Wednesday, July 27, 2011

New Mexico Summer Tour

By Les Owen, New Mexico Section

The New Mexico Section of the Society for Range Management held its Summer Tour on July 22, 2011 at the NMSU Corona Range and Livestock Research Center. Ranch Superintendent, Shad Cox, started the day off with an overview of operations on the 42 section ranch located in central New Mexico. The CRLRC is a unique research facility in that research and ranch operations are funded by commercial livestock production (cattle and sheep) and hunting opportunities on the ranch. A large collection of research literature is available on the CRLRC website.

The first stop was in a pasture where juniper was mechanically controlled in the late 1970s. Dr. Andrés Cibils is leading a research project using very large scale aerial photography and specialized software to analyze re-invading juniper sapling density effects on grass production. Preliminary data indicate that when sapling size reaches 1 meter cover, grass production decreases significantly.

Stop 2 was in a pasture where roughly half was open grassland and half juniper woodland. GPS collars were fitted on cattle and mule deer to determine habitat preference for each species based on tree densities, time of year, and climatic conditions. Data show that both mule deer and cattle start to avoid woodland areas when canopy cover exceeds 40%.

The third site was an area where an intensive targeted grazing study was conducted using goats and sheep to control juniper saplings. Results only indicated a 5% kill on saplings, with most controlled individuals being smaller in size. The majority of the saplings were too large and established for the targeted grazing to be highly effective. Targeted grazing can be an effective tool for managing juniper saplings that are small and could be a good complementary tool with other control mechanisms.

Just before lunch we visited a half section pasture where re-invading juniper was controlled using individual plant treatments of Velpar. Around 95% control was achieved for close to $9.50 per acre application cost. The CRLRC employed the services of the NMSU Range Club to apply the treatment which resulted in good experience for the students and an effective control for the CRLRC. Tour Sponsor and DuPont Representative, Jack Lyons, provided information about placement of soil application of Velpar in relation to the edge of the juniper drip line.

Lunch was served at the almost completed Southwest Center for Rangeland Sustainability located near the center of the ranch. Shad Cox provided a tour of the new facility which will serve as a centrally located venue in New Mexico for educational programs related to agriculture. The facility houses a classroom, conference room, offices, and a commercial kitchen. Look forward to hearing of many more great programs being hosted at this facility.

After lunch we moved on to a site where individual juniper plants in plots received either a foliar application of Surmount or tree drip line application of Tordon. Tour Sponsor and Dow Representative, Greg Alpers, provided information about the applications and emerging technology using electrostatically charged herbicide to vastly improve efficacy of aerial treatments. Trials have been conducted on mesquite and cholla with promising results.

Next a research project using VLSA photography to estimate juniper biomass for use as a biofuel was visited. After the photography was acquired, each juniper was individually harvested, mulched and weighed to calibrate the estimation tool. This was done on two separate plots where about 50 tons of biomass was harvested. Researchers are able to use data from this project to accurately estimate standing juniper biomass using VLSA photography. Note in the picture background a strange phenomenon having to do with darkening skies that has been rumored to happen in the past around New Mexico.

Our 7th stop of the day was a hydrology study in juniper woodlands where soil moisture sensors were placed in replicated plots where Spike had been used to control juniper and control plots. Data showed a 3 fold increase in grass production in treated plots, but due to the low average rainfall neither control or treated plot soil sensors indicated moisture penetration that would lead to aquifer recharge.

Our final stop of the day was to a study where Spike was used to control juniper in the mid 1990s and Rx fire was used as a follow up treatment in 2003 to control emerging saplings. Differences in forage production between the pasture where the Spike treatment was followed with Rx fire and that without fire was significant. Sapling emergence in the non-burned pasture caused a decrease in grass production.

