CONSERVATION STRATEGIES TOACHIEVE LANDSCAPE –LEVEL

CONSERVATION IN THE ARID WEST

Aridlands Grazing Network, Workshop 2Boise, Idaho

November 14–16, 2001

TNC’s Mission StatementThe mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animalsand natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth byprotecting the lands and waters they need to survive.

Conservation VisionThe Nature Conservancy’s vision is to conserve portfolios of functionalconservation areas within and across ecoregions. Through this portfolioapproach, we will work with partners to conserve a full array of ecologicalsystems and viable native species.

Copies of this summary are available on the Landscape Conservation NetworkWeb Site:

http://tnc-ecomanagement.org

Or contact:

Bob UnnaschMonitoring and Adaptive Management Program

1109 Main Street, #333Boise, ID 83702

208-343-8826; bunnasch@tnc.org

Cover photo: Medano Zapata Ranch, by Ron Semrod

ES-1

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

andscape Conservation Networks(LCNs) are catalyzing thedevelopment and implementation of

innovative biodiversity conservationstrategies at hundreds landscapes across theU.S. and internationally. The networks, alsocalled “learning networks,” bring togetherNature Conservancy field staff, partners, andexperts in a progressive series of facilitatedworkshops. Each network typically beginswith discussions related to conservationtargets and the scientific foundation ofmanagement. Over time, the group’s focusshifts to threats, appropriately scaled threat-abatement strategies, and monitoring andadaptive management.

The objectives of the Aridlands GrazingNetwork are to strengthen the scientificfoundation for grazing management in thelandscapes participating in the network, andto develop and advance strategies topromote biodiversity health and abatethreats at landscapes across the Arid West.

The second Aridlands Grazing Networkworkshop was held 14–16 November, 2001,in Boise, Idaho. Over the course of the three-day meeting, eight key lessons emerged.

Grazing is one of many conservationmanagement tools. It is helpful to thinkabout grazing as no more than one of a set ofland management tools that can be used toaccomplish specific objectives. Theusefulness of grazing as a tool varies widelyover space and time.

Working at multiple scales requiresmultiple, interrelated solutions. The conceptof spatially nested strategies is useful inunderstanding how our work at differentspatial scales is interrelated. Often work atsmaller scales supports and informs larger-scale strategies.

Spatially explicit biodiversity healthobjectives can help us understand the scalesat which strategies will operate. Thisincludes clearly defining the spatial extent ofthe largest area we want to influence.Skipping this important step can hamper thedevelopment of appropriate threatabatement strategies.

Have contingency plans. Conservationpractitioners can learn this lesson fromseasoned ranchers—develop and be ready toimplement Plan B. Our assumptions can turnout to be incorrect, and markets andenvironmental conditions can and willchange unpredictably. Well-craftedcontingency plans will help us and ourconservation targets weather uncertainty.

Incorporate social and economic driversinto planning efforts. Oftentimes the successof the strategies we devise are just asdependent upon social and economicconditions as they are on biological factors.As a result, we need to develop and testhypotheses related to these variables, andlearn how to incorporate socioeconomicfactors into our ecological models and otherplanning tools.

Developing a shared “desired futurecondition” helps build partnerships.Partnerships are built upon common ground;developing a shared vision for the future isan effective way to cut through differencesand identify what is important to everyone.

The ownership and management of land isthe core of all successful multi-scale andmultiple partner strategies. Owning andmanaging land give the Conservancy bothcredibility (“a seat at the table”) and learningopportunities that cannot be gained in otherways. Both are necessary if we are toinfluence lands that others own.

Don’t be seduced by first-order impacts. Wemust carefully predict and weigh theconsequences of our actions at multiplespatial and temporal scales in order to chooseappropriate strategies. If we don’t, ouractions can have unintended negativeconsequences.

L

iii

Field trips are an important component of learningnetwork workshops. Photo by Tim Whittier.

FOREWORD

he concept of learning networkswithin The Nature Conservancy hasevolved and is continuing to change

along with the organization. What hasremained constant is the networks’commitment to (1) supporting andaccelerating on-the-ground biodiversityconservation work, and (2) advancing howwe as an organization are tackling specificthreats or applying certain overarchingstrategies, to achieve lasting, globalconservation. Networks are also testinggrounds for new tools and concepts, and inmany cases they have helped diverse sets ofpartners find common ground.

The networks bring together site-based practitioners, partners, andscientific experts who deal withsimilar landscape-scale threats suchas fire suppression, invasive species,or incompatible forestry practices.Each network consists of 15 to 35landscape-scale sites, and isstructured around a seriesof workshops held over a period of18 to 24 months. Each workshoplasts approximately three days andconsists of presentations byConservancy and external scientificexperts, work group sessions, andintensive peer review of productscreated by the focal andparticipating landscapes (e.g.,conceptual ecological models ormonitoring plans). Networks are ledby veteran conservationpractitioners. When possible,workshops incorporate field trips tosites that are actively involved in agiven network.

