Rangeland Research Update

Ken Tate and Leslie Roche Rangeland Watershed Lab UC Davis UCCE rangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu Rangeland Research Update Presented at CA Woolgrower's Association Meeting 22 August 2014

Rangeland Management and Water quality, species of concern, riparian and meadow health, soil quality, invasive plants, forage production, and livestock performance Rangeland Watershed Laboratory http://rangelandwatersheds.ucdavis.edu

Public Lands Grazing and the Environment Trends in livestock numbers and grazing policy Long-term range health monitoring Endangered amphibians Water quality Ken Tate Reporting Leslie s work Rangeland Watershed Laboratory

USFS Public Grazing Allotments in CA 500 grazed allotments 8,000,000 acres 330,000 Animal Unit Months 30,000 head of sheep 70,000 head of cattle

Meadow Head of Livestock Conditions National Forest Grazing Allotments, 1906-2012 600000 Cattle - 69% reduction from 1918 peak to 2012 47% reduction from 1980 to 2012 Head 400000 Sheep - 94% reduction from 1919 peak to 2012 65% reduction from 1980 to 2012 200000 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year

Early 2000s Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Riparian Grazing Standards and Guidelines Herbaceous Vegetation Use Limits on the percentage of meadow forage production that can be used (e.g., 40%). Herbaceous Stubble Height Sets a minimum residual height for meadow forage following grazing (e.g., 4 inches). Browse on Riparian Woody Plants Limits on the percentage of new year s leader growth which can be browsed on species such as aspen and willow (e.g., 20%). Streambank Disturbance Limits the amount of livestock hoof damage or trampling on streambanks (e.g., 10%).

Authorized Use Trends 2000 through 2013 Year Permittees Livestock AUMs 2000 464 452,712 2013 368-21% 332,099-27% Year Sheep AUMs 2000 35,132 2013 24,328-31% Use restrictions due for sensitive, threatened, and endangered wildlife species. In addition to riparian grazing standards and guidelines.

Meadow Conditions on National Forest Grazing Allotments USFS REGION 5 RANGE PROGRAM CONDITION AND TREND MONITORING Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment(s) (early 2000s) Set new standards and guides for Sierra Nevada and Cascade Forests. 1997: USFS Region 5 Range Program initiated long-term meadow condition and trend monitoring program. 1) Document baseline meadow conditions as new standards and guidelines were coming into use. 2) Examine long-term trends in meadow condition following implementation of standard and guidelines. UC Davis Rangeland Watershed Laboratory is partnering with USFS to analyze and publish these data.

Range Condition Monitoring 1999-2014 850 Permanent plots Read every 5 years Over 270 with 10 years of data Plant species composition Diversity Richness Function - Stabilization Current data analysis Range Condition Trend in Condition Initial Condition x Weather x Site Type x Management

Comparing Grazing w/ Riparian Standards to Non-Grazed Conditions Inyo National Forest Four Allotments, One Decade Two closed to grazing Two grazed with riparian S&Gs 25 long-term monitoring plots 16 grazed 9 non-grazed

RESULTS Comparing Grazing w/ Riparian Standards to Non-Grazed Conditions Livestock exclusion was not necessary. It did not lead to greater rates of meadow recovery compared to grazing management to achieve riparian grazing standards. Livestock grazing compliant with USFS riparian grazing standards did not degrade or hamper recovery of meadow plant communities relative to livestock exclusion. Demonstrates the effectiveness of modern riparian grazing management and utilization limits.

Grazing & Amphibians Yosemite toad (plus mountain yellow-legged frogs) ESA Listed Mountain Meadows Key breeding and rearing habitat Livestock a potential driver of decline? 2005-2011 Yosemite Toad Grazing Study USFS, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, and range stakeholders.

Public Lands Grazing & Yosemite Toad CATTLE EXCLUSION EXPERIMENTS 3 meadow breeding pool fencing treatments Fence entire meadow Fence breeding pools only Not fenced Cattle Grazing Yosemite Toad RESULTS Observed nutrient concentrations 1 order of magnitude below levels of ecological concern. Water quality and hiding cover not different among grazed and ungrazed treatments. No increase in toad occupancy, tadpole-young of the year density due to fencing. No difference between fenced and not fenced pools. Roche et al. 2012. Rangeland Ecology & Management. McIlroy et al. 2013. PLOS ONE.

