Rangeland Health Workshop - Breakout Session3

Updated 06/13/2008

Points for discussion:

Report the health of a 1,000,000 hectare watershed. Budget: $1,000,000 (@ $100,000 per person for 10 hirees). Timespan 1 year. Information on past is free.

1. Who will you hire?



2. What will they do?



3. What information is lacking?
   • research needs
   • data
4. Assumptions: some assumptions are permitted but must be stated.

Key points presented by group 1.

The personnel assembled for the project would be:

• A project manager
• A remote sensing specialist
• A data processing manager
• Three (3) plant specialists
• Three (3) soil specialists
• A logistics manager/cook

The research team would be charged with obtaining information on soil integrity, watershed function, and the vegetational composition and structure of the watershed.

Before beginning field work the group would summarize available aerial photographs, remote sensing imagery and other available data in order to stratify the study area by soil type, landform and vegetation type and identify roads and streams etc. With this information they would identify sites and the logistics of obtaining information (including travel time) in the time available.

At each site the teams would gather information on 17 qualitative and quantitative attributes of the site including characterizing the soil surface, and from this construct an ecological indicator matrix.

Data collected by the field teams would be correlated to remote sensing imagery and the relationships between the fine and coarse resolution data tested for accuracy. The end product of the project would be a map which defines the health of the various components of the watershed being evaluated.

Summary: The project crew of ten were drawn from six fields of specialization, and the crew charged with obtaining information on soil integrity, watershed function, and the vegetational structure and composition of the watershed. 17 qualitative and quantitative attributes of each site would be measured, and these data related to remotely sensed data to derive correlations and relationships that could be extrapolated to the entire watershed in order to construct a map showing the health of various areas of the watershed.

Key points presented by group 2.

We defined rangeland health to have three key components. First was the ability of a site to maintain the soil on site within its natural potential. Second were the biological, physical components present which would allow the specific uses or objectives to be met depending on societies goals. Third was to determine the resiliency of the communities associated with the watershed.

Information needs

1. In order to meet the first objective it would be necessary to evaluate the soil cover and bare ground patch connectivity. This would allow us to determine the ability of the site to maintain soil on site and provide options for people to determine what they would want from the site.
2. An evaluation of the community types in the watersheds and the patches would allow us to determine whether the different seral states were present in the watershed for each of the ecological sites.
3. Use the idea of community well-being which measures socioeconomic ability and community capacity to evaluate the long-term sustainability of the different communities.

Process

1. Use existing soil maps and the ecological sites (types) to determine the potential natural cover and bare ground patch connectivity. Then use aerial photos to map the area and stratify the sites for ground truthing. If historical photos or other data are available see which direction the trend may be going.
2. Again use of the existing soil maps and ecological sites (types) to determine the vegetation that could be there and determine if the different seral states (state and transitions) are present which would allow the site to recover from different disturbances and achieve the different potential products society may want.
3. Use the process described in Rasmussen (this workshop) to evaluate community well-being.

Personnel needs

1. GIS-Remote sensing specialist to assist in compiling and interpreting aerial photos.
2. Rangeland ecologist to determine the potential ecological sites and potential natural cover for the different seral states and direct and train field crew for verification.
3. Social scientist to determine the community well-being of those communities in the watershed.
4. Four individuals to help with field work sampling ground cover and the social assessment interviews.

Summary: The overall objective is to determine the long-term capabilities and/or sustainability of the area. We would keep the three different assessments separate because each would tell us something different. The first would allow use to know if we were keeping the most options open for the future, the second would tell us if we were where we needed to be depending on what people currently want, and the third would allow us to determine the long-term capabilities of the communities.

Key points presented by group 3.

The group began deliberations by identifying the following assumptions:

1. Society has a set of values which we acknowledge and accept.
2. The primary goal is determining the integrity of soil resources.
3. Project will produce an assessment of current status.

In order to meet these assumptions several key tasks were identified. The project would be geared to accumulating data on soil integrity which would result in an average value to serve as an overall assessment of the watershed. The group also agreed that the assessment of the watershed must be placed in the context of the history of land use in the watershed. While there would be an overall assessment of the watershed, areas ìat riskî for further degredation would be identified.

Evaluation of the watershed would be based on gathering information on measured changes in bare ground and other remotely sensed vegetational attributes. Using historical data we would establish 25-year patterns of variability with climate models supported by ground data. By overlaying this with information on geomorphological heterogeneity and management history of the site we would evaluate the watershed to identify areas of concern (areas "at risk").

Summary: Assessment of the watershed must take into account acknowledged societal values. The integrity of soil resources is the most important health-related aspect of watersheds, and this will be assessed in the context of current status. The health of the watershed would be expressed as a single "average" value for the entire watershed although ìat riskî areas would be identified. Much of the evaluation would be based on remotely sensed data but soil characteristics would have to be evaluated in situ.

< Back to Agenda