Endangered Species Management Plan Implementation Hohenfels JMRC. Fire Ecology and Grazing Overall Project Report

Transcription

1 Endangered Species Management Plan Implementation Hohenfels JMRC Fire Ecology and Grazing Overall Project Report Pre-Final Submitted to: U.S. Army Garrison - Hohenfels Hohenfels, Germany Prepared by: Natural Resource Innovations Germany January 2012

2 This page intentionally left blank. ii

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA GENERAL DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE UNITS Unit 1: Range 8C east of Galgenberg Unit 2: Range 16 C east of Stettkirchner Berg Unit 3: Range 18 C north of the village ruins of Unterkeitenthal Unit 4: Eastern slope of Sitzberg Unit 5: Southern slope of Schloßberg Hohenburg Unit 6: Southwest of the ruins of Oberkeitenthal village Unit 7: Within the ruins of Viehausen village Unit 8: Fire ecology area near Gate 3 - Schmidmuehlen district Unit 9: Southeast edge of the JMRC - Mehlhaube district METHODS DESIGN PHASE AND STUDY SITE SELECTION STRATIFICATION OF VEGETATION TYPES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF PLOT DISTRIBUTION PLOT AND TRANSECT ESTABLISHMENT MONITORING DETERMINING CURRENT STOCKING RATES THE GOAT RATIO VARIABLE GRAZING INTENSITIES RESULTS AND DISCUSSION GRAZING EFFECTS ON SHRUB DEVELOPMENT Treated Shrub Untreated Shrub Untreated Old-Growth Shrub Development Following Mechanical Treatment GRAZING EFFECTS ON BIODIVERSITY GRAZING EFFECTS ON PERCENT COVER LONG TERM GRAZING EFFECTS ON SHRUBS SHRUB VITALITY ORCHARD ERMINE (YPONOMEUTA PADELLA) MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VEGETATION CONTROL GRAZING TARGETED GRAZING AND FORAGE PREFERENCE iii

4 6.3 CONTROLLED BURNING MECHANICAL REMOVAL OF SHRUBS COST COMPARISONS WATER WILDLIFE FORAGE QUALITY CONCLUSIONS THE U.S. ARMY TRAINING DOCTRINE THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SUSTAINMENT AND SECURITY LITERATURE CITED GLOSSARY APPENDICES APPENDIX - AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION - JMRC HOHENFELS APPENDIX - PLOT ESTABLISHMENT AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY PROTOCOL APPENDIX PLOT DISTRIBUTION PER UNIT iv

5 1 Introduction Sustaining the availability of the open maneuver area within a Range and Operating Area and the reduction of range encroachment are prime objectives of the U.S. Army s Sustainable Range Program. Maintaining the open area in the Hohenfels Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) ensures the future of long-term flexible training doctrine for light and heavy forces. However, the crucial training carrying capacity at JMRC is in danger of decreasing due to rapid overgrowth of shrub species. The vegetation communities in the Hohenfels JMRC cross the threshold from open grasslands to low level brush dominated scrub in relatively short periods of time. This is evidenced by areas which have experienced a reduction in both mechanized maneuver traffic and grazing practices for the last 5-6 years. Once woody vegetation has encroached, it is difficult to return the area to an open grassland state without large scale and expensive mechanical reclamation efforts. Encroachment of woody vegetation therefore leads to rapid loss of core capability training lands and high maintenance costs. In order to maintain the open grassland areas and prevent encroachment of woody vegetation (primarily blackthorn shrub [Prunus spinosa]) into the previously open maneuver land, this study was initiated to investigate grazing methods as a cost effective management alternative, as well as to supplement and reduce the requirement for mechanical removal of vegetation. The study will investigate various animal species combinations and stocking rates to achieve an effective and sustainable range management concept. Figure 1. Spring grazing directly south of the Hohenburg ruins. 1

6 2 Objectives The main objective of the Endangered Species Management Plan (ESMP) is to use scientific and statistical methods to investigate grazing and fire management as a viable option for restoring the core capability maneuver areas in the Hohenfels JMRC and to suggest ways to integrate these restoration methods into the Sustainable Range Program (SRP). These vegetation management methods are intended to serve three primary training area management goals: support U.S. Army training doctrine and maintain carrying capacity improve range safety (early i.d. of sink holes & obstacles, improved LOS) implement sustainable practices base on U.S. Army policy In addition to these three management goals, there are several tactical windfalls expected from the use of grazing as a management tool that will further reinforce the application of this management technique. These include maintaining the historical cultural landscape, enhancing the integrity of a unique and valuable grassland ecosystem and providing improved habitat and forage for game animals and several threatened and endangered species. Together they enforce a winning strategy for training area management and tie back into the third management goal mandated by the U.S. Army, the policy of introducing sustainable management practices at U.S. Army installations world-wide. The secondary objective of the ESMP is the sustainable management of Natura 2000 habitats. The JMRC Hohenfels was designated in 2001 as critical habitat by the State of Bavaria under the Eurpean Union s Natura 2000 Habitat Directive. Around 90% (ca. 14,400 ha) of the total land area was designated, only excluding heavily developed sites such as the cantonment area and other land areas with sealed or heavily constructed surfaces. Roughly 4,800 ha of the Natura 2000 designated area are specified under 10 different Natura 2000 critical habitat types, which were mapped in 2003 under the Threatened and Endangered Species Survey project. Several of these habitats are considered open grassland types which require intensive efforts to prevent overgrowth and shading from woody species. It is an objective of this study to investigate grazing land management practices and compare them to costly mechanical removal to find a sustainable, long-term management scheme. 2

7 3 Description of the Study Area 3.1 General Description The Hohenfels JMRC is approximately 16,000 ha in size and is located 30 kilometers north of Regensburg. It supports force-on-force maneuver training, including limited live-fire, primarily at the brigade level, and annually hosts up to 60,000 multinational troops involved in a wide spectrum of training operations. The JMRC is roughly 50% forested and 50% open grassland and scrub, providing a unique landscape that promotes the type of training scenarios currently required for the Global War on Terror. This involves both replicating the urban and sub-urban infrastructure, in the case of the various MOUT-sites within the JMRC, as well as replicating the typical middle-eastern landscape. The mixture of open dry grassland and sparse forest at JMRC Hohenfels is the closest replication of conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq that can be achieved in southern Germany. By coincidence of several climatic and geologic circumstances, the area has historically been maintained as dry, open grazing pasture land and therefore lends itself exceptionally well to serve as the training platform for troops deploying to CENTCOM combat theatres. Precisely this advantageous landscape condition needs to be maintained in order to provide realistic training based on battlefield requirements. It is not conceivable that the U.S. Army could provide the same realistic training scenarios found at JMRC Hohenfels in the otherwise typically heavily forested and overgrown areas of southern Germany. The average precipitation in the JMRC is around 650 mm per year (see Appendix 10.1 for monthly precipitation averages), and due to the limestone geology (Karst) and loam soils, is actually much more arid than the precipitation rate would indicate. A large portion of the precipitation falling within the training area either seeps into the subterranean limestone layers or runs over the surface into surrounding rivers and streams. Most of the water bodies existing on the training area are man-made and do not contain water year-round. Permanent streams are also absent, which poses a challenge for the grazing management program. 3.2 Description of Sample Units The field research takes place at nine locations, further referred to as units. Units 1-7 are located in the in the Hohenburg grazing lot and forest district with unit 8 in Schmidmuehlen and unit 9 in Mehlhaube. With the intent of lowering the variability of the vegetation samples in the focus areas and in order to achieve a statistically significant sample, vegetation-type polygons were extracted from the 2003 Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) Survey data and used as the boundary of the respective study units. An on-site ground truth of the areas served to verify relative uniformity of the vegetative types; however additional stratification within those polygons was necessary to limit additional unnecessary variation due to variations in shrub density and age. 3

