Proceedings brand creation for a prescribed fire culture – utilizing key social media parameters. Lars Coleman*1, J. Kelly Hoffman1, Thomas McDaniel1, R. Patrick Bixler2, Urs P. Kreuter1, Morgan Russell3

WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RANGELAND HEALTH AND INTERMITTENT STREAM STABILITY. Garret A. Hecker¹, Miranda Meehan*², Jeffrey L. Printz³, Jack E. Norland²; ¹BKS Environmental, Gillette, WY, ²North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, ³NRCS, Bismarck, ND

It is widely recognized that riparian health is inherently linked to watershed condition and the health of the adjacent ecological sites.  Land management has the potential to impact riparian stability as different uses may alter the ecological function of ecological sites.  To assess the relationship between the health of upland ecological sites and stream stability (stream type and risk of stream bank erosion), thirty-five reaches across five watersheds were sampled in Bowman County, ND.  The major land use in the study area is grassland as livestock production is the primary use. The stream types were classified using Rosgen’s classification of natural rivers which separates stream channels based on their dimensions.  The Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) was used to determine stream bank’s risk of erosion.  Bank Height Ratio (BHR) was used to assess the risk of stream bank failure. The 17 Indicators of Rangeland Health (IRH) protocol was used to assess the ecological sites associated with each reach.  IRH evaluates the ecological functions of an ecological site by using 17 indicators to measure departure of soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity from the reference state.  A Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling ordination was performed to analyze the data.  Analysis indicated that IRH had the strongest relationship with BEHI and BHR.  Streams with greater instability and high risk of erosion, F and G stream and those with a high BEHI ratings, were correlated with soils with increased compaction and decreased aggregate stability.  Reaches with greater stability, E and C streams with low BEHI and BHR ratings, were associated with increased amounts of litter and minimal IRH departure.  Based on these findings IRH can be useful tool to determine if a stream reach is at risk of transiting to an unstable state.

LONG-TERM MONITORING OF THE MAGGIE CREEK RIPARIAN AREA. Mike T. Anderson*¹, Eric D. Sant², Gregg E. Simonds³; ¹Open Range Consulting, Salt Lake City, UT, ²Open Range Consulting, Preston, ID, ³Open Range Consulting, Park City, UT

ABSTRACT

The Maggie Creek riparian area sits in northeast Nevada. With monitoring going back to the early seventies, Maggie Creek is a great example of long term data collection. Having rich data both spatially and temporally provides a unique opportunity to look at the effects of management. Open Range Consulting (ORC) has used Earth Sense Technologies (EST) to bring the monitoring of Maggie creek into the 21st century. Using remote sensing ORC accurately mapped current vegetation and used satellite imagery to look at vegetation changes through time.

SYMPOSIUM INTRODUCTION: ADDRESSING MANAGEMENT NEED: COORDINATED AND COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION INVESTMENTS IN THE SAGEBRUSH BIOME . Karen L. Prentice*¹, Ken Mayer²; ¹Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC, ²Western Association Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Sparks, NV

ABSTRACT

Spanning eleven western states and two provinces, sagebrush has been called one of the most imperiled biomes in the world. Loss and degradation of sagebrush has caused corresponding declines in distribution and abundance of sagebrush dependent species.  Numerous petitions to list individual species have been filed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); listing petitions are often associated with species-specific conservation efforts.   If current trends in habitat loss and degradation are not reversed, additional petitions, accompanied by additional species-specific conservation efforts, are anticipated.  This species-by-species approach, driven by potential species listings or other “emergencies” is not a sustainable solution to conservation of the sagebrush biome.  A more proactive, holistic, and enduring approach, that links local actions to biome-wide planning and objectives is needed.   In this approach, human relationships, organizations, and social networks would be marshalled to address ecologically meaningful problems at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.   To be successful, these efforts will require a shared understanding of the condition of the sagebrush biome, threats to the biome, and opportunities to restore and conserve the biome.  Additionally, the ability to link biome-wide science and data to local science and data is requisite.  This Session will describe a new approach to managing the sagebrush biome that incorporates these ideas.  Developed by a multi-partner team, the Science Framework for Conservation and Restoration of the Sagebrush Biome” presents a strategic, multi-scale science framework to target locations for management activities and determine effective management strategies. This new approach is resulting in a paradigm shift in the management of sagebrush ecosystems across the biome and is leading to new partnerships and human arrangements to support this effort. 

