NatureServe BWB Conference April 24, 2012

1. The effects of juniper treatments on grazing productivityAn Integrated Landscape Assessment Project(ILAP) Case Study of Economic Costs and BenefitsTreg Christopher & Megan Creutzburg NatureServe BWB Conference April 24, 2012 Photo: Treg Christopher

2. Juniper Encroachment • Prior to grazing and fire suppression, juniper confined to shallow rocky soils • Juniper has expanded rapidly throughout the western U.S. in the last century • >5 million acres in Oregon • Effects of juniper encroachment: • Decreased native shrub and understory cover & biomass • Decreased fire frequency • Decreased plant diversity • Decreased wildlife that are adapted to pre-juniper habitat and forage • Water table depletion • Decreased nutrient quality of understory • Decreased forage quality for livestock 1890 1989 Photos from: Miller et al 2005 (References: Miller et al 2005, Gedney et al 1999)

3. Grazing on the Landscape Only considering grazing on BLM land (Bureau of Land Management ) in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon Animal Unit – Normalizing cattle units so that 1 AU =one mature cow of approximately 1,000 lbs AUM (Animal Unit Month) – Standard unit for reporting grazing use. The amount of dry forage required by one animal unit for one month based on a forage allowance of 26 pounds per day. Allotment – Administrative units used for leasing for grazing (AUMs reported for each) Grazing fees = $14.20 per AUM (Oregon 2010, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ) Understory cover – Response to juniper cover and removal of that cover Normalized Biomass – understory cover so that max grazing capacity (in AUMs) =1 and biomass in heavy juniper < 1 BLM allotments

4. Ecosystem Services & Valuation • Damages caused by juniper encroachment: • Direct use/ provisioning services (loss of grazing capacity) • Indirect use / supporting or regulating services (soil stabilization and soil water storage) • Non-use / cultural services (loss of rare and endangered species, or aesthetics of an open landscape) • This study only considers one type of direct use values, loss of grazing capacity and associated economic value, loss of grazing fees

5. Juniper Phases Phase I Phase II Trees subordinate (<10% cover) Trees co-dominant (10-30% cover) Phase III Note: % Cover is not absolute cover but % of max. potential for that site (e.g. Phase III in WY sage will have less cover than Phase IIII in Mtn sage) Trees dominant (>30% cover) Photos and Phase descriptions from: Miller et al 2005

6. Understory and Biomass • Understory biomass is dependent on PVT, juniper phase, local environment & annual variability in precipitation • Herbaceous biomass was 9x greater in understory (after treatment) than in Phase III woodland (Bates et al 2000) • Normalized biomass: • Phase I & No juniper = 1 • Phase II= 1/(4.5)=.2222 • Phase III = 1/9=.1111 Phase III Phase III North aspect and deep well-drained soil South aspect with a soil restrictive layer at 16–18” Photos from: Miller et al 2005

7. State-and-Transition Models (STMs) - Abstracted Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP): http://oregonstate.edu/inr/ilap ILAP modeling software: ESSA Technologies’ VDDT & Path (www.essa.com) Arid lands models adapted by Megan Creutzburg from Louisa Evers, David Swanson and TNC-Idaho and Nevada

8. Spatial Data - Model Strata Watersheds Ownership Potential Veg Arid Mask Model Region Strata: Unique combination of PVT, Watershed, Owner

9. Spatial Data – Initial Veg Conditions Current Veg Map (2000) Table of current veg Key to translate from mapped current veg to model states Reclassified into juniper phases (2000) Modeled states and acres for each PVT

10. Projected Juniper Percent of each stratum where juniper is co-dominant (phase II) or dominant (phase III) 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% Current – Year 2000 Projected – Year 2050 Oregon Oregon (ILAP Strata = unique combinations of PVT, Watershed, Owner)

11. Juniper Treatments Prescribed fire (6 yrs prior to photo) Chainsaw cut, pile & burn

12. Potential Vegetation Types (PVTs) One State-and-Transition Model (STM) per PVT Wyoming Big Sage Mountain Big Sage Low Sage Bitterbrush (photo from: http://www.bentler.us)

13. AUM by PVT by Phases Total AUMs in study region = 227,838 Proportion of 4 PVTs in allotment area = 68% Total AUMs in 4 PVTs= 155,342 Proportion of PVT in each phase Normalized biomass in each phase

14. Treatment Levels and Costs Treatment costs are highly variable depending on the phase, PVT and location of the areas of encroachment and the associated differences in overhead, travel, and labor costs. • Three preliminary treatment scenarios: • No Treatment includes Fire Suppression & Grazing • Treatment Mechanical: 1,746 acres treated annually • Treatment x 5 Same treatment type but 5 times the area treated annually (8,730 acres treated annually)

15. Treatment Results – By Phases Timesteps for years 2001-2050 Proportion of Landscape

16. From Model Results to an Economic Assessment Example Model Output: WY Sage, Treatment scenario • Model results • Assign each model state to one of 3 phases (or a “no juniper” condition) • Link AUM per acre (grazing capacity) to each phase (from normalized understory biomass) • Multiply AUM per acre by total acres • Multiply grazing fees ($14.20 per AUM )by total AUM (Grazing fees for Oregon, 2010, from USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service )

17. Treatment Results – By Animal Unit Month (AUM)

18. Treatment Results – Costs and Income Net Present Value

19. Conclusions • 2 treatment levels are not sufficient to return to pre-1900 conditions • Treatment x5 has removed phase III from the landscape and reduced phase II by @ 50% • Grazing capacity (as AUMs) is reduced in all scenarios • Treatment x 5 (8,730 acres treated annually) is gets much closer to maintaining capacity • Cost : benefit results (discounted to 2010) show that treatment x 5 provides the best economic return on investment • Only one type of direct use/ provisioning service and value considered: grazing capacity & grazing fees.