8 List of Study Units within the JMRC: Unit 1: Range 8C east of Galgenberg Unit 2: Range 16 C east of Stettkirchner Berg Unit 3: Range 18 C northwest of the village ruins of Unterkeitenthal Unit 4: Eastern slope of Sitzberg Unit 5: Southern slope of Schloßberg Hohenburg Unit 6: Southwest of the ruins of Oberkeitenthal village Unit 7: Within the ruins of Viehausen village Unit 8: Fire ecology area near Gate 3 - Schmidmuehlen district Unit 9: Southeast edge of the JMRC - Mehlhaube district Figure 2. Distribution of study units in the JMRC with plots numbers. 4

9 Specific descriptions of the locations, incorporating local unit names, are listed below; Unit 1: Range 8C east of Galgenberg Study Unit 1 is located at Range 8C in a shallow, north facing valley and consists of 4.4 hectares of nutrient poor meadow, which corresponds to the Natura 2000 habitat type code EU The unit had an initial composition of 70% untreated meadow, 10% hay meadow, 10% oldgrowth shrub and 10% transition shrub. During the September-October 2008 time frame, the unit was treated mechanically, which changed the composition to the following percentages: Untreated meadow (0%) Treated meadow (70%) Hay meadow (10%) Untreated old-growth shrub (5%) Treated old-growth shrub (5%) Untreated shrub transition (0%) Treated shrub transition (10%) Unit 2: Range 16 C east of Stettkirchner Berg Study Unit 2, directly east of Unit 1, is located at Range 16C and is located in a shallow, north facing valley. The area consists of 10.8 hectares of nutrient-poor meadow (EU 6510) with an original composition of 75% untreated meadow, 5% hay meadow, 10% old-growth shrub and 10% transition shrub. During the September-October 2008 time frame, the unit was treated mechanically, which changed the composition to the following percentages: Untreated meadow (0%) Treated meadow (75%) Hay meadow (5%) Untreated old-growth shrub (5%) Treated old-growth shrub (5%) Untreated shrub transition (0%) Treated shrub transition (10%) Unit 3: Range 18 C north of the village ruins of Unterkeitenthal Study Unit 3 is located at Range 18C on a broad ridge-top plateau near the village ruins of Unterkeitenthal, sloping gently to the southeast. The unit consists of 30.0 hectares of nutrientpoor meadow (EU 6510) with an original composition of 70% untreated meadow, 10% oldgrowth shrub and 20% transition shrub. During early July 2009, a 2.8 hectare portion of the unit was treated mechanically, which changed the composition to the following percentages: Untreated meadow (60%) Treated meadow (10%) 5

10 Untreated old-growth shrub (5%) Treated old-growth shrub (5%) Untreated shrub transition (10%) Treated shrub transition (10%) Unit 4: Eastern slope of Sitzberg Study Unit 4 is 12.3 hectares in size and is located on a terraced slope facing southeast towards Hohenburg, approximately 600 meters from the ruins. The habitat type is defined as semi-dry meadow pasture (EU 6210) with a combination of hay meadow, treated shrub transition and old-growth shrub. The open meadow areas are mowed for hay and the rocky, terraced edge areas between the meadows are overgrown with untreated shrub. The vegetation composition percentages are: Hay meadow / treated shrub transition (80%) Untreated old-growth shrub (20%) Unit 5: Southern slope of Schloßberg Hohenburg Study Unit 5 is 12.6 hectares in size, located on a terraced, south facing slope directly below the Hohenburg ruins. The habitat type is of semi-dry meadow pasture (EU 6210) with a combination of terraced areas of mowed grassland with scattered blackthorn regeneration in the open areas, heavy hedge/blackthorn old-growth vegetation on the rocky terrace edges. The open meadow areas are occasionally treated or mowed for hay and the rocky terraced areas are entirely untreated. The composition percentages are: Hay meadow / treated shrub transition (85%) Untreated old-growth shrub and mixed forest (15%) Unit 6: Southwest of the ruins of Oberkeitenthal village Study Unit 6 is located in a small north facing valley, near the village ruins of Oberkeitenthal. The 16.4 hectares of nutrient-poor meadow (EU 6510) is mixed with scattered blackthorn regeneration in the open areas, heavy blackthorn old-growth vegetation on the valley bottom and in old rocky fence row and hedge areas. The composition percentages are: Treated shrub transition and old-growth (80%) Untreated old-growth shrub and mixed forest (20%) 6

11 3.2.7 Unit 7: Within the ruins of Viehausen village Study Unit 7 is located among the ruins of Viehausen village. With the intent to preserve the structure of the remaining masonry, the shrub vegetation was mechanically removed in The 3 hectares is mostly scattered blackthorn regeneration in the open areas and old rocky fence row and hedge areas and some mixed forest. The composition percentages are: Treated shrub old-growth (70%) Untreated old-growth shrub and mixed forest (30%) Unit 8: Fire ecology area near Gate 3 - Schmidmuehlen district Study Unit 8 is located in the proposed fire ecology area near Gate 3. The shrub vegetation in this area has not yet been mechanically removed, and the intention is to apply a controlled burn treatment in 2012, pending approval from local authorities and trainers. The 30 hectare unit comprises a complex mix of semi-dry meadow pasture (EU 6210), nutrient-poor meadow (EU 6510) and large portions of non-classified meadow. There is abundant scattered blackthorn regeneration in the open areas on the northwest slope and some clumps of old-growth shrub and forest edges. The southeast slope is much dryer and nutrient poor. The composition percentages are: Untreated transition shrub (30%) Untreated grassland (60%) Untreated old-growth shrub and mixed forest (10%) Unit 9: Southeast edge of the JMRC - Mehlhaube district Study Unit 9 is located in the Mehlhaube district near the southeast edge of the JMRC. The shrub vegetation in this area has been mechanically removed in The 17.5 hectares of semi-dry meadow pasture (EU 6210) are mixed with scattered blackthorn regeneration in the open areas and some clumps of old-growth shrub and mixed forest. The composition percentages are: Treated transition shrub (20%) Untreated dry grassland (60%) Untreated old-growth shrub and mixed forest (20%) 7

12 Figure 3. Spring grazing in Range 16C, in a valley east of Stettkirchner Berg. Figure 4. Fall grazing west of the Frabertshofen ruins. 8

13 4 Methods 4.1 Design Phase and Study Site Selection The original design phase was focused on the collection of field data and ground verification of aerial photography interpretation to support the establishment of a long term prescriptive grazing management strategy for reducing woody vegetation encroachment on the Hohenfels Training Area. A complete and thorough site analysis was conducted on the ground to evaluate existing vegetation composition and density. Using existing vegetation data, soils maps, digital elevation models and on-site analysis, as well as priorities established by the Environmental Management Office (EMO), treatment areas were selected and stratified. A GIS overlay depicting the treatment areas was created and random monitoring plot points were generated using ArcGIS software. The plot locations were later surveyed in the field using GPS equipment. Initial ground photographs were collected to in order to support future monitoring tasks. The design phase for the continuation of the study focused on two types of areas not covered in the original study. 1. Controlled Burn - In order to consider future effects of controlled burning on the blackthorn shrub, areas were selected in coordination with BIMA and the USAG Hohenfels safety office that would be potentially acceptable for burning and still cover the type of target shrub strata similar to other study areas. These potential burn sites were selected based on low risk of unexploded ordinance and the low potential impact of smoke on training activities and surrounding off-base communities. These areas are located within unit 8 and consist of 16 paired plots, half of which are inside the potential burn areas, half outside. In addition, 12 new biodiversity transects were also installed in these areas. 2. Maintenance of Cultural Resources - In order to maintain the structural integrity of the various ruined settlements throughout the JMRC, vegetation must be continually removed to prevent the overgrowth of the masonry and remaining infrastructure. The four paired plots installed in unit 7 are intended to observe the effectiveness of grazing in controlling this overgrowth directly following the mechanical removal of the vegetation. 9