USING RESILIENCE AND RESISTANCE CONCEPTS TO DEVELOP A COMMON SCIENCE FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING THREATS TO SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEMS AND SAGEBRUSH DEPENDENT SPECIES
. Jeanne C. Chambers*; USDA Forest Service, Reno, NV

ABSTRACT

Sagebrush ecosystems and the species that depend upon them are at risk due to a suite of persistent ecosystem and anthropogenic threats, and managers and policy makers are seeking strategic, multiscale approaches for species conservation and ecosystem restoration. Recently, a Science Framework for Conservation and Restoration of the Sagebrush Biome has been developed that provides a science-based approach for prioritizing areas for management at large landscape scales and determining effective management strategies at project and site scales. An understanding of ecosystem resilience to disturbance, i.e., recovery potential, and resistance to invasive annual grasses underpins the approach. First, areas are prioritized for management using a geospatial process that overlays information on ecosystem resilience and resistance, species habitats, and predominant threats at the ecoregional/Greater sage-grouse management zone scale. A resilience and resistance habitat matrix helps decision makers evaluate risks and determine appropriate management strategies at these larger scales. Then, prioritized areas and management strategies are refined by managers and stakeholders based on higher resolution data and local knowledge at project to site scales. Ecological type descriptions and state-and-transition models characterized according to relative resilience and resistance are key tools in the step-down process. Factsheets, field guides, and field workshops have been developed through the Great Basin Fire Science Exchange and its partners to facilitate application of the approach. The geospatial data, maps, and models are provided through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ScienceBase and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Landscape Approach Data Portal, and a visualization tool for the different geospatial data layers and maps is under development. This approach was incorporated into the Subregional Greater Sage-grouse EISs and a BLM Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool used to prioritize sage-grouse habitat for targeted management activities. US Forest Service has used a similar, threat-based process.

THE NEED FOR A MULTI-SCALE, SCIENCE-BASED APPROACH TO MANAGE THREATS TO SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEMS AND SAGEBRUSH-DEPENDENT SPECIES. David A. Pyke*; U.S. Geological Survey, Corvallis, OR

ABSTRACT

Over 350 vertebrate species rely on sagebrush ecosystems for their existence within all or portions of their lifespans. The sagebrush ecosystem faces two types of threats – persistent ecosystem threats, those that are difficult to regulate and are managed via ecological approaches, and threats due to land uses and development, those threats that can be regulated, but due to population growth and resource demands will likely continue. Persistent ecosystem threats include the spread of invasive species, conifer expansion, altered fire regimes, and climate change. Land use and development threats include cropland conversion, energy development, recreation, wild horse and burro use, and improper livestock grazing. The importance of these threats and their priority for management across the sagebrush biome changes depending the location. Therefore, a biome-wide management or mitigation plan for dealing with these threats will likely be unsuccessful unless it incorporates a multi-scale approach. Similarly, management scenarios developed in isolation for a single local area, without considerations of the surrounding landscape, may mitigate a local threat, but may not benefit habitat improvement for a species that requires larger scale considerations. Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats may leave sagebrush-dependent species without sufficient habitat or habitat connections for genetic exchanges among surrounding populations, thereby leaving populations vulnerable to inbreeding depression and further jeopardizing the isolated populations. Mitigation plans for reducing threats and improving habitats will likely benefit sagebrush-dependent landscape species when habitat connectivity is included. Strategic decisions that assess threat mitigation at multiple scales may reduce costs relative to benefits gained in habitat improvement for sagebrush-dependent species.

MANAGEMENT TOOLS TO HELP GUIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCIENCE FRAMEWORK FOR CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION OF THE SAGEBRUSH BIOME. Peter S. Coates*¹, Kevin E. Doherty², Mark A. Ricca³, Jeanne C. Chambers⁴; ¹USGS Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon, CA, ²U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, CO, ³USGS-Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon, CA, ⁴USDA Forest Service, Reno, NV

ABSTRACT

Conservation of the sagebrush biome has been driven by multi-stakeholder efforts to find science-driven solutions at the appropriate spatial scale. Chief among these is the Science Framework that links the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy with long-term strategic conservation actions. A spatially-implicit matrix combining categories of sagebrush ecosystem resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasion with sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities comprises the root of the Science Framework, and provides a broad-scale means for identifying risks and appropriate management actions. Prioritized areas and corresponding management strategies can be further refined by local knowledge, and decision-support tools informed by more targeted and higher resolution data.