The Aridlands Grazing Network,launched in April 2001, provides aforum and ongoing support for the

development and implementation ofconservation strategies in the context ofaridland ranching. There are currently fiveother Landscape Conservation Networksaddressing wetland management, themanagement of invasive species in theeastern U.S., and the conservation of fire-adapted and fire-influenced ecosystems in(1) the U.S., (2) Mexico, and (3) theCaribbean and Central America.

For more information on the AridlandsGrazing Network, contact Bob Unnasch(bunnasch@tnc.org) or Wendy Fulks(wfulks@tnc.org).

T

v

Contents

Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................ES-1

FOREWORD...................................................................................................................... iii

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1Goals and Objectives of Workshop #2.................................................................................................................... 1

OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTS AND ISSUES: PLENARY PRESENTATIONS .................... 5Grazing as a Tool for Managing Exotic Species.................................................................................................... 5Grazing as a Tool for Protecting Biodiversity........................................................................................................ 6Cheatgrass, Livestock Management & Restoration in the Great Basin Desert................................................. 6

PEER REVIEW OF THE FOCAL LANDSCAPES .............................................................. 9

BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................... 11

CONTACTS AND OTHER RESOURCES ........................................................................ 15

APPENDIX A Aridlands Grazing Network Participant List..........................................................A-1

APPENDIX B Draft Conservation Strategies for Focal Landscapes ............................................ B-1

vii

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Some pros and cons of prescriptive grazing (vs. herbicide use) as a weedcontrol strategy.............................................................................................................................................. 5

ix

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Landscapes represented at Aridlands Grazing Network workshops......................................... 3

2 Spatially nested strategies........................................................................................................................12

3 Spatial modeling allowed the Headwaters Ranch team to predict the results of theirconservation strategies 100 years after implementation ................................................................13

1

INTRODUCTION

he Nature Conservancy (TNC) isdirectly or indirectly involved inlivestock production at more than 25

sites in the American West. The AridlandsGrazing Network was developed topromote the understanding of keylandscape-scale conservation strategieswhere livestock grazing may be animportant component for advancingconservation goals.

The network consists of a group ofConservancy site-based practitioners andscientists, private ranchers, and scientistsand other experts from outside TNC whoattend a series of facilitated workshops. Theoverall network was specifically designed tomake tangible progress towardunderstanding the role of grazing at fourhigh-priority functional landscapes (“focal”landscapes), while leveraging criticallearning and best practices to 30 to35 additional priority landscapes(“participating” landscapes) managed byThe Nature Conservancy and its public andprivate partners.

The focal landscapes are Zumwalt Prairie inOregon, Owyhee Canyonlands in southwestIdaho, the Great Sand Dunes Ecosystem inColorado, and the Headwaters Ranch areain New Mexico (which includes portions ofboth the Mimbres River and Gila Riverconservation areas). These four landscapeswere selected to represent both the diversityof landscape types found in the Arid Westand the broad range of issues associatedwith conservation in this region.

Five workshops over two years will:

1. Facilitate communication and cross-sitelearning among Conservancypractitioners, ranching partners, andexternal scientific experts;

2. Develop ecological managementobjectives that explicitly integrate targetviability within the framework ofranching operations;

3. Promote the implementation of keystrategies that include adaptiveecological management, restoration, andcompatible economic development;

4. Develop multi-scale monitoring andassessment methods;

5. Help practitioners integrate weedmanagement strategies intomanagement plans; and

6. Develop and disseminate best practices,including recommendations forprescriptive conservation easements.

The network is coordinated and facilitatedby Robert Unnasch (bunnasch@tnc.org).

Goals and Objectives ofWorkshop #2

The primary objective of the secondworkshop of the Aridlands GrazingNetwork was to continue to build upon thelessons learned from the first workshop byexamining the diversity of conservationstrategies being implemented by each of thefour focal landscapes. We wanted to focusthe considerable experience, knowledge,and enthusiasm of this group to developpromising strategies to restore and maintainbiodiversity health at multiple spatial scalesand across multiple portfolio conservationareas in the Arid West.

Conservation practitioners in the Arid Westhave many landscape-scale strategies todraw upon; grassbanking, prescribed fire,and grazing are just a few of the generalstrategies that managers can implement tomaintain or restore biodiversity health totheir ecological systems. Additionalstrategies (e.g., passing state legislation) are

T

2

needed at larger scales, such as ecoregions,and to address the conservation needs ofmultiple portfolio areas.

We asked each of the focal landscapes toconsider the following and present theirfindings to the group:

♦ Describe and map both the currentconditions and the desired futurecondition for your system;

♦ Identify the stresses1 and sources 2

affecting your system’s key ecologicalfactors 3;

♦ Identify those strategies you believe willeffectively abate these threats; and

♦ Demonstrate, through your ecologicalmodel, how these actions will move thesystem toward the desired futurecondition.

1 “Stresses” are defined as the most serious typesof destruction or degradation affecting theconservation targets or ecological processes.

2 “Sources” of stress are the causes or agents ofdestruction or degradation.

