaptingManagement• Howdoyoumanagefordroughtimpacts?
• Ifthefrequencyofdroughtweretoincrease,wouldyourcurrentstrategiesbeadequate?
Page 10
4/10/2013
9
Timeline2012‐2014Timeline2012‐2014
Time Period General Plan
Aug 2012 – Mar 2013 Interview Development
Apr – Jul 2013 Northern CA Interviews
Jul – Aug 2013Cascades/Sierra NevadaInterviews
Aug – Nov 2013 Southern CA Interviews
Spring-Fall 2014Start Follow-up Field Surveys*
* Subset of sites selected in collaboration with participants, and monitored for 3-5 years.
Multi‐ProngedApproach
Mail Surveys
BalancingMultipleGoalsonWorkingRangelands
SFREC
Adaptive Grazing Project
CPER
On-Ranch Interviews
Page 11
4/10/2013
10
RangelandPracticesAssessment
KeyRecommendations
1)Expandcollaborationsbetweenscientistsandlandmanagers.
2)Integratesocio‐economicandecologicalfactorsinexaminingoutcomes.
3)Evaluaterolesofadaptivemanagementinmeetinggoals.
40scientists,3yearstoexamineliteratureontheconservationeffectivenessofrangelandmanagementpractices.
• Prescribedgrazing,fire,planting,brushmanagement,riparianmanagement,etc.
RangelandPracticesAssessment
ProjectPartnersObjective:Quantifyeffectivenessofrangelandmanagementpracticesinenhancingsoilandriparianhydrologicfunctions,uplandandriparianhabitatanddiversity,andhabitatusebybirds.
Cross‐sectionalSurveyfocusedonthe Cottonwood Creek, Stony Creek, and Cache Creek watersheds.
Establishanetworkofstudylocationstolookatdirectmid‐(3‐5years)andlong‐term(10years)responsestomanagement.