Conceptio › Archive › USGS Publications

USGS Publicationspublic full text

Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Completion Assessment: Restoration Topic, 2015–20

Christopher R. Anthony, Matthew J. Holloran, Mark A. Ricca, Steven E. Hanser, Susan L. Phillips, Paul Steblein · U.S. Geological Survey

USGS Publications · Papers · License: Public Domain

Open Source ↗Direct PDF ↓

assessment completion filereport fire integrated plan restoration strategy

usgs, geological survey, united states, science, government publication, usgs open-file report, 2023, 1004, integrated, rangeland, fire, management, strategy, actionable, science, plan, completion, assessment, restoration, topic, 2015

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Completion Assessment: Restoration Topic, 2015–20

Open-File Report 2023–1004

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Completion Assessment: Restoration Topic, 2015–20 By Christopher R. Anthony, Matthew J. Holloran, Mark A. Ricca, Steven E. Hanser, Sue L. Phillips, Paul F. Steblein, and Lief A. Wiechman

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Open-File Report 2023–1004

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2023

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Suggested citation: Anthony, C.R., Holloran, M.J., Ricca, M.A., Hanser, S.E., Phillips, S.L., Steblein, P.F., and Wiechman, L.A., 2023, Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment—Restoration topic, 2015–20: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2023–1004, 44 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20231004. ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

iii

Contents Abstract��1 Introduction��2 Methods��5 Results and Summary��7 Acknowledgments��12 References Cited��12 Glossary��14 Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan��15

Figures 1.

Map showing the landscape cover of sagebrush-dominated ecological systems in the western United States��3 2. Map showing large fire probability for the sagebrush biome in the western United States��4

Tables 1.

Search results for the Restoration topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the terms searched, the number of unique articles resulting from that search, and general descriptions of each search��6 2. Criteria used to score Next Steps established for the Needs included in the Restoration topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan��6 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Restoration topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score, and a summary of science objectives addressed and not addressed in the scientific literature published 2015–20��8

Conversion Factors U.S. customary units to International System of Units Multiply

To obtain

Length mile (mi)

1.609

kilometer (km)

Area acre

4,047

square meter (m2)

acre

0.4047

hectare (ha)

acre

0.4047

square hectometer (hm2)

International System of Units to U.S. customary units Multiply

To obtain

Length kilometer (km)

0.6214

mile (mi)

square meter (m2)

0.0002471

acre

hectare (ha)

2.471

acre

square hectometer (hm2)

2.471

acre

Area

Abbreviations BLM

Bureau of Land Management

DOI

U.S. Department of the Interior

IRFMS

Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy

WAFWA Sage-grouse Management Zone

OFR

Open-File Report

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

WAFWA

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Species names Basin big sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata spp. tridentata

Cheatgrass

Bromus tectorum

Crested wheatgrass

Agropyron cristatum

Greater sage-grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus

Mountain big sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata spp. vaseyana

Sagebrush

Artemisia spp.

Wyoming big sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomingensis

Abstract Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are substantial management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions, and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed 10 needs (hereinafter “Needs”) identified under the Restoration topic in the Plan. The topic

outlined research Needs for improving restoration success in degraded sagebrush rangelands. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (“Next Steps”) were either addressed well, partially addressed or remain outstanding (that is, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 371 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Restoration topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: (1) the development of methods to improve seeding success of native plants after fire; (2) evaluation of short- and long-term plant responses relative to biotic and abiotic factors following restoration treatments; (3) assessments of long-term effects on ecosystem processes following conifer removal treatments and development of decision support tools to aid in conifer management; (4) determination of the costs of restoration treatments relative to the benefits to sage-grouse occupancy, survival, and populations; and (5) assessments of the factors which contribute to soil degradation and development of soil enhancement methods that enhance seed germination and seedling survival while resisting nonnative plants. Needs that were not addressed well included: (1) the development of methods for the rapid recovery of sagebrush and native herbaceous plants following wildfire and determination of whether treatments benefit sage-grouse and mitigate impacts from fires; (2) determination of thresholds for successful restoration across a range of environmental conditions and development of decision support tools to assist with restoration effectiveness monitoring; and

2 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 (3) development and evaluation of the utility of seed transfer zones. The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.