20. Limitations - Improvements • Relationship between juniper removal and understory response by PVT and by Phases • Modeling lag in response between treatments and recovery (2-7 yrs). No lag = overestimate of benefits. • Differences in grazing capacity between PVTs (AUM is only reported by allotments) • States in Phase I and No Juniper are assumed to providing maximum capacity (ignoring degraded conditions and exotic grass invasion). This overestimates the benefits of treatments. • Better treatment cost estimates and for different treatment types • Treatment costs are the same across PVTs and regardless of location (e.g. travel cost ignored) • USGS Land Treatment Digital Library (http://greatbasin.wr.usgs.gov/ltdl/) • Alternative treatments (and associated costs) and annual amount of area to be treated can be run and compared through the Path software’s Treatment Analyzer

21. ILAP Information ILAP website: http://oregonstate.edu/inr/ilap FTP site for data download and documentation: ftp://131.252.97.79/ILAP/Index.html Institute for Natural Resources’ Western Landscapes Explorer (Web-based mapping of change in states and indicators....coming soon) ILAP modelers: Treg Christopher (treg.christopher@oregonstate.edu) Megan Creutzberg (megan.creutzberg@oregonstate.edu) Emilie Henderson (emilie.henderson@oregonstate.edu) Therese Burcsu (theresa.burcsu@oregonstate.edu )

22. References • Gedney, D.R., Azuma, D.L., Bolsinger, C.L., McKay, N., 1999. Western juniper in eastern Oregon. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report. NW-GTR-464. • Hanna, D., Korb, N., Bauer, B., Martin, B., Frid, L., Bryan, K., Holzer, B., 2011. Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Alternative Weed Management Strategies for Three Montana Landscapes. The Nature Conservancy of Montana, Helena, MT, p. 138. • Miller, R.F., Bates, J., Svejcar, A., Pierson, F., Eddleman, L., 2005. Biology, ecology, and management of western juniper (Juniperusoccidentalis). Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, OR, p. 77. • Miller, R.F., Svejcar, T.J., Rose, J.A., 2000. Impacts of Western Juniper on Plant Community Composition and Structure. Journal of Range Management 53, 574-585. • Provencher, L., Forbis, T.A., Frid, L., Medlynd, G., 2007. Comparing alternative management strategies of fire, grazing, and weed control using spatial modeling. Ecological Modeling 209, 249-263.

23. End of Presentation Materials

24. In the second year post-cutting total understory biomass and N uptake were nearly 9 times greater in cut versus woodland treat-ments. Perennial plant basal cover was 3 times greater and plant diversity was 1.6 times greater in the cut versus woodland treat-ments. (Bates 2000)

25. Understory by Phases by PVTs • Loss of understory biomass and diversity is dependent on PVT, local environment & annual variability in precipitation • With increasing juniper cover, drier sites and PVTs tend to be more (adversely) affected • Herbaceous biomass was 9x greater in understory (after treatment) than in Phase III woodland • Normalized biomass: • Phase I & No juniper = 1 • Phase II= 1/(4.5)=.2222 • Phase III = 1/9=.1111 Phase III Phase III Derived from Miller et al 2000 Photos from: Miller et al 2005

26. Management Scenario AnalysisSoutheast Oregon Initial Conditions Projected 2050 Conditions

27. Management Scenario AnalysisSoutheast Oregon Initial Conditions Projected 2050 Conditions

28. References • Gedney, D.R., Azuma, D.L., Bolsinger, C.L., McKay, N., 1999. Western juniper in eastern Oregon. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report. NW-GTR-464. • Hanna, D., Korb, N., Bauer, B., Martin, B., Frid, L., Bryan, K., Holzer, B., 2011. Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Alternative Weed Management Strategies for Three Montana Landscapes. The Nature Conservancy of Montana, Helena, MT, p. 138. • Miller, R.F., Bates, J., Svejcar, A., Pierson, F., Eddleman, L., 2005. Biology, ecology, and management of western juniper (Juniperusoccidentalis). Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Corvallis, OR, p. 77. • Miller, R.F., Svejcar, T.J., Rose, J.A., 2000. Impacts of Western Juniper on Plant Community Composition and Structure. Journal of Range Management 53, 574-585. • Provencher, L., Forbis, T.A., Frid, L., Medlynd, G., 2007. Comparing alternative management strategies of fire, grazing, and weed control using spatial modeling. Ecological Modeling 209, 249-263.

29. IntroductionRun Models & Hook to Interpretations Design management scenario Fuels Wildlife habitat Terrestrial habitat Treatment finances Economic potential VDDT Models Watershed Interpretations Aquatic habitat Wildfire-fuel hazards

30. ILAP Modeling ProcessExample State-and-Transition Model Output • Summarized output for each annual time step: • area in each state class • area transitioning • Statistics reported: • (for 30 Monte Carlo simulations) • average • minimum • maximum

31. ILAP Modeling Process