14 4.2 Stratification of Vegetation Types In order to limit variability prior to the statistical analysis of the required sample size, it was necessary to stratify the various vegetation types. The following strata were identified based on aerial photo analysis and on-site surveys: 1. Untreated meadow The open grassland meadows in the study areas of Unit 1-5 are typical of the JMRC and fall into either the oligotrophic meadow or the dry, calciferous meadow categories as defined by the 2003 TES studies. The untreated grassland areas have been subject to little or no tracked maneuver training for the last 6 years and no noticeable grazing for the last 4-5 years. As a result of this lack of disturbance, regeneration of scrub blackthorn and other woody species has begun. There are also large amounts of dry organic debris built up over several years covering the ground due to lack of grazing. 2. Treated meadow These open areas have been mowed with heavy machinery within the last two years and still show some heavy remnants of dry organic debris, although much of the mulch was removed following the mowing. The treated areas therefore show much less debris than the untreated areas. The mowing was successful in temporarily removing the scattered blackthorn regeneration. 3. Untreated old-growth shrub These areas have an over-story dominated by blackthorn, with a mean height greater than 1.5 meters. The understory is typically void of most grass species and dominated by bare ground and moss, with a small amount of forb species. The biodiversity of plant species in these stands is extremely low. Figure 3. shows an example of the typical understory in an old-growth blackthorn stand. Figure 5. A Daubenmire Frame shown in the understory of old-growth blackthorn. 10

15 4. Treated old-growth shrub The strata was mechanically treated within the last two years and previously dominated by blackthorn greater than 1.5 meters in height. The stratification of the areas is made possible by comparing the 2001 and 2007 aerial photography with the existing ground condition. The areas shown to have had heavy blackthorn stands prior to mechanical treatment exhibit characteristics that still visibly differentiate from the surrounding open meadow. First, there are fewer grass species present with a higher incidence of bare ground, litter, forb and moss species. Second, there is typically a remainder of large diameter shrub stems not completely removed by the machinery. Some of these stems are showing several centimeters above ground, others are found at ground level. 5. Untreated shrub transition The transition zones are areas that were previously open grassland, within the last 3-5 years, but have been invaded by new growth of blackthorn and are quickly transitioning into old-growth blackthorn stands. The height of the transition zone blackthorn is generally less than 1.5 meters and the biodiversity of grass and forbs appears to start declining slightly after the first few years of overgrowth. A large amount of untreated transition zones were found in Unit 3, immediately surrounding the untreated shrub stands. 6. Treated shrub transition zone The treated transition zones were the most difficult areas to stratify on the ground in early spring due to the fact that the understory vegetation had not yet started to sprout following the mechanical treatment, and also due to the lack of larger stems remaining in place following treatment. The aerial photographs from 2007 were used to initially stratify the areas, and field GPS surveys were made once the stems began to sprout in June. Figure 6. Examples of untreated and treated shrub old-growth and transition zones. 11

16 4.3 Statistical Analysis of Plot Distribution Following the analysis of the test sample plot data collected in April 2009, the Stein s Two-Stage analysis allowed for distribution of 75 paired plots (one-hundred-fifty individual) within the various strata, providing a statistical validation of the number of samples with a confidence interval (CI) of 85%. Upon review of the resulting plot numbers, it was apparent that there is a higher variation in vegetation cover, structure and composition occurring in the transition shrub zone strata as compared to the open meadow and old-growth shrub. This characteristic dictated that the transition areas would require a more intensive level of sampling to detect change following treatment and resulted in a distribution of a larger number of plots in the transition shrub areas per hectare than in the old-growth and meadow areas. For this reason, an additional 29 paired plots were installed from and were therefore concentrated in the transition shrub strata, which increased the CI to 90%. In the analysis of the statistical variance of the transect biodiversity data, it was determined that an initial CI of 75% was achieved with the initial 8 transects, followed by a CI of 90% with the addition of 14 transects in phase 2 of the study. 4.4 Plot and Transect Establishment A paired plot scheme was used, as is common practice for grazing studies on public lands throughout the United States, to compare grazed to un-grazed areas and assess impact on vegetation. The plots are 2m x 2m, typically one fenced and one unfenced, with the fenced plot serving as the control. The individual plots are symmetrically located 1 meter on either side of the randomly selected location stake and positioned so that a minimum of 90% of the plot area falls within the assigned strata. The direction of the plot orientation was randomly selected. The 25 meter biodiversity transect lines were located by randomly selecting a bearing from plot center, and then measuring species diversity and trends. These sampling methods will assist in the assessment of the impact of the various grazing management strategies on the overall vegetation component in the transition areas. For further explanation of the methodology and plot protocol, see Appendix Figure 7. Establishment of plot corner markers - fencing one of the paired plots. 12

17 4.5 Monitoring During the first two years of sampling, the plots were monitored two times during the growing season, once in the spring (May-June) and once in the fall (September-October). Additional sampling visits were conducted in the event of major treatment events, such as mechanical shrub removal or intensive grazing trials, in order to establish additional baseline data sets. In future studies, it has been determined that a fall sampling once per year would maximize the efficiency of the sampling and eliminate variance in vegetation growth due to snow pack and winter/spring precipitation. Since the diversity and volume of vegetation can vary tremendously during the growing season, it is desirable to establish future sampling within a few weeks of the original baseline sampling conducted in the fall of 2009, which means the last week in September through the first week of October. Cover Board Method - The vegetation is measured by growth form (grass, forb and shrub) and placed as a percentage of total measured vegetation in four height classes. The classes are defined as; a.) less than.5 meter b.).5 to 1 meter c.) 1 to 1.5 meter and d.) 1.5 to 2 meter Horizontal Daubenmire Shrub Analysis This analysis technique was implemented in the fall of 2011 to assess the vertical structure of the shrubs using a similar cover percentage class technique as used for the Daubemire frame. The cover board is used as the Daubenmire Frame in this case, intending to more effectively capture the change in shrub structure due to the various grazing intensities. Figure 8. Cover board used for assessing vegetation heights and shrub structure. 13

18 Traditional Daubenmire Frame - A Daubenmire Frame sample is recorded on each plot center. The percent cover for grass, forbs, shrub, bare ground, litter and moss is visually assessed using the frame to estimate coverage percentage classes for each coverage category. Biodiversity Transects The transects are 25 meters in length, with a total of ten samples per transect. For each sample, the same Daubenmire Frame is used as in the fixed plots, but this time to assess number of species occurring in three categories; grass, forb and shrub. Figure 9. Typical 25m transect showing metal tape running through shrub overgrowth. Forage Production The forage production is measured in each of the paired plots used for transect starting points. Clippings are collected in the unfenced and fenced plots using a wire hoop. The clippings are later separated into litter, grass and forbs, and weighed at dry weight to the nearest gram. Figure 10. Comparison of forage production sampling, before and after clipping. For further explanation of the monitoring protocol, see Appendix

19 4.6 Determining Current Stocking Rates A stocking rate is the standard way to quantify the grazing intensity for grass and forbs and determine carrying capacity on any given site. The Animal Unit Day (AUD) concept is a widely used method to determine the stocking rate of grazing animals on rangelands. The AUD provides the approximate amount of forage that a 454 kg. cow with calf will consume in one day. The AUD for the standard cow with calf was established as 10 kg. of forage on a dry weight basis. All other animals were then converted to an Animal Unit Equivalent (AUE) of the standard cow. For example, a mature sheep has an AUE of 0.20, which means sheep consume roughly 20% of the forage of a cow in one day, or 2 kilograms. This allows range managers to match the number of animals with the amount of available forage. While there are numerous ways to calculate how many animals can be carried on a particular range, the following table of AUE values is a standard that will be applied to the JMRC Hohenfels for the purpose of this study. TYPE OF ANIMAL AUE Cow, 454 kg, dry 0.92 Cow, 454 kg, w/ calf 1.00 Bull, mature 1.35 Cattle, 1 yr old 0.60 Cattle, 2 yr old 0.80 Horse, mature 1.25 Sheep, mature 0.20 Lamb, 1 yr old 0.15 Goat, mature 0.15 Kid, 1 yr old 0.10 Roe Deer, mature 0.15 Red Deer, mature 0.40 Bison, mature 1.00 Figure 11. Standard Animal Unit Equivalents Using the values from Figure 11, the current AUD/AUE per hectare, in future referred to as the Current Stocking Rate (CSR), is calculated using the following formula: 10kg x #days x ([# sheep x 0.20] + [# goats x 0.15]) # hectares 15