Introduction Stemming the cumulative loss and degradation of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) rangelands that comprise a unique biome across western North America represents a challenge to land managers and applied researchers in the 21st century. Functioning and viable sagebrush rangelands not only support over 350 plant and animal species of conservation concern (Suring and others, 2005), these landscapes are also essential for agricultural and recreational industries and thereby play a vital role in stabilizing the economies of western communities. This is of particular importance given dramatic fluctuations resulting from the traditional dependence of these communities on energy development (Western Governors’ Association, 2017; Bureau of Land Management [BLM], 2020). Approximately 55–60 percent of sagebrush rangelands of the western U.S. have been lost (direct conversion) or degraded (alteration of understory vegetation or fragmentation) since European settlement (Knick and others, 2003; Miller and others, 2011). Sagebrush rangelands are currently distributed across 160 million acres of 14 western states (Remington and others, 2021; fig. 1). Arresting downward trends in sagebrush ecosystems is complex owing to multiple and often interacting stressors, including conversion to agricultural crops or non-native perennial grasses (for example, crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum]), energy development, improper livestock grazing, expansion of native conifers, and other anthropogenic surfacedisturbing activities (for example, roads, transmission lines, exurban development; Hanser and others, 2018; Shinneman, 2019; BLM, 2020). However, altered wildfire regimes driven largely by positive feedbacks from invasive annual grasses (Miller and Eddleman, 2001; Balch and others, 2013) are perhaps the most immediate and pervasive threat to sagebrush rangelands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2013; fig. 2). The proliferation of invasive annual grasses (for example, cheatgrass [Bromus tectorum]) and resulting increases in fire frequency and extent can ultimately result in long-term and often permanent loss of fire-intolerant species of sagebrush along with deep rooted bunchgrass and soil microbial communities that normally promote resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasion in sagebrush ecosystems (Chambers and others, 2014; Germino and others, 2016). The threat from

the annual grass-wildfire cycle is greatest throughout western portions of the sagebrush biome (that is, Great Basin and Snake River Plain), where trends in proportion of larger fires and fire season length have increased since the mid-1980s and fire frequency has increased substantially compared to historic frequencies (Brooks and others, 2015). Over the next 20 years, median annual total area burned in western states supporting sagebrush is projected to increase (from a 1961–2004 baseline period; Kitzberger and others, 2017), suggesting that increasing trends in sagebrush rangelands fires are likely to continue. The increasing frequency and impact of wildfires prompted the development of an enhanced strategy for addressing rangeland fire across sagebrush-dominated regions. A significant milestone in this effort was the drafting of the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (hereinafter IRFMS; U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI], 2015) following the issuance of Secretarial Order 3336. The IRFMS outlined coordinated, science-based approaches for improving the efficiency and efficacy of actions to better prevent and suppress rangeland fire and to improve efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of the sagebrush biome. Inherent in the IRFMS was the recognition that a strong science foundation was fundamental to successful rangeland fire prevention and suppression, and to management and restoration of sagebrush rangelands and wildlife populations reliant on those rangelands. Therefore, the IRFMS further called for the development of an Actionable Science Plan (hereinafter, Plan) that identified the priority science needed to inform another generation of management strategies and tools (Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team [IRFMS], 2016). Critical elements to the Plan’s success were: (1) the collaborative identification of knowledge gaps by managers and researchers which, when filled, would break down barriers to successful implementation of management actions; and (2) a focus on the resultant priority science having “actionable” traits by: (i) immediately filling knowledge gaps; (ii) directly informing management action aimed at protecting, conserving, or restoring sagebrush ecosystems; and (iii) facilitating funding mechanisms for effective research and communication of results to management audiences.