3 “Key ecological factors” include critical patternsof biological structure and composition (keysystem states); and critical ecological processes,environmental regimes, and other environmentalconstraints that “drive” or give shape to thesepatterns and their natural variation over spaceand time (key system dynamics). A conservationtarget has integrity when all of its key ecologicalfactors remain intact and functioning within theirnatural ranges of variation.

Additional objectives were to maintain andfoster an informal network of westernaridland management practitioners bothwithin and outside the Conservancy; informsenior scientists on the current status of, andtools and information needed for,landscape-scale aridland management; andprovide participants with a forum forinteraction with a diversity of Conservancystaff, outside experts, and partners.

Forty-one people participated in theworkshop (see Appendix A), including sitebased practitioners, partners, and scientificexperts from the Conservancy, governmentagencies and other non-profit organizations.In all, 35 conservation areas located in 11western states have been involved in thenetwork (see Figure 1).

3

Figure 1. Landscapes represented at Aridlands Grazing Network workshops.

5

OVERVIEW OFCONCEPTS ANDISSUES: PLENARYPRESENTATIONS

Grazing as a Tool forManaging Exotic Species

Karen Launchbaugh, Ph.D.University of Idaho

razing can have a profound positiveor negative effect on the spread ofweeds. It has been well documented

that uncontrolled grazing has increased thespread of weeds via disturbance, transportof seeds, and reduced competition fromnative plants. However, carefully controlledgrazing can be used to reduce weeds in cropsystems, control herbaceous biomass in treecrops, remove weeds in waste places, andcontrol weeds on rangelands. This carefullymanaged use of grazing is often termed“prescription grazing.” Table 1 summarizessome of the pros and cons of usingprescription grazing instead of herbicides tocontrol rangeland weeds.

Successful prescription grazing relies ongood timing and selection of the correctspecies/breed of grazer. Once thesedecisions have been made the manager thenneeds to determine how often to graze and

the desired level of defoliation (stockingrate). Timing of grazing is important; forexample, grazing should occur when weedsare most susceptible and relatively palatableor when the desired species are leastpalatable or least susceptible. Palatability ofplants is often very different for differentspecies and breeds of grazing animals, so it’simportant to choose the most appropriategrazer.

The three most popular grazers are cattle,sheep, and goats. Generally, cattle are grasseaters with large, strong mouths, have largerumens for fermentation, are well designedfor fiber digestion, can be used to tramplevegetation, and are easy to contain and sell.Sheep are grass and forb eaters with smallselective mouths, large rumens forfermentation, and large livers fordetoxification. Sheep are also easy tomarket; however, they require fencing or aherder. Goats are forb and woody planteaters with small selective mouths. Likesheep, they have large livers fordetoxification and they require fencing or aherder for control. Unlike sheep, goats havea poorly established sales market.

Selection of the correct livestock speciesdepends on the weed species of interest, theterrain, handling equipment and fencing,and the livestock management skills andphilosophy of the manager. It is importantto note that in many cases animals can bebred or trained to be more effective weedcontrol agents.

G

Table 1. Some pros and cons of prescriptive grazing (vs. herbicide use) as a weed control strategy.Cons Pros

♦ Cost of animals♦ Difficulties finding appropriate animals♦ Fencing, water, herders, trailers♦ Reduced animal production♦ Damage to non-target plant species♦ Spread of weed seed in feces, wool, hair, or

hooves♦ May be incompatible with wildlife

♦ Can be more effective than herbicides♦ Improved pasture quality♦ No pesticide residue (environmentally

friendly)♦ Lower effect on non-target species♦ Convert weeds into saleable product♦ More sustainable control♦ Feasible in rough terrain

6

Prescription grazing is often most valuableas part of an integrated weed managementprogram. For example, for several weedyspecies, grazing animals have been shownto (1) increase the effects of herbicides byreducing the root mass, (2) improve theefficacy of biocontrol agents by reducingroot or seed production, and (3) plant seedsand control weeds during revegetation.

Grazing as a Tool forProtecting Biodiversity

Linda Hardesty, Ph.D.Washington State University

In the Arid West grazing is often used forecological purposes for such things as weedcontrol and fuel reduction. However, ourknowledge of grazing is incomplete and it isimportant to remember that both grazingand biodiversity have random components.In some cases grazing may be an effectivetool for management but it is always time-and site-specific.

We know the following about grazing:

♦ Grazing is neither good nor bad;

♦ Grazing is not a simple process;

♦ We can manipulate succession withgrazing;

♦ We can manipulate the structure of thesystem with grazing;

♦ Grazing can accelerate nutrient cycling;and

♦ We can manage grazing so that it isbarely detectable, or hugely destructive.

It is important for managers to rememberthat the current status does not necessarilyreflect current conditions; rather, the presentstate of a landscape might be a reflection ofhistorical processes. In addition, because theappropriateness of grazing as a conservationstrategy is always time- and site-specific, weneed to treat grazing application as anexperiment, complete with specific goals,

contingency plans, and monitoring plans.Contingency plans will allow the managerto take advantage of opportunities as theyarise.