We provide a broad overview of decision-support tools available to help refine implementation of the Science Framework matrix at different spatial scales, with an emphasis on sage-grouse demographic and behavioral response to sagebrush ecosystem conditions. At larger scales we describe examples that include: 1) rangewide models of sage-grouse habitat suitability and variation in sage-grouse response to different habitat conditions and disturbances among sage-grouse management zones; 2) regional models depicting composite indices of habitat suitability and sage-grouse abundance that identify areas for targeted for management actions, particularly in relation to wildland fire risk; and 3) recent advances in high resolution mapping of shrubland, conifer, and annual grass cover across the sagebrush biome that can inform models of sage-grouse habitat suitability and relative risk. At smaller scales, we describe how spatially explicit tools informed by sage-grouse location and demographic data coupled with high-resolution land-cover can be used predict ecological benefits of targeted management actions (i.e., conifer removal and fire restoration) to sage-grouse, while accounting for sagebrush ecosystem resilience and resistance. These sets of tools highlight the importance of considering both sage-grouse and sagebrush ecological responses that lie at the heart of the Science Framework. 
 

TAPPING SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION TO ASSESS RESILIENCE AND RESISTANCE OF SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEMS. Jeremy Maestas*¹, Steve Campbell¹, Jeanne Chambers², Mike Pellant³, Rick Miller⁴; ¹Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland, OR, ²USDA Forest Service, Reno, NV, ³BLM (retired), Boise, ID, ⁴Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Emerging applications of ecosystem resilience and resistance (R&R) concepts in sagebrush ecosystems allow managers to better predict and mitigate impacts of wildfire and invasive annual grasses. Widely available soil survey information can be harnessed to spatially depict and evaluate relative resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive species from regional to site scales. Using a newly aggregated data set of soil temperature and moisture regimes across the range of sage-grouse, we developed an abiotic index of R&R to facilitate landscape prioritization and triage that is now available online for practitioners to visualize and download. We also created a new soils report tool in Web Soil Survey that can be used to rapidly extract additional information, such as, soil textures, depths, and ecological sites to facilitate more detailed assessments of R&R at the project scale. Ecological site descriptions and associated state-and-transition models (STMs) available through soil surveys also provide important information for resilience-based management. Where site-specific STMs are not available, generalized STMs based on our R&R framework have been developed for the predominant ecological types across the sagebrush biome. Collectively, these new products and tools help managers read the landscape and inform rapid risk assessments, determine appropriate management strategies, and prioritize resources to maintain and restore functioning sagebrush ecosystems.

IMPLEMENTING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING.

. Lief Wiechman*¹, David A. Pyke²; ¹USFWS, Fort Collins, CO, ²U.S. Geological Survey, Corvallis, OR

Monitoring programs designed to track ecosystem changes in response to both stressors and disturbances can use repeated observations of ecosystem attributes. Such programs can increase our understanding of how interactions among resilience to disturbance, resistance to invasive species, and a suite of ‘change agents’ (e.g., natural disturbances, management actions, or climate), influence resource condition (or status) and trends and subsequent outcomes of conservation and restoration actions. This type of monitoring information provides the basis for adaptive management. The overarching goals of an integrated monitoring and adaptive management program are to reduce the uncertainty in the effectiveness of management actions and to provide triggers that initiate modifications in management objectives, strategies, and actions to halt degradation before an environmental threshold is crossed. Such adaptive management works within the ecosystems resistances to invasive species and resilience from disturbances to allow ecosystem sustainability.

An integrated monitoring and adaptive management program includes a series of steps that are repeated over time and are designed to facilitate “learning by doing”. We will provide an example of unintended consequences of “doing without knowing”, in which a lack of monitoring can result in unintended consequences and may result in additional resource expenditures down the road.

We will present a 9-cell matrix that combines resilience and resistance information with that of modeled greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) breeding habitat – which, at a broad scale, can inform how treatment types, methods, and what the range of expected outcomes.  These concepts have the potential to sustain resources, especially in the long term, as resources allocations become limited.

UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

Management actions that promote resilience to disturbance are becoming increasingly important in the sagebrush biome. Throughout the U.S, temperatures have warmed over the last 50 years. Temperatures are likely continue to warm along with other changes in climate, such as greater numbers of extreme events. These potential changes require careful consideration in management actions for the sagebrush biome. The Science Framework for Conservation and Restoration of the Sagebrush Biome: Linking the Department of the Interior’s Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy to Long-Term Strategic Conservation Actions, provides a strategic, multiscale approach for prioritizing areas for management and determining effective management strategies across the sagebrush biome. Managing natural resources within the context of climate adaptation is consistent with the approach described in the Science Framework, but requires the necessary flexibility to modify management actions as environmental conditions change. A conceptual approach for addressing climate adaptation focuses on climate resistance, resilience, and response strategies. Using these concepts to manage for changes in climate involves examining whether current assumptions about the effects of weather and climate on environmental responses and underlying assumptions about the expected result of management actions are still viable in a changing environment. Assessing ongoing and projected climate change using the best available data is integral to evaluating priority areas for management at mid scales and to determining appropriate management treatments at local scales. An understanding of the rates and magnitude of projected change can help managers prioritize areas for different types of management actions. This presentation reviews the current understanding of how climate change is affecting drought, insects and disease, and fire regimes in the sagebrush biome. Climate change adaptation strategies for the sagebrush biome have been developed that build on the sage-grouse resilience and resistance habitat matrix and the sagebrush ecosystem management strategies.

IMPLEMENTING WILDFIRE AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES. Michele Crist*¹, Jeanne Chambers²; ¹USDOI Bureau Land Management, Boise, ID, ²USDA Forest Service, Reno, NV

Wildfire has always been an important ecosystem process across the sagebrush biome. Recently, the scale of sagebrush ecosystem loss and fragmentation has increased significantly due to a combination of uncharacteristic wildfire, invasive annual grasses, conifer expansion (primarily piñon and juniper), and anthropogenic use and development. A strategic approach to wildfire and vegetation management is now required that focuses available resources in places that will maximize conservation return on investment. Wildfire management integrated with vegetation management (fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration) has the potential to increase that return on investment by enhancing the resilience of native sagebrush ecosystems to stress and disturbance and/or resistance to invasive annual grasses. This integrated management aids in maintaining ecosystem connectivity and ecological processes. Similarly, vegetation management planned in conjunction with post-fire restoration helps maintain functionally diverse plant communities with the capacity to persist and stabilize ecosystem processes under altered disturbance regimes. When placed in the context of large landscapes, these actions collectively are part of a management strategy to maintain the necessary ecosystem processes and connectivity, protect vulnerable ecosystems and species from uncharacteristic wildfire cycles, and adapt to fluctuations in climate. An understanding of the linkages among ecosystem resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasion, priority areas and habitats for management, and the predominant threats can be used to effectively target wildfire and habitat management actions. The effects of wildfire processes on sagebrush communities depend on the communities’ relative resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses. Geospatial analyses and mapping based on indicators of resilience and resistance, GRSG breeding habitat probabilities, and large wildfire probabilities, can be used to inform wildland fire management decisions related to preparedness, suppression, vegetation management, and post-fire restoration at multiple scales across the sagebrush biome. 

MANAGING NONNATIVE INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES. Lindy Garner*¹, Michael Ielmini², Jeanne Chambers³, Ken Mayer⁴, Michele Crist⁵; ¹USDOI Fish & Wildlife Service, Great Falls, MT, ²USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, ³USDA Forest Service, Reno, NV, ⁴Western Association Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Sparks, NV, ⁵USDOI Bureau Land Management, Boise, ID

One of the most significant stressors to the sagebrush biome is expansion and dominance of nonnative ecosystem-transforming species, particularly invasive annual and perennial plants. Each invasive plant differs in the magnitude of the risk or impact it poses to sagebrush ecosystems, depending on the site conditions and the species’ characteristics. Invasive annual grasses, most notably cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), and red brome (Bromus rubens) are arguably the most widespread ecosystem disrupters across the sagebrush biome. Yet many other invasive species, such as leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) are also responsible for environmental impacts to sagebrush communities. Invasive plant species colonize new areas rapidly, and once established, invasive plant species often continue to spread across the sagebrush communities where suitable conditions exist, capitalizing on disturbance, fire and various pathways and vectors. Land managers are tasked with controlling the various species of invasive plants, but limited resources are available for invasive plant management. The need to manage multiple invasive plants while considering ecological impacts and social and political priorities often results in substantial challenges in determining how to partition resources for invasive plant management. We suggest methods for fostering coordination and collaboration to leverage resources at the biome, regional and local scale. We outline data availability and needs for defining priority areas for management and current level of invasion, and discuss how resilience and resistance concepts can be integrated into invasive plant management. We suggest that the level of invasion and feasibility of control need to be evaluated in light of current ecological conditions to help inform management strategies and the associated return on investment. 

APPLYING NATIONAL SEED STRATEGY CONCEPTS . Sarah M. Kulpa*¹, Fred Edwards², Francis F. Kilkenny³; ¹U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, NV, ²Bureau of Land Management, Reno, NV, ³USDA Forest Service, Boise, ID