Introduction 3

Figure 1. Map showing the landscape cover of sagebrush-dominated ecological systems in the western United States. Figure is taken from Chambers and others (2017, fig. 28).

4 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20

Figure 2. Large fire probability for the sagebrush biome in the western United States. Figure taken from Chambers and others (2017, fig. 34).

Methods 5 Accordingly, needed science was identified by considering planning and prioritization efforts conducted in the previous 5 years by Federal and State agencies. The resulting comprehensive list was prioritized with engagement of the broader research and management communities. The 37 highest-priority science needs (hereinafter, Needs) identified through these efforts were then organized under five topics outlined in the IRFMS: (1) Fire, (2) Invasives (plant species), (3) Restoration, (4) Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, and (5) Climate and Weather. A multi-disciplinary team of experts developed narratives describing these highest-priority Needs and outlined a series of research objectives (hereinafter, Next Steps) to help guide the development of new knowledge, syntheses, and decision-support tools for addressing each Need. Conservation strategies depend on the consideration and application of the best available science and ongoing efforts to address gaps in that scientific knowledge to achieve management success. While the state of the science has ostensibly advanced owing to substantial research investments since the Plan’s release in 2016, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is largely unknown. Several annotated bibliographies have made strides towards making results from research efforts in the sagebrush biome available and tractable for management audiences (for example, Carter and others, 2020; Poor and others, 2021). However, many knowledge gaps likely remain, and an assessment of progress made on achieving previously identified priorities is needed to help focus the next prioritization on unresolved gaps in the science and new science needs that have arisen since development of the original strategy. A quantifiable and targeted assessment of progress made towards meeting the original Needs under the Plan’s five topics can help identify unresolved gaps and prioritize future actionable research efforts for new questions and possible (yet untested) solutions. The Restoration topic in the Plan identified 10 Needs focused on maintaining sagebrush ecosystem integrity in the face of multiple threats. The priorities identified across the 10 Needs broadly encompassed: (1) determination of biotic and abiotic factors that lead to successful restoration (short- and long-term) following disturbance, and develop decision support tools to assist adaptive management; (2) improvement of restoration applications to offset negative effects of disturbances on sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species; and (3) evaluation of seed-transfer zones relative to changing climate and development of a strategic plan for integrating the appropriate seeds into restoration projects. This report details a literature review that quantified how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed 10 Needs identified under the Restoration topic in the Plan. Five years was considered an adequate time period for implementation of science projects that coincided

with or were inspired by the Plan and, as such, a suitably defined interval for completing this assessment and updating priority science and management needs. Our objective was to comprehensively summarize the scientific literature generated since the release of the Plan. Leveraging advances in bibliographic search-engine tools, we developed a quantitative “scorecard” to assess progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria. The scorecard informed summaries detailing how Next Steps were addressed in the literature as well as those that remain unresolved. The summaries are intended to provide information for stakeholder-driven efforts aimed at identifying the next set of science needs in a forthcoming updated version of the Plan.

Methods We organized literature reviews on the five overarching topics included in the Plan (that is, [1] Fire, [2] Invasives (plant species), [3] Restoration, [4] Sagebrush and SageGrouse, and [5] Climate and Weather). For the Restoration topic, we initially searched the reference databases Web of Science and Scopus using broad search terms (for example, sagebrush restoration) to capture the bulk of the relevant literature in USGS BiblioSearch—a python tool designed for compiling literature across multiple databases (Kleist and Enns, 2022). We then conducted a series of literature searches using search terms specific to the Next Steps (for example, sagebrush AND seed transfer) to capture the science products that may have been excluded by the broad search terms (table 1). We examined all papers included in the resulting lists of literature for relevance to the Needs identified in the Restoration topic. Products searched included published literature and peer-reviewed Federal research reports (for example, Open-File Reports released by the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]). Data releases, popular articles, “gray” literature, and other lower-tier publications were not included in search results (Kleist and Enns, 2022), although some of these types of literature (for example, data releases) were summarized in the annotated bibliographies we accessed (for example, Carter and others, 2020; Poor and others, 2021) and included in our review when pertinent. In situations where a research report was later published in the peer-reviewed literature, we only considered the published manuscript; in situations where the research report included pertinent information not included in the manuscript, we considered both. We established how well Needs (that is, priority science required to inform the next generation of management strategies) listed in the Plan were addressed in the literature by independently “scoring” each Need from Next Steps (that is, science objectives required to address a Need) associated with the Restoration topic. Papers that were relevant to a Next Step were considered when scoring that Next Step. Our review approach initially focused on a paper’s abstract. If this information suggested that the research was related to a Next Step,