20 With the cooperation of the shepherds assigned to the various grazing allotments throughout the JMRC, the frequency of visits to the open areas as well as the number of animals penned are collected each year, and these are in turn used for calculation of the actual stocking rates. The recommended stocking rates for the coming year are assessed the end of each growing season using the forage data collected in the field. For a full explanation of the recommended grazing capacities and stocking rates, see the Grazing Management Plan developed as part of this study. 4.7 The Goat Ratio The standard method of calculating AUD stocking rates work well for grass and forbs, but do not capture the whole picture in relation to browsing shrubs. The management goals of the JMRC Hohenfels are unique compared to a typical grazing operation in that suppression of the shrub component takes a higher priority than in the normal grazing scenario. For this reason, stocking rates specifically related to the number of goats should be adjusted to fit this management goal. Goats show a preference for browsing shrubs to the extent that a typical goat will consume at least 3 times more shrub vegetation than a sheep. To quantify the amount of goats in relation to the stocking rate and the respective effect on shrubs, a ratio of goats to sheep can be applied to the stocking rate to measure the increased affect the goats have on the shrubs. The goat to sheep ratio (GR) for a flock is calculated simply as follows: 4.8 Variable Grazing Intensities total # of goats total # of sheep The grazing intensities observed throughout the JMRC vary in three distinct ways and follow three definable practices. Free Range Grazing This is practiced with the entire flock of sheep and goats visiting each area between 3-4 times per growing season, with lengths of stay ranging from 3-5 days depending on the respective size of the open area, quality of feed and supply of water. This grazing practice provides the lowest impact, but least controllable type of grazing for the training area. The stocking rates for these areas range from AUD with a GR = Rotation Penning This carefully managed type of grazing practice is implemented during the early months of the grazing for a period of about 14 days to hold the ewes and their young lambs during the early suckling period, to allow them to gain wait and keep up with the herd when they are moved to the free range grazing later in the season. An area such as a protected valley bottom is chosen and a moveable electric fence is erected surrounding approximately 1 hectare with sheep numbers ranging between 80 and 120. The pens are rotated within the valley every 2-3 days, covering a 16

21 total area of about 5-10 hectares resulting in a stocking rate of approximately AUD. High Density Penning This practice was observed on rare occasions and should be avoided at all opportunities. The stocking rates in these cases are extremely high due to the amount of trampling and destruction of the soil and vegetation on the sites. It typically occurs when the entire flock is fenced in a small area less than 0.5 hectare and left for a 24 hour period or more. Figure 12. A rare example of high density penning, which is a very undesirable practice in nearly all areas of the JMRC. With the cooperation of the shepherd assigned to the Hohenburg grazing allotment, various stocking rates were assessed within the study units in In Study Unit 1, a unit mechanically treated in the fall of 2008, rotation penning was implemented with 80 ewes/lambs. The entirety of Unit 1 was also grazed free range during 2 separate visits. The grazing result was light impact on the shrub component and moderate impact on the grass and forb component at a total season stocking rate of approximately 600 AUD. At the time the fall sampling was conducted, the grass and forb components were showing signs of recovery and providing fresh re-growth for wildlife consumption. Based on study results, it is apparent that either increasing the stocking rate, increasing the duration of grazing, or increasing the amount of goats would produce a greater impact on the shrub component. 17

22 When grazing for short durations with larger numbers, the animals tend to select the most desirable vegetation first and then move on. Although some grazing occurred on the shrub component, it was not at a level that would cause major defoliation. In Study Unit 2, also treated in the fall of 2008, rotation penning was implemented and stocked with 120 ewes/lambs. This site was also used as free range once during the season with a total stocking rate of 600 AUD for the season. Again, a moderate impact was measured on the shrub component with a heavier impact measured on the grass and forb component. Study Unit 3 is a large area with an abundant forage base and islands of shrub encroachment. This unit was free range grazed 3 different times for visits of 5-6 days each throughout the grazing season (AUD = ). Following the spring vegetation monitoring in 2009, mechanical treatment was implemented on a 2.8 hectare section of the transition shrub area in early-july There was measureable impact detected by the livestock grazing on the shrub regeneration component with only two herd visits since the treatment. As shrub re-growth established throughout the 2010 and 2011 growing seasons, it was observed that the trend continued, and shrub impacts were measurably affected by sheep and goat grazing in the mechanically treated areas. Study Unit 6 is an area used in similar fashion to units 1 and 2, but was mechanically treated in July The hectare size plots were rotated within the valley containing a group of 100 ewes over a 14 day period. The impact on the shrub component was light to moderate, and showed even less impact that Unit 1 and 2. The remaining units were free range grazed at a rate of AUD, a rate that is well below the recommended stocking rates for these areas, and one that could be maintained with very little negative impact to the forage and soils on the training area. 18

23 5 Results and Discussion Upon evaluation of data from the growing seasons of 2009 and 2011, there were some significant measurable changes in the shrub dominated areas using the cover-board method, especially in the heavily grazed and mechanically treated areas. The cover board was read 3 times per plot, providing a total sample size of 612. There are also some considerable changes in the biodiversity measured in the transect data. The 2009 and 2011 data was compared for 8 transects with 10 samples each, providing a total sample size of 80. The change in grass and forb cover over time, although apparently evident at first glance, was not detectable and the expected removal of the excess vegetation and litter layers was not measureable in the two year period of the study. 5.1 Grazing Effects on Shrub Development The primary focus on the vegetation structure at this point is on the change in shrub growth in the grazed areas. In order to make significant assessments of the field data collected in the shrub growth areas using the cover board methodology, it was necessary to stratify the data into three main groups. The primary groups are treated shrub, untreated shrub transition and untreated old-growth shrub. Treated Shrub Untreated Shrub Transition Untreated Shrub Old-Growth Figure 12. Comparison of the three sampled shrub strata. As one would expect, more significant changes in shrub structure were observed for pre- and post-treatment across all strata on the mechanically treated plots. These comparisons will help measure the long term impact of mechanical treatment on the vegetation and help determine the grazing intensity required to maintain this level of management. As evidenced by the following graphs, the untreated plots show less response to grazing than the plots that were treated mechanically within the last 3 years. 19

24 5.1.1 Treated Shrub Upon evaluation of data from 27 plots (81 samples) located in the treated shrub strata, some changes in the structural composition appear over time. A comparison of 2009 to 2011 shrub measurements in the fenced plots shows significant increase in the mean percentage of upper height classes over time. There is a +6% increase in the.5 to 1 meter range and 4% increase in the 1.0 to 1.5 meter range. In the evaluation of the unfenced plots, the height class percentage between meters is maintained at 5%. This supports the observation that the implementation of a grazing schedule immediately following mechanical treatment has the ability to hold the blackthorn in check for a period of at least two years, whereas not grazing the site results in a rapid transformation of the shrub structure into the upper height classes. Figure 13. Comparison of 81 treated shrub samples from the fall data collection for both fenced plots and unfenced plots. The inference from data collected in the treated shrub areas is that grazing is having a measurable impact on the shrub component in the unfenced areas, maintaining the overall height and vegetative structure at a constant rate. 20

