Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Mike Pellant

Publications and source records attributed to Mike Pellant.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2023

Future direction of fuels management in sagebrush rangelands

Sagebrush ecosystems in the United States have been declining since EuroAmerican settlement, largely due to agricultural and urban development, invasive species, and altered fire regimes, resulting in loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat. To combat continued conversion to undesirable ecological states and loss of habitat to invasive species fueled by frequent fire, a variety of fuel treatments, including networks of fuel breaks, are being implemented or proposed in sagebrush ecosystems, particularly in and around the Great Basin. In this forum paper we briefly review current knowledge of common fuel treatment approaches, their intended benefits, potential risks, and limitations. We additionally discuss challenges for fuel treatment strategies in the context of changes in climate, invasive species, wildlife habitat, and human population, and we explore how advances in geospatial technologies, monitoring, and fire behavior modeling, as well as accounting for social context, can improve the efficacy of fuels management in sagebrush ecosystems. Finally, given continued potential for ecosystem transformation, we describe approaches to future fuels management by considering the applicability of the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework. The intent of the paper is to provide scientists and land managers with key information and a forward-thinking framework for fuels science and adaptive management that can respond to both expected and unexpected changes in sagebrush rangelands.

Rangeland Ecology and Management↗
USGS2020

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 5: Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1734-6

The Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (IIRH) protocol is designed for assessing ecosystem function on rangelands and woodlands. The protocol was developed by an interagency cadre of technical experts and has been in use by for two decades. The protocol is well accepted and is a valuable tool for communicating rangeland conditions with stakeholders. Technical Reference 1734-6 Version 4, which describes the IIRH protocol, was published in 2005. Refinements and improvements identified through 12 years of experience with class participants and field office personnel applying the protocol as outlined in Version 4 are incorporated into Version 5 of the technical reference. Indicators and attributes used in previous versions of the technical reference are largely the same, and following instructions in Version 5 is not expected to result in differing attribute ratings as compared to assessments completed using Version 4 of TR 1734-6 assuming that the same reference information is used.

Report↗
USGS2019

A strategy for defining the reference for land health and degradation assessments

Much of the confusion about the definition of reference conditions for land health and degradation assessments is due to differences in policy and management objectives. Selection of a historic reference where it is not necessary, such as in the definition of future land degradation neutrality, can add significant cost and uncertainty to land management projects that require some knowledge of the current status of the land relative to its potential. This paper (1) provides a review of conditions under which historic reference information is and is not required to meet management and policy objectives, (2) summarizes current approaches to defining the reference for land health and degradation assessments, and (3) presents a protocol, “Describing Indicators of Rangeland Health” (DIRH) for collecting and organizing data that can be used to define a historic reference. This protocol builds on the framework and indicators presented in the “Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (IIRH). IIRH uses a combination of scientific and local knowledge to generate soil- and climate-specific assessments of three attributes of land health. It is used in a number of countries. In the United States, data are aggregated over 30,000 locations to provide national assessments.

Ecological Indicators↗
USGS2017

Restoration handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 3. Site level restoration decisions

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently (2016) occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) depends on large landscapes of intact habitat of sagebrush and perennial grasses for their existence. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrush-obligate animals, livestock, and wild horses, and to provide ecosystem services for humans now and for future generations. When a decision is made on where restoration treatments should be applied, there are a number of site-specific decisions managers face before selecting the appropriate type of restoration. This site-level decision tool for restoration of sagebrush steppe ecosystems is organized in nine steps. Step 1 describes the process of defining site-level restoration objectives. Step 2 describes the ecological site characteristics of the restoration site. This covers soil chemistry and texture, soil moisture and temperature regimes, and the vegetation communities the site is capable of supporting. Step 3 compares the current vegetation to the plant communities associated with the site State and Transition models. Step 4 takes the manager through the process of current land uses and past disturbances that may influence restoration success. Step 5 is a brief discussion of how weather before and after treatments may impact restoration success. Step 6 addresses restoration treatment types and their potential positive and negative impacts on the ecosystem and on habitats, especially for greater sage-grouse. We discuss when passive restoration options may be sufficient and when active restoration may be necessary to achieve restoration objectives. Step 7 addresses decisions regarding post-restoration livestock grazing management. Step 8 addresses monitoring of the restoration; we discuss important aspects associated with implementation monitoring as well as effectiveness monitoring. Step 9 takes the information learned from monitoring to determine how restoration actions in the future might be adapted to improve restoration success.