Cheatgrass, LivestockManagement & Restorationin the Great Basin Desert

Mike Pellant, Ph.D.Bureau of Land Management

The Great Basin is a 70-million-acre aridenvironment dominated by sagebrushsteppe, salt desert shrub, andpinyon/juniper woodland plantcommunities. In the past 100 years much ofthe Great Basin has been severely degradedwith a significant loss of the nativeherbaceous understory. This void has beenfilled by cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum.Cheatgrass is a pernicious, invasive, exoticspecies with densities up to13,000 plants/m2 and 17,000 seeds/m2.Seeds are viable for up to five years. Inaddition, dead plants form a contiguousfuel base, and are flammable four to sixweeks earlier and four to eight weeks laterthan natives. As a result, the fire returninterval is now 10 years compared to 32 to70 years historically.

Because cheatgrass is spreading in areas thatare frequently used for cattle production,many people are advocating the use oflivestock to manipulate the vegetation andmitigate the damage cheatgrass may cause.Three main livestock vegetationmanipulation strategies have beenproposed:

♦ Protection Approach – Use livestock toreduce fuels around priority areas;

♦ Passive Approach – Manage livestock toreduce undesirable plant competitionand promote desired vegetation; and

7

♦ Active Approach – Apply grazing toreduce undesirable plant competitionprior to reseeding.

In general, livestock effects on vegetationcan be manipulated by changing the seasonof use, the intensity of use, the distribution,the duration of use, or the class of livestock.However, we must also be careful whenusing livestock that we do not introducenew weeds, compact the soil, destroy thebiological crust, or lose native plants.Managers must develop strategies tomitigate these possible negative effects oflivestock and monitor not only vascularplants but also biological crusts, soils, andother elements.

Examples of effective uses of livestock tomanipulate vegetation include:

♦ Focusing livestock use along fire startareas such as roads;

♦ Using livestock in areas designated aswildland/urban interface;

♦ Using livestock on greenstrips; and

♦ “Flash grazing” cheatgrass in the springto favor perennial bunchgrasses.

The ecological integrity of the Great Basinand other sage-steppe ecosystems isseverely threatened. In August of 1999, inthe space of about a week, almost 1.7 millionacres of land in the Great Basin burned.Over a few days, a series of lightning stormsignited hundreds of rangeland and forestfires. While putting out the fires was achallenge, the more formidable problem waspreventing much of the burned land frombeing overwhelmed by exotic annualgrasses and noxious weeds.

Cheatgrass already dominates roughly one-third, or about 25 million acres of the GreatBasin. Cheatgrass is a volatile fuel thatcarries fire quickly, and is the primaryreason behind the Great Basin’s downwardecological spiral — the more cheatgrass andother annual weeds, the more fire. And themore fire, the more cheatgrass and otherannual weeds.

Before the fires in the Great Basin werecontrolled, a team of specialists met in Boise,Idaho, to review the consequences of the bigblazes of 1999. The team concluded:

♦ The Great Basin’s ecologicalresiliency is fading as annualgrasses and noxious weedsincrease their dominance.

♦ Traditional means of fightinginvasive species and restoringnative habitat are not enough toreverse the downward trend.

♦ A true effort to restore, and notmerely rehabilitate, the burnedareas was needed to resolve theserious ecological problems inthe Great Basin.

♦ Such a restoration would beexpensive, but the cost of doingnothing ultimately would bemany times higher as non-native, invasive speciesdominate more land.

♦ Restoration won’t transform theGreat Basin to its composition of150 years ago. Rather, it wouldseek to restore some areas ofhigh values, reduce the effectsof annual grasses and noxiousweeds in other areas, andreverse the destructive cycle ofwildland fires and weeds.

In this working landscape the protection ofhigh-quality areas, and the restoration ofdegraded sites must include a variety ofstrategies, including innovative grazingregimes that will reduce the accumulation ofcheatgrass litter while minimizing damageto the biological crusts binding the soilsurface.

Much is at stake in the Great Basin. Withouta concerted, coordinated effort that reliesheavily on local partnerships, the GreatBasin could reach a point of no return,where the slide toward ecological disastercannot be reversed.

9

Conservation strategies under consideration at the Zumwalt Prairie, Oregon, include a mix ofapproaches such as grassbanking intended to minimize the impacts of grazing on the native prairieecosystem. Photo by Ellen M. Bishop.

PEER REVIEW OFTHE FOCALLANDSCAPES

primary objective of theworkshop was to provide in-depthpeer review on the system-level

management strategies developed for thefour focal landscapes: the Zumwalt Prairieof Oregon, the Owyhee Canyonlands ofIdaho, the Great Sand Dunes Ecosystem ofColorado, and the Headwaters Ranch ofNew Mexico (see Appendix B).

We asked peer reviewers to work withrepresentatives of each landscape and:

1. Envision the desired future conditionfor the targeted system and define whatsuccess looks like. Identify the “flex-

points” in the targeted systems; theseare the combination of ecological statesand landscape sites that will be mostresponsive to conservationmanagement.