The NMSRM Summer Tour had a great tour and we are very appreciative to NMSU and the Corona Range and Livestock Research Center for hosting the event. We also would like to thank our tour sponsors: Dow, DuPont, and NorthStar Helicopters.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Interest Piece - The Pros and Cons of Wind Power on Rangelands

By Maggie Haseman, SRM Outreach Intern

CQ Researcher is a periodical that covers some of the most debated social and political topics of today. I recently read a CQ Researcher article titled, “Wind Power: Is Wind Energy Good for the Environment?” written by David Hosansky, which I found to be especially informative.  
Photo by Maggie Haseman,
 National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO
In his article Hosansky outlines the history of how humans have harnessed the power of wind. Between 5,500 B.C.E. and 1,400 A.C.E., wind power was first employed in Southeast Asia to sail boats, and in windmills to pump water and grind grain. In the 18th and early 19th century and during the Industrial Revolution, steam began to replace wind, a well established energy source throughout Europe, as a power source. By the late 19th century, however wind reclaimed its early importance when scientists began developing windmills to bring electricity to rural areas, especially in Scotland, the United States, and Denmark. In the 1900s to 1980s most of the U.S. was reliant on nuclear energy and fossil fuels for electricity, farmers however used small windmills for irrigation pump operation. Between 1990 and present day, interest in alternative energy has increased due to rising oil prices, among other factors. Today, Hosansky cites China as the wind power world leader with a wind-energy capacity of 42 gigawatts, followed closely by the U.S. at 40 gigawatts.

A wind turbine works by capturing energy when the wind blows past the blade, there is a “lift” effect causing the blades to turn. As the blades turn, a shaft that is connected to the generator spins, creating electricity.

Wind Turbine Diagram and Parts
Blades: Every turbine usually has either two or three blades.
Rotor: The blades and the hub together are called the rotor.
Pitch: Blades are turned, or pitched, out of the wind to control the rotor speed.
Brake: A disc brake, which can stop the rotor in emergencies.
Low-speed shaft: The rotor turns the low-speed shaft at about 30 to 60 rotations per minute.
Gear box: Gears connect the low-speed shaft to the high-speed shaft and increase speeds from about 30 to 60 rotations per minute (rpm) to 1,000 to 1,800, rpm, the speed required by most generators to produce electricity.
Generator: Produces 60-cycle AC electricity.
Controller: The controller starts up the machine at wind speeds of about 8 to 16 miles per hour (mph) and shuts off the machine at about 55 mph.
Anemometer: Measures the wind speed and transmits wind speed data to the controller.
Wind vane: Measures wind direction and communicates with the yaw drive to orient the turbine properly with respect to the wind.
Nacelle: Contains the gear box, low- and high-speed shafts, generator, controller, and brake.
High-speed shaft: Drives the generator.
Yaw drive: Keeps the rotor on upwind turbines facing into the wind as the wind direction changes.
Yaw motor: Powers the yaw drive.
Tower: Towers are made from tubular steel, concrete, or steel lattice.
Caption Source:  Department of Energy
Photo Source: Turbine Zone

Some of the issues I found interesting in Hosansky’s paper include the problem of wind intermittency, the financial constraints involved with wind power, the effect wind energy can have by displacing some emissions and pollutants, concerns about wildlife protection, and the land requirements for a wind farm.

Photo by Charles Haseman,
Along I-80 near Des Moines, Iowa
 Living in Colorado, a relatively windy state, I don’t notice a lack of wind but this article reminded me that not every place in the U.S. or the world receives gusts as powerful as those throughout the Great Plains and the west coast. The article discusses that wind power seems to be a perfect fit for the U.S., according to Hosansky, If wind turbines had the ability to operate at 100% of their capacity, wind power has the potential to supply 16 times the electricity needs of the United States; however wind turbines only generate 25-40% of their capacity due to wind intermittency. Another challenge is that the locations with the most persistent wind tend to be in sparsely populated areas away from major population centers and not necessarily when the demand for energy peaks.  As a result, a large network of transmission lines is necessary to deliver the wind energy to the consumers, which could be costly.

I find the financial controversy outlined by Hosansky particularly fascinating. In order to reach the current U.S. goal of generating 20% of energy by wind power, the estimated cost is $200 billion, likely to be burdened onto ratepayers. This money would be used for turbines, improved transmission line capability and other infrastructure. Wind farms can also lower property value by up to 40%. On the other hand, turbines can result in local governments receiving “higher real estate tax revenue” and landowners leasing their land to build towers for $3,000 to $5,000 a year. The renewable energy standard President Obama presented will protect consumers from unstable fuel prices, save money, boost the economy and create green jobs. In addition the price of wind power is less than other renewable-energy sources.