Circular↗
USGS2017

Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage persistent threats to sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse

Conservation of imperiled species often demands addressing a complex suite of threats that undermine species viability. Regulatory approaches, such as the US Endangered Species Act (1973), tend to focus on anthropogenic threats through adoption of policies and regulatory mechanisms. However, persistent ecosystem-based threats, such as invasive species and altered disturbance regimes, remain critical issues for most at-risk species considered to be conservation-reliant. We describe an approach for addressing persistent ecosystem threats to at-risk species based on ecological resilience and resistance concepts that is currently being used to conserve greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and sagebrush ecosystems. The approach links biophysical indicators of ecosystem resilience and resistance with species-specific population and habitat requisites in a risk-based framework to identify priority areas for management and guide allocation of resources to manage persistent ecosystem-based threats. US federal land management and natural resource agencies have adopted this framework as a foundation for prioritizing sage-grouse conservation resources and determining effective restoration and management strategies. Because threats and strategies to address them cross-cut program areas, an integrated approach that includes wildland fire operations, postfire rehabilitation, fuels management, and habitat restoration is being used. We believe this approach is applicable to species conservation in other largely intact ecosystems with persistent, ecosystem-based threats.

Rangeland Ecology and Management↗
USGS2017

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, Part 1. Science basis and applications

The Science Framework is intended to link the Department of the Interior’s Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy with long-term strategic conservation actions in the sagebrush biome. The Science Framework provides a multiscale approach for prioritizing areas for management and determining effective management strategies within the sagebrush biome. The emphasis is on sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems and Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The approach provided in the Science Framework links sagebrush ecosystem resilience to disturbance and resistance to nonnative, invasive plant species to species habitat information based on the distribution and abundance of focal species. A geospatial process is presented that overlays information on ecosystem resilience and resistance, species habitats, and predominant threats and that can be used at the mid-scale to prioritize areas for management. A resilience and resistance habitat matrix is provided that can help decisionmakers evaluate risks and determine appropriate management strategies. Prioritized areas and management strategies can be refined by managers and stakeholders at the local scale based on higher resolution data and local knowledge. Decision tools are discussed for determining appropriate management actions for areas that are prioritized for management. 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. The Science Framework is intended to be adaptive and will be updated as additional data become available on other values and species at risk. It is anticipated that the Science Framework will be widely used to: (1) inform emerging strategies to conserve sagebrush ecosystems, sagebrush dependent species, and human uses of the sagebrush system, and (2) assist managers in prioritizing and planning on-the-ground restoration and mitigation actions across the sagebrush biome.

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oreg↗
USGS2015

Restoration handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 2. Landscape level restoration decisions

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently (2015) occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) is a landscape-dependent bird that requires intact habitat and combinations of sagebrush and perennial grasses to exist. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals also have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrush-obligate animals. Land managers do not have resources to restore all locations because of the extent of the restoration need and because some land uses are not likely to change, therefore, restoration decisions made at the landscape to regional scale may improve the effectiveness of restoration to achieve landscape and local restoration objectives. We present a landscape restoration decision tool intended to assist decision makers in determining landscape objectives, to identify and prioritize landscape areas where sites for priority restoration projects might be located, and to aid in ultimately selecting restoration sites guided by criteria used to define the landscape objectives. The landscape restoration decision tool is structured in five sections that should be addressed sequentially. Each section has a primary question or statement followed by related questions and statements to assist the user in addressing the primary question or statement. This handbook will guide decision makers through the important process steps of identifying appropriate questions, gathering appropriate data, developing landscape objectives, and prioritizing landscape patches where potential sites for restoration projects may be located. Once potential sites are selected, land managers can move to the site-specific decision tool to guide restoration decisions at the site level.

California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗
USGS2015

Restoration handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 1. Concepts for understanding and applying restoration

Sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the United States currently occur on only about one-half of their historical land area because of changes in land use, urban growth, and degradation of land, including invasions of non-native plants. The existence of many animal species depends on the existence of sagebrush steppe habitat. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) is a landscape-dependent bird that requires intact habitat and combinations of sagebrush and perennial grasses to exist. In addition, other sagebrush-obligate animals also have similar requirements and restoration of landscapes for greater sage-grouse also will benefit these animals. Once sagebrush lands are degraded, they may require restoration actions to make those lands viable habitat for supporting sagebrushobligate animals. This restoration handbook is the first in a three-part series on restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. In Part 1, we discuss concepts surrounding landscape and restoration ecology of sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse that habitat managers and restoration practitioners need to know to make informed decisions regarding where and how to restore specific areas. We will describe the plant dynamics of sagebrush steppe ecosystems and their responses to major disturbances, fire, and defoliation. We will introduce the concepts of ecosystem resilience to disturbances and resistance to invasions of annual grasses within sagebrush steppe. An introduction to soils and ecological site information will provide insights into the specific plants that can be restored in a location. Soil temperature and moisture regimes are described as a tool for determining resilience and resistance and the potential for various restoration actions. Greater sage-grouse are considered landscape birds that require large areas of intact sagebrush steppe; therefore, we describe concepts of landscape ecology that aid our decisions regarding habitat restoration. We provide a brief overview of restoration techniques for sage-grouse habitat restoration. We conclude with a description of the critical nature of monitoring for adaptive management of sagebrush steppe restoration at landscape- and project-specific levels.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Neb↗
USGS2014

A synopsis of short-term response to alternative restoration treatments in sagebrush-steppe: the SageSTEP project

The Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project (SageSTEP) is an integrated long-term study that evaluates ecological effects of alternative treatments designed to reduce woody fuels and to stimulate the herbaceous understory of sagebrush steppe communities of the Intermountain West. This synopsis summarizes results through 3 yr posttreatment. Woody vegetation reduction by prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, or herbicides initiated a cascade of effects, beginning with increased availability of nitrogen and soil water, followed by increased growth of herbaceous vegetation. Response of butterflies and magnitudes of runoff and erosion closely followed herbaceous vegetation recovery. Effects on shrubs, biological soil crust, tree cover, surface woody fuel loads, and sagebrush-obligate bird communities will take longer to be fully expressed. In the short term, cool wet sites were more resilient than warm dry sites, and resistance was mostly dependent on pretreatment herbaceous cover. At least 10 yr of posttreatment time will likely be necessary to determine outcomes for most sites. Mechanical treatments did not serve as surrogates for prescribed fire in how each influenced the fuel bed, the soil, erosion, and sage-obligate bird communities. Woody vegetation reduction by any means resulted in increased availability of soil water, higher herbaceous cover, and greater butterfly numbers. We identified several trade-offs (desirable outcomes for some variables, undesirable for others), involving most components of the study system. Trade-offs are inevitable when managing complex natural systems, and they underline the importance of asking questions about the whole system when developing management objectives. Substantial spatial and temporal heterogeneity in sagebrush steppe ecosystems emphasizes the point that there will rarely be a “recipe” for choosing management actions on any specific area. Use of a consistent evaluation process linked to monitoring may be the best chance managers have for arresting woodland expansion and cheatgrass invasion that may accelerate in a future warming climate.

Rangeland Ecology and Management↗
USGS2013

Natural ecosystems

Natural Ecosystems analyzes the association of observed changes in climate with changes in the geographic distributions and phenology (the timing of blossoms or migrations of birds) for Southwestern ecosystems and their species, portraying ecosystem disturbances—such as wildfires and outbreaks of forest pathogens—and carbon storage and release, in relation to climate change.

Book chapter↗
USGS2013

Wildfire and invasive species in the west: challenges that hinder current and future management and protection of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem: a Gap Report

The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to satisfy the 45-day report requirement identified in Cooperative Agreement (F13AC00353) between WAFWA and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submit this “Gap Report”. This report summarizes the policy, fiscal and science challenges that land managers encounter related to the control and reduction of the invasive plant/fire complex, especially as it relates to the threaten or endangered species listing status of the Greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ). While this Gap Report identifies 22 technical, policy, planning and funding gaps, it should be considered a “work in-progress”. To address this effort a Wildfire/Invasive Initiative Work Group (WG) was formed. The WG consist of nationally recognized experts in fire ecology, Sage-grouse ecology and management, range management and plant ecology. The WG developed this Gap Report and will be developing the final report for this Cooperative Agreement. Thus, as the WG evaluates the wildfire/invasive issue and makes recommendation to address scientific and management shortcomings, additional gaps will be identified and included in the final report. Within this report, the WG has suggested the top 5 gaps. However, the actual priority of what should be addressed first will depend on the significance and sequence of the limiting factor, available funding, current work, roles and responsibilities of the specific agencies, etc. The WG will continue to meet on a regular basis to further develop and expand this list of gaps. Additionally, the WG will offer specific options to address the identified gaps. However, the WG recommends that the FWS, possibly through the State/Federal (Western Governors Association) Sage Grouse Task Force or the National Sage-grouse Executive Oversight Committee, establish a Subcommittee to specifically review this Gap Report and develop a multi-agency approach on how to address each gap. The WG will continue to endeavor to establish a priority list and identify the “low hanging fruit” that can be addressed in the short-term to affect the listing decision. Additionally, the WG will propose a longer-term strategy. However, to successfully establish such a strategy it will take buy-in and commitment at the highest levels in federal and state governments. In an effort to provide managers an opportunity to address the most important issues this coming fiscal year, we offer the following top 5 gaps. Beyond these top 5, the WG has identified 17 additional gaps that should be evaluated by both federal and state agencies as a means to help better manage the wildfire/invasive threat in the west.