2. Evaluate the proposed strategies tomove from the current condition to thedesired future condition. (Do thesestrategies link with the scientific workpreviously done?)

3. Verify that the strategies can work, andcan be successful at the necessarytemporal and spatial scales.

Several common themes emerged from thediscussions; these are documented as “bestpractices” in the following section.

A

11

BEST PRACTICESAND LESSONSLEARNED

he plenary presentations and groupdiscussions generated a number ofimportant ideas related to livestock

grazing, and developing multi-areaconservation strategies.

Grazing is one of manyconservation managementtools; its utility will varywidely over time and space

Grazing can be considered one of manytools available to land managers. Grazing isnot an all-purpose tool; however. Theappropriateness of grazing is time- and site-specific, and dependent upon the desiredoutcome. Employing grazing animals in aspecific way to control weeds, for example,is termed “prescription grazing.” Managersmay also apply grazing to manipulate plantsuccession.

Karen Launchbaugh shared evidence that“flash grazing” utilizing sheep is aneffective tool for controlling certain weeds,including leafy spurge and yellow starthistle in rangelands. Similarly, MikePellant suggested that early season grazingwithin green strips is an effective way ofenhancing the subsequent fire-resistance ofthese areas.

Conservation practitioners who employgrazing should approach its use as anexperiment, with well-defined, measurablegoals and monitoring plans. And, as allranchers know, contingency plans arenecessary to survive and even exploitchanging climates, markets, and otherfactors.

Spatially nested strategies:Working at multiple scalesrequires multiple,interrelated solutions

As we increase the geographic scope of ourconservation work, we are learning thatdifferent strategies are needed for thevarious spatial scales we choose to work in,and that these strategies are often related.For example, at the scale of a 10,000-acrepreserve or ranch we may employconservation strategies such as improvinggrazing management, and controllingweeds. If we also want to protectbiodiversity across a 5-million-acre area thatincludes the smaller preserve, we need newstrategies. At the larger scale we may focuson raising money to establish a WeedManagement Area and to create a regionalGrassbank™, passing legislation, orincreasing awareness about the importantrole of fire in a particular system. Often, thework at the smaller scale supports andinforms the larger-scale strategies. Figure 2illustrates this concept for Idaho’s 45-Ranch,Owyhee Borderland Trust, and OwyheeInitiative.

Establish clear, spatiallyexplicit biodiversity healthobjectives to understandthe impacts your strategieswill have at variousspatiotemporal scales

The Conservancy strives to employ tools orstrategies at one scale that can be leveragedto conserve a much larger area. However,that larger area needs to be clearly defined ifwe are to understand what impacts ourstrategies will have across the landscape. Awell-articulated, spatially explicit statement

T

12

• Grassbank• Special Designations• Change grazing

management• Integrate non-grazing areas• Participate in Start Up Weed

Management Area

45 RANCH70,000 acres

Figure 2. Spatially nested strategies. In Idaho theConservancy is pursuing multiple, often interrelatedstrategies to effect conservation at three different spatialscales represented by the 45 Ranch, the OwyheeBorderland Trust, and the Owyhee Initiative. Concentriccircles represent areas of increasing size; double-headedarrows connect interrelated strategies applied at differentscales.

of “desired future condition” can helpmanagers come to grips with the size of thearea they are trying to influence anddevelop realistic biodiversity healthobjectives. Such a statement will helpmanagers deal with the fact that actions canhave net negative impacts at onespatiotemporal scale and net positiveimpacts at other scales. These statements canalso help educate and energize partners andother stakeholders.

Staff used spatial data from a variety ofsources to develop detailed maps of theHeadwaters Ranch conservation areadepicting current vegetation, current andpotential management actions, anddesired future condition by the year 2100.Figure 3 illustrates changes in vegetationand improved hydrologic condition, all ofwhich managers hope to achieve in thenext 100 years through new grazing andfire management treatments, sedimenttrap construction, and selective treethinning.

Have contingency plans

The majority of men meet with failure becauseof their lack of persistence in creating newplans to take the place of those which fail.

—Napoleon Hill

The strategies we choose to pursue arebased on our limited understanding of theecology and the sociology of thelandscape. It is the nature of optimists—and conservationists are all optimists—tobelieve that what they are doing will havea positive impact. And yet, more oftenthan not, our assumptions or ourpredictions prove wrong and we areforced to reconsider our actions. Doing sois the key to adaptive management.Anticipating the need to change, andplanning for it is actively managing thefuture.

Incorporate social andeconomic drivers into ourplanning efforts

Oftentimes the success of the strategies wedevise are just as dependent upon social andeconomic conditions as they are onbiological factors. In particular, our need toeffect change over enormous areasnecessitates that we employ strategies withan economic component; otherwise theywon’t be feasible. TNC is less restricted bymany of the day-to-day financial concerns

13

that our neighbors labor under. Because ofthis, we have greater freedom to experimentwith a variety of grazing and landmanagement techniques. However, becausewe hope that the successful techniques wedevelop are adopted by others, we mustincorporate assumptions about social andeconomic factors into our planning, andthey should be tested, just as biological andecological assumptions are.