Photo by Charles Haseman,
Along I-80 near Des Moines, Iowa
To me, Hosansky’s summary of the effect of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, which are often noted as the culprits for climate change, and the way wind power impacts them is enlightening. “The extraction, transport and combustion of… fossil fuels can affect water and air quality, wildlife habitats and the global climate.” Additionally green energy does not necessarily include all renewable energies; cycling fossil fuel plants up and down in response to the intermittent wind is expensive and “can emit excessive pollution” and reduce the “effectiveness of environmental-control equipment.” In order to reduce emissions it would be more efficient to directly address that problem. Conversely, wind energy is a key energy source to reducing air pollution and carbon dioxide and other emissions from coal and natural gas. Besides hydropower, wind energy generates the most amount of electricity compared to every other renewable energy sources, and it is considered safer than nuclear energy. A combination of diverse mixed fuel sources such as wind, solar and a back-up system of newer and more efficient gas-fired plants that can be quickly ramped up or down can reduce emissions significantly because fossil fuel plants won’t be running as often.

Photo by Charles Haseman,
Along I-80 near Des Moines, Iowa
Possibly the most popular argument against wind power that I have heard is about the detrimental effects it can have on wildlife, particularly birds and bats; Hosansky explains this captivating argument. Thousands of birds, including rare raptors such as golden eagles and burrowing owls have been killed by the blades of wind mills, and others have been electrocuted by wind-farm power lines. Additionally, in one year 2,000 bats may have been killed by a single wind farm. However, others suggest that wind farms can be placed far from migratory paths and “major populations of birds and bats” where such effects are less likely. Experts say that many reports of wildlife death were made prior to technological advances; modern wind mills are taller and kill far fewer animals. One report stated that turbines are low on the list of reasons why birds and bats die; pesticides, attacks by domestic and feral cats and collisions with windows kill much greater number of birds.

Photo by Maggie Haseman,
 National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO
Another interesting argument discussed by Hosansky concerns land requirements. “Wind farms require far more land… than traditional forms of electricity generation”; estimates say “45 times more than nuclear power and several times more than coal and natural gas plants”. Furthermore, the location of wind farms can damage sensitive ecosystems and destroy beautiful landscapes. Alternatively, ”the turbines take up relatively little space and [the] land around” them can still be utilized for other purposes such as farming, ranching and recreation, thus taking up less space than fossil fuel plants overall. Additionally, improvements in technology continue to allow for larger turbines, meaning fewer are necessary to generate the same amount of electricity. Moreover, between smog and a windmill, one person stated they’d take the windmill.

This article was eye-opening to me and really gave some insight into benefits of and current issues with wind power. I now believe I have formed an educated opinion around wind energy and based on the issues discussed above I personally support wind power. It seems that the issues with it can be solved and, in my opinion, the issues, when they are compared to the benefits, are minor. I enjoyed reading the story-like writing and the political perspective on wind energy. If you would like to read this article too, here is the citation:

Hosansky, D. (2011, April 1). Wind Power: Is wind power good for the environment?. CQ Researcher, 21, 289-312.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Announcing the Launch of the Collaborative Conservation Learning Network






The Center for Collaborative Conservation at Colorado State University has just announced the launch of their web-based Collaborative Conservation Learning Network (CCLN). The purpose of the CCLN is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, innovations, tools and study results, and to foster connections among academics, practitioners and others, to help worldwide collaborative conservation efforts become effective and sustainable.

The CCLN includes a multi-media library for resources related to collaborative conservation, opportunity listings (including jobs, funding, trainings, conferences and workshops), collaborative conservation organizations and initiatives, discussion boards, a members’ directory with direct messaging, links to resources related to policy and law, blogs and podcasts.

They will be working hard to continually add new, useful information to the CCLN, but others are invited to contribute.

You can explore/join the Learning Network here: https://www.collaborativeconservation.org/learning-network

For more information please contact Jill Lackett: Jill.Lackett@colostate.edu

Friday, July 8, 2011

Texas Section Youth Range Workshop - 2011

By Jenny Pluhar, Texas Section
The Texas Section just completed our 57th Annual Youth Range Workshop. That’s right…57 years. We had 28 youth and 14 directors. We had six days of fun in the sun. Even had some rain, which is as rare as hen’s teeth in Texas this year!
We began on Sunday afternoon learning about the importance of rangelands. Texas is roughly 60% rangelands that serve as watersheds for some of our largest urban areas, so rangelands here are important to everyone from the city folks to the ranchers, hunters and recreationists. Monday we began plant collections and learned to use GPS on the range. We also began our public speaking exercises. Days began early (thought for the day was at 7 am) and we worked through til 11 pm each night. It doesn’t take long to spend the night at Youth Range Workshop in Texas!

