natureserve bwb conference april 24, 2012 photo: treg christopher
TRANSCRIPT
The effects of juniper treatments on grazing productivity
An Integrated Landscape Assessment Project(ILAP) Case Study of Economic Costs and Benefits
Treg Christopher & Megan Creutzburg
NatureServe BWB Conference April 24, 2012
Photo: Treg Christopher
Juniper Encroachment
1890
1989
Photos from: Miller et al 2005
Prior to grazing and fire suppression, juniper confined to shallow rocky soilsJuniper 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)
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
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
Juniper Phases
Phase I Phase 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)
Understory and Biomass
Phase IIIPhase 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
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
Spatial Data - Model Strata
Strata: Unique combination of PVT, Watershed, Owner
Watersheds
Ownership
Potential Veg
Arid Mask
Model Region
Spatial Data – Initial Veg Conditions
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
Projected Juniper
Oregon 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)
Potential Vegetation Types (PVTs)
Low Sage
Mountain Big Sage Wyoming Big Sage
Bitterbrush
(photo from: http://www.bentler.us)
One State-and-Transition Model (STM) per PVT
AUM by PVT by Phases
Total AUMs in study region = 227,838
Total AUMs in 4 PVTs= 155,342
PVT Low sageMountain big sageBitterbrushWyoming big sage
Proportion of 4 PVTs in allotment area = 68%
PVT Code PVT Name Pct AUMOBM_slw Low sage 0.17 26,698
OBM_smbMountain big sage 0.35 54,101
OBM_spt Bitterbrush 0.08 11,756
OBM_swbWyoming big sage 0.40 62,786
Proportion of PVT in each phase
Normalized biomass in each phase
PVT Code Phase AUMperAcre
OBM_swb JunPhase1 0.17
OBM_swb JunPhase2 0.03
OBM_swb JunPhase3 0.02
OBM_swb NoJun 0.17
Treatment Levels and Costs
PVT Name Juniper Phase Acres Annual Treatment Acres Annual Treatment Acres X5 Cost per AcreLow sage 0 78,601Low sage I 81,939Low sage II 14,745 295 1,474 $100Mountain big sage 0 201,616Mountain big sage I 123,681Mountain big sage II 18,734 375 1,873 $100Mountain big sage III 2,729 55 273 $300Bitterbrush 0 57,647Bitterbrush I 12,704Bitterbrush II 4,877 98 488 $100Bitterbrush III 612Wyoming big sage 0 213,131Wyoming big sage I 151,442Wyoming big sage II 41,417 828 4,142 $100Wyoming big sage III 4,809 96 481 $300
Three preliminary treatment scenarios:1. No Treatment includes Fire Suppression & Grazing2. Treatment Mechanical: 1,746 acres treated annually3. 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.
Treatment Results – By Phases
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Initial Conditions No Treatment Treatment Treatment x5
Year 2000 Year 2050
Juniper-PhaseIII
Juniper-PhaseII
Juniper-PhaseI
No Juniper
Pro
port
ion o
f La
ndsc
ape
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
No Treatment
Phase3
Phase2
Phase1
NoJun
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
Treatment
Phase3
Phase2
Phase1
NoJun
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
Treatment x 5
Phase3
Phase2
Phase1
NoJun
Timesteps for years 2001-2050
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Initial Conditions No Treatment Treatment Treatment x5
Year 2000 Year 2050
Juniper-PhaseIII
Juniper-PhaseII
Juniper-PhaseI
No Juniper
From Model Results to an Economic Assessment
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 )
Scenario PVTCode StateID Timestep AcresTreatmentx5 OBM_swb 886057 1 19,878Treatmentx5 OBM_swb 886077 1 360Treatmentx5 OBM_swb 906083 1 13,130Treatmentx5 OBM_swb 906086 1 65,636Treatmentx5 OBM_swb 916038 1 7,995Treatmentx5 OBM_swb 916040 1 24,394Treatmentx5 OBM_swb 926036 1 68Treatmentx5 OBM_swb 926037 1 3,186
AUMperAcre0.170.170.170.170.030.030.020.02
PhaseNoJunNoJunJunPhase1JunPhase1JunPhase2JunPhase2JunPhase3JunPhase3
AUM3431
622266
11329278848
155
Treatment Results – By Animal Unit Month (AUM)
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
AU
M
Timestep
NoTreatment
Treatment1
Treatment1x5
Treatment Results – Costs and Income
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
Timestep
NoTreatment - Cost
NoTreatment - Income
Treatment1 - Cost
Treatment1 - Income
Treatment1x5 - Cost
Treatment1x5 - Income
Mgmt NPV
NoTreatment $0
Treatment $92,630
Treatment x5 $451,977
Net Present Value
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.
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
ILAP InformationILAP 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 ([email protected])Megan Creutzberg ([email protected])Emilie Henderson ([email protected])Therese Burcsu ([email protected] )
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.
References
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)
Understory by Phases by PVTs
Phase III
Phase III
Photos from: Miller et al 2005
Loss of understory biomass and diversity is dependent on PVT, local environment & annual variability in precipitationWith increasing juniper cover, drier sites and PVTs tend to be more (adversely) affectedHerbaceous 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 biomassPVT Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase I Phase II Phase III
Low sage 12.1 9.9 16.5 1 0.818181818 1.363636364Wyoming big sage 16 10.5 5 1 0.65625 0.3125Mountain big sage 32.5 29.75 27 1 0.915384615 0.830769231
Derived from Miller et al 2000
ReferencesGedney, 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.
IntroductionRun Models & Hook to Interpretations
Fuels
Wildlife habitatTreatment finances
Interpretations
Watershed
Design management
scenario
VDDT Models
Wildfire-fuel
hazards
Terrestrial habitat
Aquatic habitat
Economic potential
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