The Headwaters Ranch strategy, in part,has been to use the ranch as a laboratory todevelop and test management regimes thatare simultaneously economically feasibleand facilitate the restoration of the grasslandecosystem. TNC is exploring opportunitiesto develop uses for small-diameter timber tocreate a market for juniper. The goal is toproduce an incentive for local people toharvest the alligator junipers encroachingthe grasslands. If successful, this willfacilitate restoration across the entireconservation area.

Developing a shareddesired future condition forthe system and the site is apowerful partnershipbuilding strategy

An effective way to engage disparatepartners is to focus early discussions on“What we want this place to be like in 20 to30 years.” These initial discussions breakdown barriers and help to identify commonground. Eventually, this shared vision canbe carried through to continually motivatepartners and to create a shared language ofconservation and land management.

The Conservancy’s team at the Medano-Zapata Ranch (part of the Great Sand DunesEcosystem) has been working closely withthe National Park Service, the ColoradoDepartment of Fish and Game, and

Figure 3. Spatial modeling allowed the Headwaters Ranch team to predict the results of theirconservation strategies 100 years after implementation. Shown here are areas of vegetation change(green) and improved hydrologic condition (blue vertical lines).

14

surrounding landowners to develop aconsensus vision of the upper San LuisValley. By sharing its perspective onconservation targets, and the ecologicalmodels that have been developed for thosetargets, TNC has structured an opendialogue about the biodiversity values in thevalley and how to work together to protectthem.

The ownership andmanagement of land is thecore of all successful multi-scale and multiple partnerstrategies

Representatives from each of the focal siteshave emphasized the importance of “beingthere” as the key to opening doors to thelocal community. Land ownership is atangible commitment to the community anda desire to learn about community values.Our ownership of ranches has in manyplaces set TNC apart from “outsideenvironmentalists” and has enabled oursite-based staff to affect lands that theycould not hope to influence any other way.

Owyhee County, Idaho, has been a hotspotof anti-environmental sentiment fordecades, and yet TNC has been invited to bean active participant in scoping out thefuture of the county and its people. TrishKlahr believes that the turning point forTNC was our commitment to the 45 Ranch.Our ownership of the ranch brought us thelocal credibility that enabled TNC to workwith local partners to create the OwyheeBorderland Trust. The Borderland Trust was

the seed of the Owyhee Initiative, and thesphere of impact is continuing to grow.

Don't be seduced by first-order impacts

Ecological systems are both complex andcomplicated and we need to look beyondthe simple first order connections. Failure todo so can result in mis-spent resources or inour actions creating problems larger thanwe had originally tried to fix.

An example of the need to identify thesecondary as well as primary impacts of ouractions is the reintroduction of fire to controljuniper encroachment in the Great Basin. Itis thought that historically, periodic fire wasthe key factor in preventing the expansion ofjuniper in these systems, and there is astrong desire among some to reintroducefire into these systems. However, it is verylikely that with the introduction ofcheatgrass into these communities aprescribed fire may result in a cheatgrassmonoculture rather than a healthy sage /scrub community.

Similarly, juniper encroachment is apressing conservation concern at theHeadwaters Ranch. Again, it is thought thatprescribed fire would control thisexpansion. However, there is some evidencethat the blue gramma grasslands that weredominant one or two centuries ago—and arebelieved by many to be the desired state—may have been an artifact of a wetter climateand may not be attainable under currentclimatic conditions. Reintroduction of firemay be the worst possible action now.

15

CONTACTS ANDOTHERRESOURCES

For more information about this workshopand the Aridlands Grazing Network contact:

Bob UnnaschEcological Monitoring and AdaptiveManagement Program1109 Main Street #333Boise ID 83702(208) 343-8826 ext. 14bunnasch@tnc.org

For detailed information about the firstworkshop of the Aridlands GrazingNetwork held 11–13 April, 2001, at theMedano-Zapata Ranch in Colorado or tolearn more about aridland managementactivities at Conservancy and partner sites,visit our Web site at http://www.tnc-ecomanangement.org/aridlands/;subscribe to TNC's aridlands grazinglistserve by contacting Chris Wilson atchrista_wilson@tnc.org; or consult theparticipant list in Appendix A.

A-1

APPENDIX A

Aridlands Grazing Network Participant List(* = Address / position has changed and no longer affiliated with network;

1 = Attended Workshop #1; 2 = Attended Workshop #2)

Sue Bellagamba1 The Nature ConservancyPO Box 132959 E Center StreetMoab, UT 84532-1329435-259-4629sbellagamba@tnc.orgSite: Dugout Ranch/Canyonlands

Jayne Belnap1,2

USGS2290 S Resource Blvd.Moab, UT 84532435-719-2333jayne_belnap@nps.gov

Bruce Boggs1

The Nature ConservancyCenter for Compatible Economic Development7 East Market StreetLeesburg, VA 20176703-779-1728bboggs@tnc.org

Tom Bragg1

The Nature Conservancy19677 Lane 6 NorthMosca, CO 81146719-378-2503tbragg@tnc.orgSite: Medano-Zapata Ranch