Tuesday, we toured the Landers Ranch, ran pace transects, clipped plots, measured brush density, read photo plots and learned the fine points of utilization, stocking rates and range economics. We were especially honored to learn from Dr. Jake Landers, who attended the very first TSSRM Youth Range Workshop. More recreation, public speaking, and classroom analysis of the data we collected.

Wednesday, we toured two ranches, watched demonstrations of mechanical and chemical brush control, learned about prescribed fire (usually we do a burn, but it is too darn dry!), conducted endangered species surveys, even watched a Texas horned lizard eat harvester ants and burrow into the soil. More plant collecting, recreation, and public speaking.

Thursday, we were at the Kerr Wildlife Management Area where we learned all about the water cycle and how vegetative cover on rangeland impacts everything from evapotranspiration to infiltration rates. We rained on plots, measured soil temps, infiltration, aggregate stability and watched various brush species waste water right before our very eyes. We swam in the spring fed Johnson Creek (awesomely beautiful) and worked on our notebooks which were due that evening. We finished off the day with snacks and a quiz bowl competition that ran past midnight!

Friday morning we did ranch plans, compiling all the knowledge we gained throughout the week. We presented our plans and gathered our things to return home. Closing ceremonies Friday afternoon included recognition for the cleanest cabin, leaders in our cabin groups, champion recreational group, best plant collections and notebooks, the Sam Coleman Award for combined notebook and plant collection achievement and the coveted Trail Boss award.

Woven throughout the week was the concept of stewardship. Directors presented the origins of the word stewardship and the biblical reasons we are called to learn to care for the land and the animals.

Plans are already underway for the 2012 Youth Range Workshop!

Have you attended or helped organize a range camp? What was your experience like?

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

High Desert Youth Range Camp Celebrates 1st Successful Year!

By Brenda Smith, Pacific Northwest Section


Group Photo

An extraordinary tradition that has been dormant for many years was renewed when 16 high-school age students from across Oregon and Idaho gathered June 19th-23rd for the first annual High Desert Youth Range Camp at the Northern Great Basin Experimental Range (NGBER) 40 miles west of Burns, OR. Well over a year ago a range camp committee made up of ARS scientists, Oregon State Cooperative Extension specialists, Treasure Valley Community College instructors and Harney County school district science teachers organized to develop the curriculum and logistics to host the camp at the 16,000 acre rangeland owned by the USDA-ARS. All told volunteers from nine agencies and local ranches committed their expertise and time as camp counselors, instructors, cooks to direct activities for the 4 day camp. The camp staff and presenters were all absolutely outstanding and put a tremendous amount of work and sacrifice to make range camp in Oregon a reality. The Pacific Northwest Section of SRM board of directors was instrumental in supporting the camp and provided a substantial financial donation to see range camp get off to a good start. A number of conservation districts and even private ranchers supported scholarships for students to attend.

Riparian Studies
Top of the World (or a Butte)

Activities included map reading, GPS, compass and orienteering, soils investigation activities, plant identification and monitoring, interactions of fire, grazing and weeds, Juniper woodland investigations, wildlife presentations on mule deer and sage grouse, a visit to the nearby Hotchkiss Co. Ranch, riparian zone investigations, student team presentations, daily team building and leadership activities, and more. The students in attendance were interested, engaged, and adventurous and worked extremely well together. It was a downright “fun” learning experience. The top student selected to attend the SRM High School youth forum is Isaac Studtmann from Long Creek, OR. Just a few of the comments received from the students include “I feel that I have taken so much out of this camp and could see myself working in this field”, “I feel so much more informed about issues with rangeland management. I am now considering a career in rangeland management much more now!” and “Overall I think camp went very well and I am happy I came. Thanks for doing this for us.”

Soil tests
We all are very excited to have a range camp back in Oregon and look forward to keeping the renewed tradition going and growing.