1. NatureServe BWB Conference April 24, 2012 Photo: Treg Christopher

2. 18901989 Photos from: Miller et al 2005 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 (References: Miller et al 2005, Gedney et al 1999)

3. 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. 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. Phase IPhase II Phase III Photos and Phase descriptions from: Miller et al 2005 Trees co-dominant (10-30% cover) Trees dominant (>30% cover) Trees subordinate (<10% cover) 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)

6. Phase III Photos from: Miller et al 2005 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 South aspect with a soil restrictive layer at 16–18”North aspect and deep well-drained soil

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

8. Strata: Unique combination of PVT, Watershed, Owner

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

10. Oregon Projected – Year 2050Current – Year 2000 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% (ILAP Strata = unique combinations of PVT, Watershed, Owner)

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

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

13. Total AUMs in study region = 227,838 Total AUMs in 4 PVTs= 155,342 PVT Low sage Mountain big sage Bitterbrush Wyoming big sage Proportion of 4 PVTs in allotment area = 68% PVT CodePVT NamePctAUM OBM_slwLow sage0.1726,698 OBM_smbMountain big sage0.3554,101 OBM_sptBitterbrush0.0811,756 OBM_swbWyoming big sage0.4062,786 Proportion of PVT in each phase Normalized biomass in each phase PVT CodePhaseAUMperAcre OBM_swbJunPhase1 0.17 OBM_swbJunPhase2 0.03 OBM_swbJunPhase3 0.02 OBM_swbNoJun 0.17

14. PVT NameJuniper PhaseAcresAnnual Treatment AcresAnnual Treatment Acres X5Cost per Acre Low sage078,601 Low sageI81,939 Low sageII14,7452951,474$100 Mountain big sage0201,616 Mountain big sageI123,681 Mountain big sageII18,7343751,873$100 Mountain big sageIII2,72955273$300 Bitterbrush057,647 BitterbrushI12,704 BitterbrushII4,87798488$100 BitterbrushIII612 Wyoming big sage0213,131 Wyoming big sageI151,442 Wyoming big sageII41,4178284,142$100 Wyoming big sageIII4,80996481$300 Three preliminary treatment scenarios: 1.No Treatment includes Fire Suppression & Grazing 2.Treatment Mechanical: 1,746 acres treated annually 3.Treatment x 5 Same treatment type but 5 times the area treated annually (8,730 acres treated annually) 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.

15. Proportion of Landscape Timesteps for years 2001-2050

16. 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 Example Model Output: WY Sage, Treatment scenario Grazing Fee $48,720 $880 $32,177 $160,872 $3,948 $12,042 $14 $781 (Grazing fees for Oregon, 2010, from USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ) ScenarioPVTCodeStateIDTimestepAcres Treatmentx5OBM_swb886057119,878 Treatmentx5OBM_swb8860771360 Treatmentx5OBM_swb906083113,130 Treatmentx5OBM_swb906086165,636 Treatmentx5OBM_swb91603817,995 Treatmentx5OBM_swb916040124,394 Treatmentx5OBM_swb926036168 Treatmentx5OBM_swb92603713,186 AUMperAcre 0.17 0.03 0.02 Phase NoJun JunPhase1 JunPhase2 JunPhase3 AUM 3431 62 2266 11329 278 848 1 55

18. MgmtNPV NoTreatment$0 Treatment$92,630 Treatment x5$451,977 Net Present Value

19. 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. 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 website: http://oregonstate.edu/inr/ilaphttp://oregonstate.edu/inr/ilap FTP site for data download and documentation: ftp://131.252.97.79/ILAP/Index.htmlftp://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)treg.christopher@oregonstate.edu Megan Creutzberg (megan.creutzberg@oregonstate.edu)megan.creutzberg@oregonstate.edu Emilie Henderson (emilie.henderson@oregonstate.edu)emilie.henderson@oregonstate.edu Therese Burcsu (theresa.burcsu@oregonstate.edu )theresa.burcsu@oregonstate.edu

22. 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 (Juniperus occidentalis). 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. Phase III Photos from: Miller et al 2005 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 Herbaceous % Cover Normalized biomass PVTPhase IPhase IIPhase IIIPhase IPhase IIPhase III Low sage12.19.916.510.8181818181.363636364 Wyoming big sage1610.5510.656250.3125 Mountain big sage32.529.752710.9153846150.830769231 Derived from Miller et al 2000

26. Initial Conditions Projected 2050 Conditions

27. Initial Conditions Projected 2050 Conditions

28. 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 (Juniperus occidentalis). 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. Fuels Wildlife habitat Treatment finances Interpretations Watershed Design management scenario VDDT Models Wildfire-fuel hazards Terrestrial habitat Aquatic habitat Economic potential

30. Summarized output for each annual time step: area in each state class area transitioning Statistics reported: (for 30 Monte Carlo simulations) average minimum maximum