25 Timing of Grazing The 2009 fenced plots (see fig. 11f.) were fenced directly after treatment and before any grazing occurred. They were then sampled after 2 months of the growing season had already passed. For this reason, the vegetation was not zeroed out and therefore already shows considerable growth in comparison to the 2009 unfenced plots (see fig. 11u). The effectiveness of grazing immediately after treatment is demonstrated by the comparisons of the fenced and the unfenced plots in the treated shrub strata in both years. Taking figures 11f. and 12f. as examples, if the shrub is allowed to grow ungrazed for 2-4 months after treatment, the window of opportunity for control with strictly grazing is nearly lost Untreated Shrub The analysis of the data gathered from 10 plots (30 samples) located in the untreated shrub transition strata sites show some less significant, but still noticeable results of grazing. Where there are increases of 9% in the m and 5% in the meter classes in the fenced areas, there are 5% and 1% increases in the unfenced areas respectively. Figure 14. Comparison of 30 treated shrub samples from the fall data collection for both fenced plots and unfenced plots. 21

26 5.1.3 Untreated Old-Growth The following charts show what happens when more than 40% of the structural distribution is above 0.5 meters. At this stage, grazing at virtually any stocking rate would be ineffective at controlling the blackthorn shrub. The shrub vegetation structure is also distributed considerably faster over time into the higher cover classes than when the distribution is only 20% above 0.5 meters. Figure 15. Comparison of 21 untreated old-growth shrub samples from the fall data collection for both fenced plots and unfenced plots. The rapid tructural redistribution over time in old-growth shrub stands can be attributed to three factors: 1. animals graze on lower branches and reduce the vegetation under 0.5 meters 2. a taller plant shades out some of the lower vegetation over time causing some loss of leaves at the lower heights 3. shrub growth itself changes the distribution percentages of the vegetation into the higher classes 22

27 Percent in class ESMP Fire Ecology and Grazing Report As a general rule of thumb, once 20% of the shrub structure is distributed above the 0.5 M zone, the ability to successfully control it with grazing on a long-term basis is considerably reduced, though grazing still has a noticeable impact in the first two years. The long-term development of the comparison between the treated and untreated zones will most likely reveal that some mechanical treatment in the initial stages increases the effectiveness of grazing, and decreases the resilience of the shrubs. Resilience is the ability of the shrub to survive being browsed and to continue to grow. Resilience is the shrubs ability to survive and grow under browsing and as well as the speed of growth, i.e. the rate at which the shrub can reach a height at which it is no longer susceptible to browsing. To further emphasize the effect of the combination of mechanical treatment and grazing on the target species (ie. blackthorn shrub) the following graph shows the development of shrub heights in the 0.5 to 1.5 meter height class within 33 plots in Unit 3 over the course of a single growing season in As expected, there was little to no change detected in the control plots (untreated-fenced) from spring to fall, but significant changes in the other three treatment scenarios. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Spring Fall n = 99 Figure 16. Comparison of height samples located in Unit 3 in the transition shrub areas that were subject to combined treatment scenarios of grazing and mechanical shrub removal in

28 5.1.4 Shrub Development Following Mechanical Treatment Comparison of the following photos show both the effects of the initial mechanical treatment and the effects of light grazing following mechanical treatment in a transition shrub zone over a period of two years. Figure 17. Plot #51 in early-july 2009, one week prior to mechanical treatment. Figure 18. Plot #51 in mid-july 2009, one week following mechanical treatment. 24

29 Figure 19. Plot #51 in mid-october 2009, three months following mechanical treatment. Figure 20. Plot #51 in mid-september 2011, two years following mechanical treatment, with the unfenced plot on the left, fenced on the right. 25

30 As suggested by the previous photos and charts, the regrowth of shrubs occurs rapidly following the mechanical treatment, but is much more pronounced in the fenced plots than in unfenced plots. This shows that the blackthorn is highly resilient when mechanically treated and no further grazing pressure is added, but less resilient when subject to light to moderate grazing. When shrubs such as blackthorn are mechanically removed the regrowth is most susceptible to grazing impacts. The young shoots are more palatable than the older woody vegetation. In the case of old-growth shrub stands, the shrubs also lose the ability to protect the hardier vegetation in the middle of the clump from grazing and we see an increase in animal preference on the regrowth. The grazing rate for this site was documented as three visits with the entire herd of 1000 ewes - 70 goats, for 5-6 days each visit (AUD=400, GR=0.07). The observations from the plots in the treated areas give some strong implications on how to manage a site following mechanical treatment. Without mechanical treatment, these sites would most likely become overgrown and support a less flexible training doctrine within 5-10 years. However, it is assumed that without constant grazing pressure, the use of the costly mechanical treatment would be less effective. The long term results of the study are beginning to test this assumption. Figure 21. Unit 2 photographed looking due north in mid-september The unit was mechanically treated in September 2008 and consistently grazed at 600 AUD for three seasons. 26

31 5.2 Grazing Effects on Biodiversity According to the mean biodiversity sampled on 80 plots from 2009 to 2011, there was a 70 % increase in mean number of grass species per plot and a 50 % increase in forb species. While there was some expected increase in biodiversity to be expected, this much of an increase is somewhat unusual. There could be several explanations for the increase, one being differing seasonality of the sampling since the fall 2009 sampling was conducted in mid-october, and the fall 2011 in mid-september. This would put some species that are still abundant in mid- September into near dormancy by mid-october. A second explanation is that the amount of precipitation in the two months before the fall 2011 sampling was 41 mm more than in This could put the vegetation in 2011 in a state of accelerated growth. Figure 22. Biodiversity of grass and forbs from

32 % cover % cover ESMP Fire Ecology and Grazing Report 5.3 Grazing Effects on Percent Cover The cover percentages measured on the Daubenmire plots (a total of 284 samples) reflected very small differences at the relatively low stocking rates of AUD. It was expected that there would be some decrease in cover in grass and forbs, but instead there was an increase of 12-13% in forb cover in both the fenced and unfenced plots, with grass cover staying relatively unchanged. This is most likely a result of the vigorous regrowth of the forbs over a two year period following mechanical treatment. Daubenmire Cover Comparison n = GRASS FORB SHRUB BRGND LITTER MOSS 2009 Unfenced Fenced n = 284 Daubenmire Cover Comparison GRASS FORB SHRUB BRGND LITTER MOSS 2011 Unfenced Fenced Figure 23. Cover comparison of all vegetation classes from

33 5.4 Long Term Grazing Effects on Shrubs In addition to the short-term observations made on the desirable effects of grazing on the shrub layer, some possibly long-term, systematic effects can already be observed on late season foliage loss on treated shrubs. During a site visit in November 2009, it was evident from that a larger percentage of the foliage was missing from the heavily grazed shrubs than was observed in October. Since the grazing operations were ceased nearly simultaneously with the October data collection, it appears that the shrubs that were heavily grazed lost more of their foliage earlier due to the stress of the grazing pressure after the animals had left. Figure 24. A close up of plot #4, inside the fence on the left, outside on the right in Nov Figure 25. Comparison of paired plot #10, showing spring conditions on the left, fall conditions to the right, with moderate grazing in the transition shrub area. Note the abundance of shrub foliage in the fenced plot compared to the unfenced plot on the right. 29

34 5.5 Shrub Vitality A factor to consider in low lying areas with relatively deep soils is that the initial, pre-treatment shrub component in these areas is particularly robust and the sub-surface root structure is still in place following the mechanical treatment. It is assumed that this contributes to the initial vigorous shrub re-growth, and may do so over several growing seasons. Trends over time will indicate whether heavy and constant grazing pressure will significantly weaken the shrubs, slowing re-growth to a manageable level. Figure 26. Comparison of paired plot #33 from the spring data collection, prior to heavy grazing, showing both the fenced and unfenced plots in the transition shrub areas. Figure 27. Comparison of paired plot #33 from the fall data collection, following heavy grazing, showing both the fenced and unfenced plots in the transition shrub areas. 30