6 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Table 1. Search results for the Restoration topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the terms searched, the number of unique articles resulting from that search (Unique Results), and general descriptions of each search (Comment). [Search terms: We used a search algorithm (Kleist and Enns, 2022) during early stages of tool development, and at that time the entire term between the word AND in the search terms was not searched (for example, “sagebrush” and “restoration” searched, not “sagebrush restoration”). Unique results: This resulted in broader and more inclusive lists of literature. The number of papers associated with each search term represent the number of unique papers resulting from that search but are not necessarily unique to the search (for example, the same paper could be included in the count of both the “sagebrush restoration” and “restoration AND sagebrush” searches). Comment: Need 4, development and evaluation of the utility of seed transfer zones; Need 10, assessments of factors contributing to soil degradation and development of soil enhancement methods that enhance restoration success]

Unique results

Search terms

Comment

sagebrush restoration

187

2015–20; broad search term

restoration AND sagebrush1

227

2015–20; broad search term

sagebrush AND soils

272

2015–20; broad search term

sagebrush AND seed zone map

2015–20; Need 4; targeted search term

sagebrush AND seed transfer

2015–20; Need 4; targeted search term

sagebrush sage AND wind erosion

2015–20; Need 10; targeted search term

1The search algorithm (Kleist and Enns, 2022) used was updated to include the entire search term between the word AND for these searches.

we focused our in-depth examination on research objectives, study area descriptions, and data collection and analysis methods. Because the objective of this project was to assess if Next Steps had been addressed, we did not systematically summarize results although we considered results when necessary to determine if the research addressed a Next Step. A given paper could be relevant to more than one Next Step in a Need, more than one Need, and more than one topic. Each Next Step was scored based on the relevant literature following a set of criteria (table 2). Scores were scaled from 0.00 to 1.00 with 0.00 indicating that the Next Step had not been considered (that is, no papers were reviewed that considered the objective(s) detailed in the Next Step) and 1.00 indicating that the Next Step had been considered at the full spatial extent of the issue being investigated. Scores

progressively decreased as the applicability of the research associated with a Next Step became more regional or localized. The scale of inference for Next Steps that were pertinent to the entire sagebrush biome was based on Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Management Zones (WAFWA; MZ) for sage-grouse (Stiver and others, 2006; fig. 1). If studies were distributed in one MZ or less than or equal to three adjoining MZs, the scale of inference was considered local or regional, respectively. “NA” was assigned when a Next Step could not be evaluated with the literature review approach we used (for example, data releases, online tools), and that Next Step was not scored. A Next Step that could be addressed adequately following our approach but that had no relevant literature identified was scored 0.00 (not “NA”). Each Need was scored as the proportion of the Next

Table 2. Criteria used to score Next Steps established for the Needs included in the Restoration topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan. Scoring description

Score

Next Step addressed across the sagebrush range, or at the full spatial extent of the issue being investigated

1.00

Next Step addressed and was scale independent (for example, literature summaries)

1.00

Next Step partially addressed across the sagebrush range, or at the full spatial extent of the issue being investigated

0.75

Next Step partially addressed and was scale independent Next Step fully addressed at the local or regional level

0.75 0.50

Next Step partially addressed at the local or regional level

0.25

Next Step not addressed

0.00

Next Step could not be assessed through literature review approach used (for example, development of databases)