Bob Budd1

The Nature ConservancyRed Canyon Ranch350 Red Canyon RoadLander, WY 82520307-332-3388bbudd@wyoming.comSite: Red Canyon Ranch & Lower Winchester Ranch

Steven Buttrick1,2

The Nature Conservancy821 SE 14thPortland, OR 97214503-230-1221sbuttrick@tnc.orgSite: Zumwalt Prairie

Charles Curtin1,2

Arid Lands ProjectBox 29Animas, NM 88020207-767-4211ccurtin@earthlink.netSite: Aridlands Project & Gray Ranch

Peter Dunwiddie1,2

The Nature Conservancy217 Pine Street #1100Seattle, WA 98101206-343-4344pdunwiddie@tnc.orgSite: Klickitat Oaks Preserve & Moses Coulee

Jeff Fields2

The Nature ConservancyHC 85 Box 6Bates, OR 97817541-421-3037jfields@tnc.org

Wendy Fulks1,2

The Nature ConservancyLearning Networks Group2060 Broadway, Suite 230Boulder, CO 80302303-541-0355wfulks@tnc.org

Mark Gershman*,2

The Nature ConservancyConservation Planning2060 Broadway #230Boulder, CO 80304303-541-0322mgershman@tnc.org

Mike Gibson1

The Nature Conservancy19677 Lane 6 NorthMosca, CO 81146719-378-2503mgibson@tnc.orgSite: San Luis Valley

Elizabeth Gray1

The Nature Conservancy201 Mission St, 4th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105415-777-0487egray@tnc.orgSite: Mount Hamilton

Jeff Hardesty1

The Nature ConservancySoutheast DivisionDepartment of BotanyPO Box 118526Gainesville, FL 32611352-392-7006jhardesty@tnc.org

Linda Hardesty2

Dept of Natural Resources SciencesWashington State University

A-2

Johnson HallPullman, WA 99164509-335-2980lhardest@mail.wsu.edu

Jeff Herrick2

Jornada Experimental RangeMSC 3JERNMSU Box 30003Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003505-646-5194jherrick@nmsu.eduSite: Jornada Experimental Range

Graciella Hinshaw*,1

The Nature Conservancy19677 Lane 6 North Mosca, CO 81146719-378-2503mhinshaw@tnc.orgSite: San Luis Valley

Lonnie Hutes2

BLM1387 S Vinnell WayBoise, ID 83709208-384-3397lhutes@fmtc.com

Trish Klahr1,2

The Nature ConservancyPO Box 165Sun Valley, ID 83353208-726-3007tklahr@tnc.orgSite: Owyhee Canyonlands

Teri Knight*,1

The Nature Conservancy1771 E Flamingo Road Suite 111BLas Vegas, NV 89119702-737-8744tknight@tnc.orgSite: River Fork Ranch & Carson Valley Project

Rick Knight1

Department of Fish and Wildlife Biology233-JVK WagerFort Collins, CO 80523970-491-6714knight@cnr.colostate.edu

Karen Launchbaugh2

University of IdahoRangeland Ecology & ManagementMoscow, ID 83844-1135208-885-4394klaunchb@uidaho.edu

Lou Lunte1,2

The Nature Conservancy1109 Main Street #333Boise, ID 83702208-343-8826llunte@tnc.orgSite: Owyhee Canyonlands

Barry Rice2

The Nature ConservancyInvasives Program124 Robbins Hall

Dept of Crops and WeedsDavis, CA 95616530-754-8890bazza@ucdavis.edu

Patrick McCarthy1,2

The Nature Conservancy212 E Marcy StreetSanta Fe, NM 87505505-988-1542pmccarthy@tnc.orgSite: Headwaters Ranch

Joey Milan2

BLM4574 Jewell StreetBoise, ID 83705208-384-3397josephmilan@hotmail.com

Mike Pellant2

BLM1387 S Vinnell WayBoise, ID 83709208-373-3823mike_pellant@blm.gov

Linda Poole2

The Nature ConservancyMatador RanchHC 63 Box 5032Dodson, MT 59524406-443-0303lpoole@ttc-cmc.netSite: Matador Ranch & Pine Butte Swamp

Louis Provencher1,2

The Nature ConservancyDisney Wilderness Preserve2700 Scrub Jay TrailKissimmee, FL 34759407-935-0002lprovencher@tnc.orgSite: Carson Valley Project

John Randall1,2

The Nature ConservancyWildland Invasive Species Program124 Robbins HallVegetable Crops DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, CA 95616530-754-8890jrandall@tnc.org

Rich Reiner1

The Nature Conservancy958 Washington StRed Bluff, CA 96080530-527-0494rreiner@tnc.orgSite: Lassen Foothills

Lynne Robinson*,1

The Nature ConservancyResource Development4245 N. Fairfax Dr. Suite 100Arlington, VA 22203-1606703-841-8136lrobinson@tnc.org