35 5.6 Orchard Ermine (Yponomeuta padella) One unexpected effect on the blackthorn was the infestation of the Orchard Ermine caterpillar (Yponomeuta padella) and its observed ability to completely defoliate and kill blackthorn shrubs of meter height. The infestations were especially pronounced in the grazing season of 2010 and had measureable impact on the shrubs, especially in the fenced areas of Unit 1. On consulting local entomologists about the causes of this defoliation, it was determined that the fenced plots in particular offer a preferred habitat for the moths with exposed edges and an ideal height in a particularly advantageous break-out season for the caterpillar. Plots 2 and 3 in Unit 1 showed complete absence of live shrubs inside the fenced areas during Spring 2011 monitoring. The shrubs in those plots had previously showed robust shrub regrowth. Figure 28. Moth damage to medium sized blackthorn in spring Figure 29. The mature Orchard Ermine moth and an example of an extreme hedge infestation in Portsmouth, England. The silky layers protect the caterpillars while they completely defoliate the shrub. 31

36 6 Management Recommendations for Vegetation Control The challenges of maintaining a military training area constantly changing based on mission, management requirements and other unpredictable events. One of the interesting changes of the last decade is that the focus of vegetation management at JMRC Hohenfels has reversed. Prior to 2001, with the heavy tracked vehicle maneuver traffic, the primary challenge was to maintain enough vegetation to control erosion. There were large areas at former CMTC Hohenfels following intensive training operations where areas were largely denuded of all grass, forbs and shrub. Today, as tracked vehicle maneuver traffic has severely decreased with the changing training mission, the challenge is to keep the JMRC from overgrowing too quickly. Figure 30. The same area at the south end of Unit 1. The left picture was taken in 2002, the right picture in Grazing A full set of detailed management recommendations in relation to grazing management are explained in the ESMP Grazing Management Plan of January Some generalizations to cover the topic are made in the following paragraph. Based on the study results following three growing seasons subject to grazing, there are some general observations that can be made, concluding in management recommendations that follow the trends of the data. These recommendations may be refined following long term monitoring. 32

37 The first observation derived from the data collected with the Daubenmire Frame method is that the ground cover remained relatively unchanged in the unfenced plots throughout the study areas, even in the case of the heavily grazed areas. This likewise holds true for the forage production plots. This is an indication that the stocking rates and grazing intensities applied in the Hohenubrg allotment are under-utilizing the forage in most areas, which leads to the conclusion that the areas could easily support larger flocks with higher grazing frequencies. The second observation from the data collected using the cover board method is that vertical structure of shrubs is only moderately affected by the applied rates of grazing, and only in the transition areas. Whether this impact will be sufficient to repress the shrub growth without mechanical treatment remains to be seen. The third observation is that in order for the initial mechanical removal of the shrub vegetation to be effective, grazing must immediately follow the treatment and be repeated on a regular basis throughout the growing season. It remains to be seen how effective the grazing will be in the long term at keeping the shrubs in check following the mechanical removal, but the short term effects are significant. All of these observations lead to a number of management recommendations that can be immediately applied to the Hohenburg allotment, and similar vegetation types throughout the JMRC, during the next growing season. Unit 1 - Achieving a greater impact on the shrub component in this area would require a longer duration grazing interval with higher ratio of goats to sheep. Another option would be to confine a select number of animals to limit their feed options and force them to consume more of the shrub component. (Recommended AUD = 1000, GR = 0.1) Unit 2 - The grazing duration and stocking rate was more effective in this area on shrub growth due to the penning of the animals for longer periods of time, but the stocking rate could still be increased significantly. There were no negative effects on either biodiversity or species composition detected in this area despite the relatively constant grazing pressure. (Recommended AUD = 1000, GR = 0.1) Entire Hohenburg Allotment - Based on the abundance of the grass and forb component on this allotment, the grazing duration can be safely increased to have a significant effect on the shrub component. It is foreseeable that this unit could tolerate the same number of sheep three different times throughout the grazing season, but for longer durations with a higher goat to sheep ratio. (Recommended AUD of , GR = 0.1) The terraced areas in these units have abundant grass as well as a significant amount of regeneration shrub component. It is foreseeable that these areas could handle the entire flock of sheep three different times throughout the grazing season, but possibly for 10 to 12 days at each visit. The problem now is that the areas are used primarily for transitioning from one area to another and water sources are scarce in mid-summer. (Recommended AUD=700, GR = 0.1) Each of these units is uniquely different and offer challenges to the resource managers as well as the herder. This study has incorporated several different management scenarios to evaluate how grazing impacts the grass, forb and shrub component. One factor that could have a 33

38 significant effect on the shrub structure in all of the study units would be to add 200 goats to the entire flock, thereby increasing the goat ratio of the total flock from 0.07 to 0.2. This would have the effect of reducing the overall required stocking rate, with a higher impact to the shrub component. Another option would be to focus the sheep grazing to specific locations for a specific period of time such as penning 100 of the ewes/lambs and 20 goats to graze around the treated shrub islands for 5 to 6 days, inducing them to consume more of the fresh shrub re-growth. 6.2 Targeted Grazing and Forage Preference Various successful targeted grazing strategies have been developed that involve understanding animal grazing behavior. This has been an especially useful tool utilized by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in targeting normally unpalatable invasive species, such as leafy spurge, gorse and multiflora rose in the western United States. It has been observed in many herbivore species (particularly cattle, sheep and goats) that forage preference is as much a learned behavior as an instinctual one. If there were no preferences then we would expect shrubs to be eaten in proportion to their relative abundance. In practice, this is often not the case. Preferences depend on the relative palatability of each species as well how accessible the shrubs are. Palatability is the innate attractiveness of a plant species to being browsed and is likely to be a function of digestibility and toxicity. This will vary with the condition of the plant (as affected by season, fiber content, bitterness or sweetness, water content and plant abundance) and also with the type and condition of the herbivore. Sheep and goats are more likely to graze or browse on shrub vegetation than other more selective herbivores but goats generally browse 3 times the amount of a sheep. Natural protection such as thorns or other defense mechanisms can allow shrubs to escape grazing. The targeted grazing method involves exposing the animals to the targeted species at a time when it is most palatable, usually early to late spring. They then develop a preference for eating the vegetation throughout the rest of the year. The added benefit of this is that the young lambs and kids observe the grazing activity and at the same time they taste the plant in the mother s milk. They, in turn, develop an even stronger preference for the species. Of course this concept becomes most effective when the herds return to the same areas season after season, in the case of the grazing allotments at the JMRC, and this allows animals increase their preference for the targeted species over time. 34

39 6.3 Controlled Burning Fire has played a role in the development of natural and cultural landscapes in central Europe at least as far back as the Neolithic times, proven by core borings made on up to 12, 000 year old logs found in moors. In more recent history, as far back as the middle ages, the use of fire in agriculture and forestry is well documented. While controlled burning has a long history of use, it has become an extremely rare practice in central Europe. Some of the last remaining landscapes that still show signs of this fire management exist only in military training areas. The largest advantages of burning as a sustainable management practice are the low costs of application, especially in relation to mechanical treatment. In order to test the effectiveness of burning at the JMRC and measure the effect on the blackthorn shrub component and other vegetation, it was necessary to propose burning on a small area in the northeast corner of the training area near Gate 3, known as Unit 8 for the purposes of this study. These areas were chosen for low risk of unexploded ordinance and low risk of smoke disruption of training operations and civilian communities. The timing and weather conditions of controlled burning leave a small window in early spring were the operations might possibly be carried out. Until this takes place, only random spontaneously burned areas are available throughout the JMRC for observation. The effects of the burning on the blackthorn shrub are believed to be similar to mechanical removal, with a possibly longer lasting impact depending on the intensity of the burn. Figure 32. Proposed locations for testing the effects of a controlled burn. 35