NA1

1Next Step not included in scoring of Need

Results and Summary 7 Steps associated with that Need that received a score greater than or equal to (≥) 0.75 (table 2). We categorized each Need based on the scores as addressed well by the literature (scores ≥0.67; that is, a majority of the Next Steps associated with that Need received a score of 0.75 or greater), partially addressed by the literature (scores 0.50–0.66) or addressed poorly by the literature (scores less than or equal to [≤] 0.49). We did not distinguish between Next Steps identified in the Plan as accomplishable within 3 years (short-term) and longer than 3 years (long-term) because 5 years had elapsed between plan formulation and this report. For each Need, we developed a summary of the Next Steps. Summaries were organized by Need and describe Next Steps or portions of a Next Step that had been “Addressed” and those that had not (that is, “Outstanding”) based on the details in the Next Steps rather than each Need in entirety. As such, descriptions of the research related to a given Next Step could be included in both the summaries of the science that had been Addressed as well as what remains Outstanding for a Need. These summaries provide details of how well specific science objectives established in the Plan were addressed and are important for evaluating the scores and informing the next set of science needs in the updated Plan. Research relevant to the science Needs identified in the Plan continues to be conducted and published. However, because we are not privy to all the research being conducted throughout the sagebrush biome and we did not want to bias assessments to internal research efforts, products released after 2020 and interim updates of ongoing research were not discussed in this report. As such, the completion scores provided in this assessment are snapshots, and should be augmented with knowledge of newly published and on-going research programs using the search and scoring methods described in this report when updating the Plan.

Results and Summary We reviewed 702 products that were identified by the literature searches conducted for the Restoration topic (table 1). Of those, 371 unique products were directly related to at least one of the 10 Needs. Most (78 percent) of the 50 Next Steps included in the topic had greater than or equal to one ≥ 1 published product that at least partially addressed the science objective(s) detailed by that Next Step. Nine Next Steps could not be effectively assessed with the evaluation approach we used and were not scored (NA; table 2). The 11 Next Steps that could be effectively assessed but had no related products (that is, were scored as 0.00 not as NA) included:

(1) investigations of sage-grouse and other sagebrushobligate use of restoration treatments (three Next Steps under Need 1); (2) seven Next Steps pertaining to investigations of seed transfer zone applications (Need 4); and (3) studies of the impacts of fire on conifer seed banks (Need 9). Table 3 provides the completion scores for each Need and summaries of the literature evaluated for Next Steps. Literature citations are provided in Appendix 1, organized by Next Step. The Needs that were addressed well (scores ≥ 0.67) included the development of methods to improve seeding success of native plants after fire (Need 2); evaluations of shortand long-term responses of plant communities to restoration treatments (Need 5); development of site preparation and seeding strategies to improve plant establishment and diversity (Need 6); assessments of long-term effects on ecosystem processes of conifer removal treatments (Need 7) and development of decision support tools to aid in conifer management within the sagebrush biome (Need 9); determination of the mitigation potential of restoration treatments relative to the benefits to sage-grouse populations (Need 8); and assessments of factors contributing to soil degradation and development of soil enhancement methods that enhance restoration success (Need 10). A substantial amount of research conducted throughout the sagebrush biome, at local and regional scales, has investigated associations between seeding ecology (germination, emergence, seedling establishment, seedling survival) and biotic and abiotic factors such as invasive annual grasses, weather, livestock grazing (within experimental exclosures), and the timing of seeding. Short-term and longterm plant responses to mechanical, chemical, and prescribed fire treatments have been investigated at local and regional scales. Approaches for controlling invasive annual grasses without producing negative impacts to native plants have been investigated at predominantly local scales. Numerous studies distributed throughout the sagebrush biome have investigated the response of vegetation communities (including native and non-native plants) and wildlife to various conifer and sagebrush removal treatment methods. Many of these studies have been used to develop tools to help managers set expectations when planning restoration treatments and to develop monitoring metrics (leveraging information from similar legacy treatments) for informing adaptive management and improving restoration success.