A-3

Bruce Runnels1,2

The Nature ConservancyRocky Mountain Division Office117 East Mountain Avenue #201Ft. Collins, CO 80524970-484-2886brunnels@tnc.org

Peter Russell2

The Nature ConservancyPO Box 1603Silver City, NM 88062-1603(505) 538-9700prussell@tnc.orgSite: Headwaters Ranch

Alan Sands1,2

The Nature Conservancy1109 Main Street #333Boise, ID 83702208-343-8826asands@tnc.orgSite: Owyhee Canyonlands & Pioneer Mountains

Jen Shimmenti 2

The Nature Conservancy4245 North Fairfax DriveArlington, VA 22203703-841-7190jschimmenti@tnc.org

Terri Schulz1,2

The Nature Conservancy1881 Ninth StreetBoulder, CO 80302303-444-2985 X1206tschulz@tnc.orgSite: Colorado Science & Great Sand DunesEcosystem

Phil Shephard2

The Nature ConservancyPO Box 386Enterprise, OR 97828541-541-3458pshephard@tnc.orgSite: Zumwalt Prairie

Ayn Shlisky1,2

The Nature ConservancyGlobal Fire Initiative2424 Spruce StreetBoulder, CO 80302303-444-2985 ext. 1063ashlisky@tnc.org

Edward Bennett Smith1,2

The Nature ConservancyNorthern Arizona Field Office2601 N Fort Valley Road Suite 1Flagstaff, AZ 86001520-774-8892ebsmith@flagstaff.az.usSite: White Mountains & Verde River& Coconino Plateau

Andrew Soles2

The Nature ConservancyCompatible Ventures Group4245 North Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203703-841-4503asoles@tnc.org

Robert Taylor2

The Nature ConservancyWhite Sands Missile Range, NM 88002-5048505-678-0949taylorr@wsmr.army.mil

Bob Unnasch1,2

The Nature ConservancyEcological Monitoring & Adaptive Management1109 Main Street #333Boise, ID 83702208-343-8826 ext. 14bunnasch@tnc.org

Chuck Warner1

The Nature Conservancy610 N Mission Suite B-1Wenatchee, WA 98801509-665-9920cwarner@tnc.orgSite: Moses Coulee & Beezley Hills Project

Peter Warren1,2

The Nature Conservancy1510 E. Fort LowellTucson, AZ 85719520-622-3861pwarren@tnc.orgSite: Malpai Borderlands

Tim Whittier1,2

The Nature ConservancyEcological Monitoring & Adaptive Management1109 Main Street #333Boise, ID 83702208-343-8826 ext. 11twhittier@tnc.org

Berta Youtie1,2

The Nature ConservancyPO Box 1188LaGrande, OR 97850541-962-7966byoutie@tnc.orgSite: Boardman Conservation Area& Juniper Hills

B-1

APPENDIX B

Draft Conservation Strategies for Focal Landscapes

Owyhee Canyonlands

45 Ranch (~70,000 acres)• Offer as grassbank• Special designation: “Sage Grouse Research Area”• Improve grazing management/non-use• Participate in/start up Weed Management Area

Owyhee Borderlands Trust (~150,000 – 300,000acres)• Jointly own/operate grassbanks• Vegetation treatments: prescribed fire, grazing

management• Easement purchase and grant program

Owyhee Initiative (~5 million acres)• Funding for grassbanks• Funding for prescribed fire program• Establishment of Weed Management Areas• Resolution of Wilderness Study Areas• Special designations:

− Wild and Scenic− Sage Grouse Conservation Area

Headwaters Ranch

Upland Strategies• Implement new grazing system: Rest-rotation,

riparian exclusion, reduction in stocking rate,increase movement

• Develop an ecological fire management program• Thin (cut, lop & scatter) juniper and pine in pre-

threshold areas; treat cut junipers with herbicide?• Construct check dams in areas with high soil

erosion potential and little ground cover

Strategies for all SystemsAbate direct threats to river & its floodplain :• Minimize grazing of livestock in riparian areas• Remove or modify levees• Improve management of irrigation system• Support compatible economic development

(organic farms)Improve understanding of target systems:• Sponsor ecological and hydrological research and

disseminate results• Raise awareness of sites’ values and of roles of fire

and flooding via a public education program

Zumwalt Prairie

General Strategies• Collect long-term data on the effects of livestock

grazing on target species• Form Advisory Board• Salmon Plan Participation

Draft Grazing Strategies• Form Zumwalt-wide grassbank with TNC lands as

initial core• Prescribed fire?• Leverage TNC property to allow for rest,

management agreements, or grazing cooperative?• Form Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration-

style private grazing cooperative• Operate a network of community pastures on

rangeland and marginal farmlands in Manitoba,Saskatchewan and Alberta

• Participate in developing stewardship standard forOregon County Beef and/or Oregon Trail Beef

Great Sand Dunes Ecosystem

• RGDSS used to make water decisions• Irrigation management plan• Eliminate Baca water threat• Limit water diversions over Medano Pass• Integrated invasive species management plan• Understand and manage recharge areas to benefit

biodiversity• Reduce impacts of closed basin infrastructure