Rangeland Health Evaluations

Today I woke up ridiculously early (well, for me and for the summer) to venture out with a Rangeland Evaluation Team. The team consisted of several wildlife biologists, a hydrologist, range specialists and a few other people (there were about 10 total people so I didn't catch everyone's name and title). According to the blm.gov website, "the purpose of the standards and guidelines... is to proved a measure (standard) to determine land health, and methods (guidelines) to improve the health of the public rangelands... The objective of the Healthy Rangelands Initiative is to implement the intent of the legislative authorities to promote healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public lands to properly functioning conditions; and to provide for the sustainability of the variety of uses and the communities that are dependent upon productive, healthy public lands." 

In plain English? The team goes to look at a piece of land to determine the health of the land area on six standards. Usually, the evaluations occur when the BLM is determining whether or not to renew a grazing lease. Often the BLM manages and has to review split ownership land which means the surface may be privately owned but the government owns the subsurface mineral rights. 

The six main standards that a land area is evaluated on are soil erosion, riparian zones, upland vegetation, wildlife habitat, water quality and air quality. These evaluations are much more qualitative than quantitative, but both types of data are included. The diagram to the right gives a basic description of the difference between qualitative and quantitative data. The increased amount of qualitative data is one of the reasons that a team of experts evaluates the land, rather than just one person. By doing so, a more unbiased evaluation is completed. 

The team looks at multiple sections, or transects, in order to collect more data, however, there is still a limitation in the data that they collect that is acknowledged by the team in the final report. 

Site information
The particular site we were evaluating had actually had a small fire on it a few weeks before we had arrived. The amount of precipitation we have had actually prevented this fire from becoming worse than it was. The combustion point for the fire was in a tree located at the bottom of a small canyon. Had the area been dryer, the fire could have easily rushed up the canyon causing more damage to the landscape. One of effects of a fire, natural or prescribed burn- is the soil becomes hydrophobic. Hydrophobic soil repels the water and causes it to sit on top of the surface rather than absorbing. This becomes an issue when precipitation occurs, the soil will rush off in sheets (the cause of the major landslides in California), carrying with it any natural vegetation or seed base that could restore the land cover after a fire. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Before going to the field, the team reviews the Ecological Site Description (ESD) from the NRCS. These reports are housed and approved sites are available to view by the public on the NRCS's website. "Any land inventory, analysis and resulting management decisions require the knowledge of these individual sites and their interrelations to one another on the landscape." The four main sections of the report are site characteristics, plant communities, site interpretations and supporting information. There is so much information housed in just one report that I was a little overwhelmed. One interesting piece of information in the report is the section that shows plant preference by animal type. It lists all the plant types and the preference by animals such as antelope, cattle, deer, elk, horses and sheep and whether the plant type is preferred, desirable, undesirable, not consumed, emergency, toxic, or used, but degree of utilization unknown. Looking at the ESD gives the team an idea of what "should" be seen at the site in its natural state and significant variations in the area alert the team to a potential issue that needs to be investigated further. 

Download the full view of an ESD Report
Ecological Site Description: Shallow Loamy (SwLy) 10-14" P.Z., High Plains Southeast 

Evaluations

Upon arrival at the site, the team split into two main groups- one who conducted a belt transect of canopy cover and the other who conducted a land cover transect and soil surface factor. I spent that majority of my time observing the wildlife biologists examining the canopy cover and estimations of cover class with a belt transect. 

The purpose of the belt transect is to count how many shrubs (woody plants such as rabbit brush and sagebrush) are located along the 100 foot transect. They count the number of each species that are young (haven't reached seeding yet), mature (at the seeding stage), dead and decadent (declining life cycle). 

The next part of the evaluation is using the Daubenmire frame to also look at canopy cover, frequency and composition of the section by species type.  The Daubenmire frame is a 10 x 20 inch (internal dimensions) rectangle made of PVC with colored sections along the frame. The colored sections help the team to visually estimate the percentage of land cover (less than 5%, 5-25%, 25-50%, 50-75% and greater than 100%). This is a perfect example of where the qualitative and quantitative methods overlap and may cause experimental error. The team, however, works to give the overall best evaluation possible under the constraints of being human. Placing the frame along the transect every 10 feet, one specialist calls out species while another records the information on the data sheet. After looking at all ten sections, they take an average to give an estimate of land cover for the site. 

The other team looked more closely at the specific species contained in a 100 square foot transect.  They used a rake looking tool (I don't know the actual name of that tool) that also breaks up the section of land and they would record the exact names and number of each species in each section divided up by the rake spikes. The hydrologist also completes a soil surface factor to look at the patterns of erosion. Certain types of soil can cause more erosion than others and he looked at patterns of potential water flow. 

We did come across some wildlife besides cicadas and other insects, including an elk and a bull snake. Bull snakes are not poisonous but when they bite, their fangs can break off inside the skin and are full of bacteria. Lucky for me, I was venturing about with a couple a guys who were willing to grab the snake so I could see it closer. I love the detail that my new camera allows me to capture. 

There is far more information that I observed and learned than I can possibly impart and explain in a single blog post. It is certainly interesting to me how my perspective of landscape and land cover has changed. I have some great tools and concepts that will work great in my curriculum designing for the Hands on the Land program as well as my personal classroom. My ideas on what to make of this project is starting to formulate in my mind.