8 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Restoration topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (score), and a summary of science objectives addressed and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20. Need

Score

Summary of 2015–20 literature

Need 1: Develop methods for “jumpstarting” growth and recovery of sagebrush and native grasses and forbs to encourage rapid re-establishment of sagebrush and enable re-colonization by sage-grouse as soon as possible to help offset effects of wildfire and help mitigate potential effects of future fires.

0.25 Addressed: Several tools and guidelines have been developed to identify priority sagebrush restoration areas based on resistance and resilience, soils data, restoration costs, and benefits to sage-grouse populations across their range, including tools that identify and prioritize sagebrush areas to restore for sage-grouse after fire. Throughout the Great Basin, methods for rapidly re-establishing sagebrush have been identified through several studies including studies that link the costs to the ecological benefits of restoring sage-grouse habitat post-wildfire. Sagebrush patch and other environmental characteristics (for example, cumulative burned area) required by sage-grouse have been identified at local and regional scales through examinations of nest site selection and survival, and adult survival post-fire. Methods for restoring sagebrush (that is, seedings or seedlings) have been evaluated and linked to environmental factors and site characteristics in western portions of the sagebrush biome. Outstanding: The effects of post-fire habitat restoration efforts have not been explicitly linked to sage-grouse occupancy or population dynamics except at the regional scale in western portion of the species’ range. The minimum sagebrush cover and patch size and other environmental requirements for sage-grouse occupancy, survival, and population persistence are poorly understood in post-fire landscapes. The response of sagebrush-obligate and sagebrush-dependent species other than sage-grouse to post-fire restoration treatments has not been studied.

Need 2: Develop and improve seeding methods, seed mixes, and equipment used for post-fire rehabilitation or habitat restoration to improve native plant (especially sagebrush) reestablishment.

0.88 Addressed: A substantial amount of research has investigated associations between seeding ecology (germination, emergence, seedling establishment, seedling survival) and biotic and abiotic factors such as invasive annual grasses, weather, livestock grazing (within experimental exclosures), and the timing of seeding at local and regional scales across the sagebrush biome. The plant species that have been evaluated under various restoration conditions are diverse and fit within the three dominant plant life-forms (shrubs, grasses, forbs). Comparisons of drill and aerial seeding, elevation and precipitation gradients, rangeland drills (conventional and minimum till), other seed delivery techniques, and the timing and rate of seed application have been done at local and regional scales primarily in western portions of the sagebrush biome. Advancements in identifying big sagebrush to subspecies in seed lots have been achieved through assessments of seed weight and spectrophotometry. Seed coating techniques that (1) increase soil water availability, (2) enhance seedling emergence in crusting soil, (3) control the timing of seed germination, (4) enhance seed coverage of broadcasted seeds, (5) improve plantability and emergence of small-seeded species, and (6) protect seedlings from pre-emergent herbicides have been developed and tested at local and regional scales. Outstanding: Basin and Wyoming big sagebrush seed-zone maps and seed-transfer guidelines regarding climate change across most of the sagebrush biome are lacking. Investigations are needed to understand how interactions between the selective use of livestock and various seeding methods influences seeding success across multiple ecological sites and conditions. There remains a need to synthesize and centralize restoration species data and provide links to tools and databases required for all aspects of restoration planning.

Results and Summary 9 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Restoration topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (score), and a summary of science objectives addressed and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20.—Continued Need

Score

Summary of 2015–20 literature

Need 3: Determine the criteria and thresholds that indicate restoration and rehabilitation success or failure across the range of environmental conditions that characterize sage-grouse habitat. Develop decision support tools that define success or failure and the need for follow-up actions.