Report↗
USGS2008

Interactions among livestock grazing, vegetation type, and fire behavior in the Murphy Wildland Fire Complex in Idaho and Nevada, July 2007

A series of wildland fires were ignited by lightning in sagebrush and grassland communities near the Idaho-Nevada border southwest of Twin Falls, Idaho in July 2007. The fires burned for over two weeks and encompassed more than 650,000 acres. A team of scientists, habitat specialists, and land managers was called together by Tom Dyer, Idaho BLM State Director, to examine initial information from the Murphy Wildland Fire Complex in relation to plant communities and patterns of livestock grazing. Three approaches were used to examine this topic: (1) identify potential for livestock grazing to modify fuel loads and affect fire behavior using fire models applied to various vegetation types, fuel loads, and fire conditions; (2) compare levels of fuel consumed within and among major vegetation types; and (3) examine several observed lines of difference and discontinuity in fuel consumed to determine what factors created these contrasts. The team found that much of the Murphy Wildland Fire Complex burned under extreme fuel and weather conditions that likely overshadowed livestock grazing as a factor influencing fire extent and fuel consumption in many areas where these fires burned. Differences and abrupt contrast lines in the level of fuels consumed were affected mostly by the plant communities that existed on a site before fire. A few abrupt contrasts in burn severity coincided with apparent differences in grazing patterns of livestock, observed as fence-line contrasts. Fire modeling revealed that grazing in grassland vegetation can reduce surface rate of spread and fire-line intensity to a greater extent than in shrubland types. Under extreme fire conditions (low fuel moisture, high temperatures, and gusty winds), grazing applied at moderate utilization levels has limited or negligible effects on fire behavior. However, when weather and fuel-moisture conditions are less extreme, grazing may reduce the rate of spread and intensity of fires allowing for patchy burns with low levels of fuel consumption. The team suggested that targeted grazing to accomplish fuel objectives holds promise but requires detailed planning that includes clearly defined goals for fuel modification and appropriate monitoring to assess effectiveness. It was recommended that a pilot plan be devised to strategically place grazed blocks across a landscape to create fuel-reduction bands capable of influencing fire behavior. Also suggested was the development of a general technical report that highlights information and examples of how livestock grazing influences fire extent, severity, and intensity. Finally, the team encouraged continued research and monitoring of the effects of the Murphy Wildland Fire Complex. Much more can be learned from the effects of this extensive fire complex that may offer insight for future management decisions.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2002

Rangeland health attributes and indicators for qualitative assessment

Panels of experts from the Society for Range Management and the National Research Council proposed that status of rangeland ecosystems could be ascertained by evaluating an ecological site's potential to conserve soil resources and by a series of indicators for ecosystem processes and site stability. Using these recommendations as a starting point, we developed a rapid, qualitative method for assessing a moment-in-time status of rangelands. Evaluators rate 17 indicators to assess 3 ecosystem attributes (soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) for a given location. Indicators include rills, water flow patterns, pedestals and terracettes, bare ground, gullies, wind scour and depositional areas, litter movement, soil resistance to erosion, soil surface loss or degradation, plant composition relative to infiltration, soil compaction, plant functional/structural groups, plant mortality, litter amount, annual production, invasive plants, and reproductive capability. In this paper, we detail the development and evolution of the technique and introduce a modified ecological reference worksheet that documents the expected presence and amount of each indicator on the ecological site. In addition, we review the intended applications for this technique and clarify the differences between assessment and monitoring that lead us to recommend this technique be used for moment-in-time assessments and not be used for temporal monitoring of rangeland status. Lastly, we propose a mechanism for adapting and modifying this technique to reflect improvements in understanding of ecosystem processes. We support the need for quantitative measures for monitoring rangeland health and propose some measures that we believe may address some of the 17 indicators.

Journal of Range Management↗