40 6.4 Mechanical Removal of Shrubs The mechanical removal of the shrubs has been the most effective method to date in controlling woody encroachment on the edges of the JMRC, but it is also one of the most costly methods. And there are some limitations to this method that make it an unsustainable alternative in many areas. These limitations include but are limited to: difficult terrain (rocks, steep slopes, uneven ground, etc.) habitat homogenization unexploded ordinance With the unexploded ordinance being the most limiting factor, it prevents mechanical removal of shrub vegetation in nearly 70% of the JMRC, mostly in the middle of the training area and especially near former live-fire ranges or impact areas. A long-term reduction in the amount of mechanical removal through the implementation of grazing management is considered an achievable goal. However, the current stocking rates need to be increased to control the blackthorn without a combination of the two management practices. The current stocking rates can nevertheless be utilized to their maximum effectiveness by influencing the timing of the grazing following the mechanical treatment. 6.5 Cost Comparisons As a key element of sustainability, cost savings employing innovative and environmentally compatible means is at the top of the list. Managing the vegetation using grazing instead of mechanical means would not only be sustainable in the environmental sense, but also in a financial sense. The costs of mechanical removal of the woody vegetation in the JMRC can vary widely depending on the grade, slope, diameter of vegetation, size of individual parcels, the condition of the ground and distance of transport from the site to the nearest road. The cost for cutting of overgrowth using large mulching machines ranges from 1,000 euros to 1,500 euros per hectare, with multiplication factors for steeper slopes, uneven ground and smaller parcels potentially bringing the cost to upwards of 2,000 euros per hectare. The typical cost estimates for manual cutting of bushy vegetation is much higher. This method is required in extremely steep, rocky ground with small individual parcels, as typically found throughout the JMRC in terraced areas and rocky slopes. The costs for this type of removal can range from 1,000 euros per hectare to 5,000 euros per hectare. In addition to the cutting of the vegetation, there are additional costs for transport of the cut material that can vary depending on the distance to the transporter, and can create additional costs of 500 to 2,000 euros per hectare. With the proper application of grazing management, not only are the costs of mechanical treatment reduced or potentially eliminated, the Federal Forest Service (ie. BIMA) receives a grazing fee from each one of the allotments on the JMRC. These resources could be used by the Federal Forest Service to contribute to the restoration of training facilities and aid in the maintenance of realistic training conditions. 36

41 6.6 Water Land management is always restricted by the most limiting factor. Although the availability of forage is abundant on the training area, lack of water is a serious limitation. Sheep require from 7.5 to 10 liters per day, and may walk from 3 to 5 kilometers to get it, although this can be considered the high end. The distance they are required to walk also has a considerable effect on production, which shepherds seek to maximize. Due to dry conditions, the shepherd in the Hohenburg allotment was required to transport water for 8 weeks at a rate of 3,000 to 6,000 liters per day in both 2009 and Understandably, this is costly and time consuming. If watering holes, in the form of sealed catch basins, could be utilized throughout the grazing allotments, these could serve as concentration areas, and the grazing impact would be expected to increase in those localized areas. In areas that have a high possibility of shrub encroachment, grazing could be used more effectively in impacting the blackthorn. As of December 2011, there were 271 active catch basins in the JMRC, most of them constructed behind check dams that are used to prevent extreme run-off and erosion events. Although there are constant efforts being made on sealing these basins, there is no current data available on how much water each basin holds following precipitation events. For this reason, projections about grazing utilization based on water availability are merely speculative. Making the unlikely assumption that all catch basins contained adequate water for grazing stock 100% of the time, spatial analysis was conducted using a 1 km buffer around catch basin location points. The results show that 90% of available grazing land within the JMRC would fall within a 1 km proximity to a water source. Figure 32. Check dam locations on the JMRC Hohenfels. 37

42 6.7 Wildlife Forage Quality An additional benefit of a well-managed grazing program is the enhancement in the overall forage quality of rangeland. A number of reputable studies in both the United States and Europe document an overall improvement of wildlife forage, specifically for Rocky Mountain Elk and Red Deer (Genus Cervus) with the application of well managed grazing strategies in semidry to arid conditions. Red Deer species have been shown to be much more selective grazers than cattle and sheep and are highly selective of growth stage depending on the maturity level of the forage. In many studies, elk consistently chose areas characterized by dense stands of native vegetation previously grazed by cattle. The forage in previously grazed areas typically contains less residual vegetation such as dead standing stems. Elk also selected areas that were no more than 274 m away from dense cover, and at least 463 m distant from the nearest road. Red Deer species prefer succulent sprouts and new growth almost exclusively to overgrown, matted (Ger. verfilzt) rangeland. This is evidenced by studies which show that the various red deer species travel relatively large distances in order to search out the highest quality forage, but spend less time moving when the forage is kept in a premature, succulent stage (ie. moderately grazed). With the meticulous monitoring of ground cover, biodiversity and forage production conducted as a part of the ESMP Grazing study, a proper balance of grazing rotations will be established to provide the optimal amount of forage for native species and game. Figure 31. Edge zone of grazed area, limited by Seibert Stakes showing effects of removing the matted, low quality forage. 38

43 7 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 The U.S. Army Training Doctrine There is general agreement among the various stakeholders associated with JMRC Hohenfels (7th ATC, Department of Public Works, Forstamt Hohenfels, etc.) that reducing the amount of shrub vegetation in the open maneuver areas is advantageous and desirable, albeit for a list of different reasons. It has been the goal of this study to bring a management proposal to the table that incorporates and simultaneously serves various interests, while ultimately satisfying the requirements of the U.S. Army s training doctrine within the JMRC Hohenfels. 7.2 The Triple Bottom Line The principle of sustainability, as outlined by Army policy, is known as the Triple Bottom Line: Support our mission, strengthen our community, and successfully manage our environmental impacts. The bottom line for the JMRC, in regards to vegetation management, is that massive amounts of tall blackthorn shrub thickets covering the formerly open maneuver area works against the interests of all of the stakeholders involved. Whether it s the Forstamt for managing game populations, the nature protection agency for managing the unique and valuable open character of the meadows, or most importantly, the U.S. Army for maintaining the flexible, realistic training doctrine with the required carrying capacity needed to complete the mission. 7.3 Sustainment and Security In October 2004, the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army signed the Army Strategy for the Environment Sustain the Mission Secure the Future. In this strategy, the Army documents the requirement to plan for the long-term sustainability of its installations. Sustainability means developing operational procedures that support our mission in the present without compromising our ability to accomplish our mission in the future and without limiting our local communities abilities to have a productive future. - The U.S. Army SRP Website A management practice is considered sustainable only if it is both economically and environmentally viable. In this case, managing the vegetation in the training area while simultaneously reducing the cost to the U.S. Army, reducing emissions and enhancing natural and cultural resources is a sustainable strategy on all fronts. 39

44 8 LITERATURE CITED American Sheep Industry Association. Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. Anderson. W,., and R. J. Scherzinger Improving quality of winter forage for elk by cattle grazing. Journal of Range Management 28: Austin, Dennis D. and Philip. I. Urness Effects of Cattle Grazing on Mule Deer Diet and Area Selection. Journal of Range Management 39(1): Austin, Dennis D., Philip. I. Urness and L. C. Fierro Spring livestock grazing affects crested wheatgrass regrowth and winter use by mule deer. Journal of Range Management 36(5): Bakker, J.P., S. DeBie, J.H. Dallinga, P. Tjaden and Y. DeVries Sheep-grazing as a management tool for heathland conservation and regeneration in the Netherlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 20:541. Bayerisches Landesamt für Umweltschutz. August Naturschutzes und der Landschaftspflege Kostendatei für Maßnahmen des Bernatowicz, Jeff Washington State Elk Herd Plan, Draft Colockum Elk Herd. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Program, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA Bureau of Land Management, Technical Reference Sampling vegetation attributes. Revised Available from: National Business Center, BC-650B, P.O. Box 25047, Denver, Colorado Carrier, W.D. and B. Czech Threatened and endangered wildlife and livestock interactions. Pages 39-47, in: P.R. Krausman, editor. Rangeland wildlife. Society for Range Management. Chapman C. Kim, Reid Chad R Sheep and Goats: Ecological Tools for the 21 st Century. Utah State University Extension Service. Clark, Patrick E., William C. Krueger, Larry D. Bryant, and David R. Thomas Spring defoliation effects on bluebunch wheatgrass: II. Basal area September 1998 Journal of Range Management 51: Clark, Patrick E., William C. Krueger, Larry D. Bryant, and David R. Thomas. J Livestock grazing effects on forage quality of elk winter range. Journal of Range Management 53:

45 Coe, Priscilla K., Bruce K Johnson, Kelley M. Stewart, and John G. Kie, Spatial and Temporal Interactions of Elk, Mule Deer and Cattle. Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Danvir, R.E. and S.L. Kearl A holistic approach to managing wildlife and big game movements with livestock: the Lost Creek Foundation. Pp in: Sharing Common Ground on Western Rangelands: Proceedings of a Livestock/Big Game Synposium. Evans, K. E., Compiler. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-343,U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.163 pp.: the Lost Creek Foundation. Sharing common ground on western rangelands: Proceedings of a livestock/big game symposium. U.S.D.A. Dolman, P.M. and W.J. Sutherland The ecological changes of Breckland grass heaths and the consequences of management. J. Appl. Ecol. 29:402. Donahue, Debra L Western grazing: the capture of grass, ground, and government. Environmental Law 35: Frisina, M. R., and F. G. Morin Grazing private and public land to improve the Fleecer Elk Winter Range. Rangelands 13: Ganskopp, D, L Aguilera and Marty Vavra Livestock Forage Conditioning Among SixNorthern Great Basin Grasses. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60: Ganskopp Dave, Tony Svejcar, and Martin Vavra Livestock forage conditioning: Bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and bottlebrush squirreltail. Journal of Range Management July : Goldammer, J.G., J. Prüter und H. Page Feuereinsatz im Naturschutz in Mitteleuropa. Ein Positionspapier. Alfred Toepfer Akademie für Naturschutz, Schneverdingen, NNA-Berichte 10, Heft 5, ISSN Grover,K. E. and M. J. Thompson, Factors influencing spring feeding site selection by elk in the Elkhorn Mountains, Montana. J.Wildl. Manage. 50: Halstead, Lacey E., Larry D. Howery, George B. Ruyle, Paul R. Krausman, and Robert J. Steidl Elk and cattle forage use under a specialized grazing system. Journal of Range Management 55: Heitschmidt Rod K., Stuth Jerry W Grazing management: An Ecological Perspective. ISBN: Holecheck, Jerry L., Pieper Rex D., Herbel Carlton H Range management: principles and practices fourth editions. ISBN: Johnson M.D., Woodside G.J., Clark P.E. Velocity Patterns of Grazing Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus) and Beef Cattle Rangeland Ecology and Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. USDA Forest Service, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, La Grande, OR. Mackie, R. J Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk and cattle in the Missouri River breaks, Montana. Wildl. Monogr pp. 41

46 Ohmart, R. D Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife resources in western riparian habitats. Pages in: P.R. Krausman, editor. Rangeland wildlife. Soc. for Range Management. Pieper Rex D Measuring techniques for herbaceous and shrubby vegetation. Department of Animal and Range Science, New Mexico State University Rahmen Gerald, Ökologische Schaf- und Ziegenhaltung. 3. Auflage. Juni 2010 pages Institut für Ökologischen Landbau (OEL) & Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ländliche Räume, Wald und Fischerei (vti) Rogers James O., Fulbright Timothy E., Ruthven and Donald C. III. Vegetation and deer response to mechanical shrub clearing and burning. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 57, pp Thorne Mark S., Skinner Quentin D., Smith Michael A., Rodgers J. Daniel, Laycock William A., and Cerekci Sule A.. Evaluation of a technique for measuring canopy volume of shrubs. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 55, pp Vallentine John F Range development and improvements second edition. Includes 1. Range management. 2. Pastures. ISBN: Weber Keith, McMahan Ben, and Russell Glen Effect of Livestock Grazing and Fire History on Fuel Load in Sagebrush-Steppe Rangelands. GIS Training and Research Center, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho. 42

47 9 GLOSSARY 7 th ATC - 7 Th Army Training Command AUE - Animal Unit Equivalent AUM - Animal Unit Month BIMA Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben (German Federal Real Estate Agency) CENTCOM - United States Central Command CMTC Combat Maneuver Training Center EMO Environmental Management Office EU European Union GPS Global Positioning System GF Goat Factor JMRC - Joint Multinational Readiness Center LOS Line of Sight MOUT Military Operations on Urban Terrain Natura In May 1992 European Union governments adopted legislation to establish a network of habitat conservation designed to protect the most seriously threatened habitats and species across Europe. 43

48 OMARA Open Maneuver Restoration OPAREA - Range and Operating Area SR- Stocking Rate SRP - Sustainable Range Program TES Threatened and Endangered Species 44

49 John Philips Senior Project Manager NRI Scott Holbrook Managing Director 45

50 10 APPENDICES 46

51 mm ESMP Fire Ecology and Grazing Report 10.1 Appendix - Average Monthly Precipitation - JMRC Hohenfels Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep

52 10.2 Appendix - Plot Establishment and Sampling Methodology Protocol Monitoring Schedule During the first two years of sampling, the plots were monitored two times during the growing season, once in the spring (May-June) and once in the fall (September-October). Additional sampling visits were conducted in the event of major treatment events, such as mechanical shrub removal or intensive grazing trials, in order to establish additional baseline data sets. In future studies, it has been determined that a fall sampling once per year would maximize the efficiency of the sampling and eliminate variance in vegetation growth due to snow pack and winter/spring precipitation. Since the diversity and volume of vegetation can vary tremendously during the growing season, it is desirable to establish future sampling within a few weeks of the original baseline sampling conducted in the fall of 2009, which means the last week in September through the first week of October. Locating Plots Plot locations are assigned using the ESRI random point generator and transferred to a Trimble GeoExplorer GPS for on-site location. Interpolation is made on the ground to determine whether plot points are correctly located within the target strata. If the point is located outside the strata, a random bearing and distance is chosen using the second hand on a wrist watch and then placed within the nearest strata by turning with the back to the strata and throwing a wooden reference plot stake in the air until it lands within the strata. Upon locating the plot point, the wooden reference plot stake is installed, with orange marking and an aluminum plot number tag. This stake forms the front center of the paired plot site and is referred to heretofore as the reference stake. Figure A1. Random generation of plot points in ArcGIS using stratification polygons. 48

53 Paired Plots A paired plot scheme is used to compare grazed to un-grazed areas and assess impact on vegetation. The individual plots are 2m x 2m, one fenced and one unfenced, with the fenced plot serving as the control. The individual plots are symmetrically located 1 meter on either side of the randomly selected reference stake and positioned so that a minimum of 90% of the plot area falls within the assigned strata. The direction of the plot orientation was randomly selected. Figure A2. Establishment of plot corner markers - fencing one of the paired plots. Single Plots Each single 2X2 meter plot was then established using metal survey spikes (with white plastic caps) one on each plot corner. The center of each single plot is marked with a smaller survey stake with a yellow plastic cap. This plot center serves as the survey point for all bearings and vegetation measurements. 49

54 Photograph Methodology Before any surveying work is started, one plot photo is taken 8 meters from the cover board, which is positioned at the reference stake. This photo is intended to show both plots for a comparison of vegetation height inside and outside the fence. Following this initial photo, two photos are taken 4 meters from the cover board, located on plot center. One photo is taken kneeling, one photo standing, with the angle of the camera positioned to include the top of the coverboard lined up with the top of the photo. The kneeling photo is intended to show vertical structure, the standing photo is intended to show ground cover. Figure A3. The 4 meter distance plot photos; kneeling on the left, standing on the right. Random Bearing Generation An initial random bearing is selected from single plot center, using a wrist watch second hand and a compass. This bearing is the starting point for the 3 vegetation measurements for each plot. Cover Board The first vegetation measurement is by growth form (grass, forb and shrub) and placed as a percentage of total measured vegetation in four height classes. A plywood construction with 50 cm increments, alternating white and yellow, is used to measure vertical structure in the plots. Looking at the face of the board, with the left corner placed on plot center, the board is rotated clockwise in 120 degree increments, starting with the initial randomly generated bearing, with 3 readings per plot. 50