Public Lands Grazing & Yosemite Toad SURVEY OF COW AND TOAD HABITAT USE/COMPETITION 3 Sierra National Forest Grazing Allotments 24 Meadows ranging from wet to moist, all open to grazing cattle Productivity? Meadow Wetness Cattle Grazing? Yosemite Toad? Forage Quality

RESULTS 1. Cattle utilization not related to toad use of a meadow. 2. Toads select for wetter meadows (better breeding pools). 3. Cattle select for drier meadows (better forage). 1.0 + Plant Biomass Productivity 3.13** 2 Meadow Wetness -0.31* NS 3 0.54** Cattle Utilization 1 NS Toad Presence 1.0 + Hydrology -0.35** NS Forage Quality 1.0 + 0.63 0.43* 1.0 + Herbaceous use 1.0 + Toads observed ADF CP TP Roche et al. 2012. PLOS ONE.

Public Lands Grazing & Yosemite Toad There is something at work here bigger than grazing Climate Change Upland Watershed Practices Historic Land Use Restoration Practices Meadow Wetness Productivity + Cattle Grazing NS + Toad Presence Predator Dynamics Infectious Diseases Airborne Toxins Forage Quality X Riparian Grazing Standards and Guidelines

Public Lands Grazing & Water Quality Bee Exclusive: Livestock Waste Found to Foul Sierra Waters Sacramento Bee 25 April 2010 Prompted multi-partner collaboration. U.S. Forest Service UC Davis UC Cooperative Extension Permittees Regional Water Quality Control Boards Range stakeholders

Is public lands cattle grazing degrading water quality and putting human health at risk? 2011 USFS GRAZING RECREATION WATER QUALITY STUDY 1. Quantify fecal indicator bacteria and nutrient concentrations in surface waters. 2. Compare to a) Microbial benchmarks for human health, b) Nutrient benchmarks for ecological health, and c) Estimates of nutrient background concentrations. 3. Examine relationships between water quality, environmental conditions, cattle grazing, and recreation.

Public Lands Grazing & Water Quality COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY SURVEY 12 USFS public lands grazing allotments, 5 National Forests. 320,000 acres 155 stream collection sites, monitored monthly during grazingrec period (Jun-Nov, 2011). Key Grazing Areas Recreation Areas Areas with No Concentrated Use Activities Total of 743 water samples collected Fecal Indicator Bacteria: Fecal coliform, E. coli TN, NO 3 -N, NH 4 -N, TP, PO 4 -P

Public Lands Grazing & Water Quality RESULTS Nutrient concentrations were at least one order of magnitude below levels of ecological concern, and similar to background estimates. Throughout the study period, US EPA recommended E. coli benchmarks were met for over 90% of samples collected and over 83% of sites (no exceedances). Recreation sites had the cleanest water (E. coli), cattle grazing sites were higher but on average were well below levels of concern. Our results do not support previous concerns of widespread microbial water quality pollution across these grazed landscapes, as concluded in other surveys. Roche, L.M., L. Kromschroeder, E. R. Atwill, R.A. Dahlgren, and K.W. Tate. 2013. Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation on National Forest Lands. PLOS ONE 8(6): e68127.

150 125 USFS Grazing Policy over the next 40 years? 100 75 best available science 50 25 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Working with Ranchers to Understand Sustainable Ranching and Management Goals and key management practices Concerns for the future Drought management Leslie Roche Rangeland Watershed Laboratory

Sustaining Working Rangelands Management of rangelands has become increasingly complex Economically and ecologically complex Growing societal demand for sustainable food systems Expanding expectations for conservation practices Ongoing dialogue on sustaining working rangelands Critical need to include the ranching community Perceptions Experiential knowledge Research Policy Management

Adaptive Rangeland Decision-Making Rancher mail survey March-June 2011 1700 producer members of CA Cattleman's Association 509 surveys returned Semi-structured rancher interviews May 2013-August 2014 101 ranching families across CA

Adaptive Rangeland Decision-Making Diversity and complexity of ranching operations. Mean Median Range Total size (ac) 23,240 2400 0 5,090,000 Private owned (ac) 2,660 620 0 40,000 Private leased (ac) 3,230 250 0 100,000 Public leased (ac) 17,300 0 0 5,000,000 Irrigated lands (ac) 360 2 0 12,000 Total livestock 643 200 4 22,000 Cow/calf pairs 288 145 0 8000 Stockers 295 0 0 15,000 Sheep 181 0 0 8,200

Adaptive Rangeland Decision-Making Demographics Median age: 62 (range of 25-93) 70% 3 rd generation ranching 20% 1 st generation ranching Ranch Economics 80% have off-ranch employment 33% have other agricultural production 65% consider ranching a critical source of income 45% have a succession plan in place (26% in progress)

Agricultural and Natural Resources Goals Bubble size corresponds to number of respondents indicating goal is #1 priority. Value is average ranking for all respondents.

Key Management Practices Primary practices Supporting practices

Characterizing On-Ranch Grazing Strategies Strategy % Ranchers # Pastures # Herds Duration of Grazing Livestock Density (ac/au) Timing of Rest Extensive Rotation 46 2 to >10 1 to 5 Weeks <5 to 11 Growing season Growing Season Long Continuous 35 2 to 5 1 to 5 Months 6 to 11 Dormant season Year Long Continuous 19 2 to 5 1 to 5 Year 11 to 20 None Strategy # Livestock Private Acres Total Acres (private + public) Extensive Rotation 630 7,500 19,500 Growing Season Long Continuous 950 6,000 43,500 Year Long Continuous 220 3,100 3,900

Conservation Programs Participation Williamson Act most critical conservation program for ranchers (>75%) ~40% of ranchers are actively involved or have plans to enroll in NRCS EQIP. ~35% of ranchers have or plan to enter into a conservation easement.

Biggest concerns for the future of your operation?

Biggest concerns for the future of your operation?

Biggest concerns for the future of your operation? 49% Government regulations/environmental policy 43% Economic viability 21% Succession planning 21% Water/rainfall/weather security of water supply

Adaptive Rangeland Decision-Making: Surviving Drought

Proactive Reactive Drought Adaptation Strategies % (n = 490) Employ conservative stocking rates 34 Incorporate pasture rest into grazing system 23 Incorporate both cow-calf and stockers for flexibility 21 Grass bank/stockpile forage 12 Use 1-3 month weather predictions to adjust stocking 11 Add other livestock types for flexibility 3 Reduce herd size 70 Purchase feed 69 Apply for government assistance programs 39 Wean early 39 Rent additional pasture 26 Move livestock to another location 24 Earn off-ranch income 23 Sell retained yearlings 22 Place livestock in a feedlot 8 Allow livestock condition to decline 7 Add alternative on-ranch enterprise 4

Surviving Drought Management Toolbox + Drought Adaptation Experience & Knowledge Education level No. good/excellent info. sources Generations ranching + + No. conservation programs No. key management practices No. land ownership types Goal Setting + No. reactive/proactive drought practices Drought management plan in place Ranking of forage production Average ranking of supporting goals weed management, water quality, soil health, riparian health, wildlife Roche et al. In prep.

Interviews and Field Surveys 101 semi-structured rancher interviews completed Diverse strategies & goals ~30 land manager interviews Agencies, NGOs Follow-up rangeland health and ranch productivity monitoring Subset of participants Annual monitoring

Interview Questions (examples) Operation Characteristics Annual Forage Clock Big picture of different land and cattle types within operation Marketing Strategies Goals & Management Strategies What are your management goals? What practices have been successful/unsuccessful? Adapting Management How do you manage for drought impacts? If another drought were to begin this year, how severely would this impact the economic viability of your operation?. If the frequency of drought were to increase, would your current strategies be adequate? Perspectives. Thinking about the next 10 years of rangeland research in California, what are some of the needs/challenges you feel the UCCE should focus on? What do you see as the major threats to California's Ranches and Rangelands?

Farmer and Rancher Voices from the Drought A chronicle of oral stories of farming and ranching families. https://soundcloud.com/groups/farmer-and-rancher-voices-from-the-drought