0.25 Addressed: Numerous local and regional scale studies throughout the sagebrush biome have quantified the responses of newly seeded or planted seedlings of sagebrush and perennial bunchgrass species and identified thresholds in these responses as a function of biotic and abiotic factors. Practical applications for restoration in the sagebrush biome have been reviewed and synthesized in the context of restoration planning, including assessing restoration success of past practices and approaches to prioritizing future restoration practices. Frameworks with range-wide applicability have been proposed for restoration effectiveness monitoring. Outstanding: Information from land treatment effectiveness monitoring on operational restoration projects (for example, Bureau of Land Management [BLM] Emergency, Stabilization, and Rehabilitation) has not been synthesized to establish criteria and determine thresholds. Spatial replication is needed to determine when seedlings and native plants can tolerate grazing by large herbivores and provide resistance to invasive annual grasses after fire and restoration.

Need 4: Complete a generalized seedzone map and determine (1) if it is more effective to develop seed-transfer zones by species or subspecies, (2) which climate parameters are most useful in developing transfer zones, (3) thresholds in climate adaptations, and (4) effects of using seed collected throughout a specified transfer zone versus seed collected from the local area to restore sagebrush habitats. Also demonstrate that actual planting success is improved for a given seedtransfer specification.

0.27 Addressed: Several local, regional and range-wide scale studies investigated adaption and population dynamics of Wyoming, mountain, and basin big sagebrush seedlings within and across seed-transfer zones in relation to local weather parameters, post-fire restoration treatments, and invasive annual grasses in common gardens and operational restoration projects. Seed-zone investigations of native forb and a limited number of bunchgrass species common in sagebrush habitat restoration efforts have been conducted at local and range-wide scales. Seed-zone maps for big sagebrush have been refined range-wide based on genetic variation, environmental effects, and adaptive breadth of populations grown in common gardens. Outstanding: Seed-zone models and seed transfer tools that incorporate uncertainty and evaluate risk are limited. Seed-zone maps for common understory species used in sagebrush habitat restoration need to be refined and existing seed-zone models for all restoration species (including sagebrush and other shrubs) need to be evaluated across restoration areas in the sagebrush biome. Meta-analyses have not been completed to determine patterns and thresholds between perennial bunchgrasses and climate variables or to test generalities of seed transfer for other functional plant groups used for restoration. A synthesis of common garden studies to determine adaptive trends and a review of seed-zone construction methods to identify best practices for seed-zone modelling have not been completed. Molecular-marker studies to support seed-zone development are lacking.

Need 5: Conduct retrospective studies of selected native plant restoration projects to evaluate short- and longterm responses of plant communities to these treatments and to biotic and abiotic conditions.

0.67 Addressed: Short-term and long-term plant responses to restoration treatments have been investigated by numerous local and regional scale studies distributed throughout the sagebrush biome. Several studies examined the response of vegetation following sagebrush removal, sagebrush removal and seeding, and seeding after fire. Tools to help managers set expectations when planning restoration treatments and to develop monitoring metrics (leveraging information from similar legacy treatments) for informing adaptive management and improving restoration success that has range-wide relevance have been developed. Outstanding: Short-term and long-term information linking vegetation responses to biotic and abiotic conditions following treatments in fire affected areas is lacking replication, especially for the Great Basin. Most studies that investigated vegetation responses to restoration treatments are local and the identification of regional and range-wide consistencies and differences in temporal trajectories of vegetation responses have not been synthesized. Predictive models of revegetation trajectories have not been validated.

10 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Restoration topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (score), and a summary of science objectives addressed and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20.—Continued Need

Score

Summary of 2015–20 literature

Need 6: Develop site preparation and seeding and transplanting strategies that improve plant establishment and community diversity.

0.67 Addressed: A substantial number of greenhouse, field, and operational restoration studies conducted at local and regional scales and replicated range-wide have investigated the effects of site specific biotic and abiotic factors on the establishment and success of commonly used plant species in restoration. Approaches for controlling invasive annual grasses without producing negative impacts to native plants have been investigated at predominantly local scales by a substantial number of studies distributed throughout the sagebrush biome. Outstanding: Investigations of different potential species for incorporation into the “pool” of available species for restoration is lacking. Syntheses of information on site preparation and seeding and transplanting strategies for sagebrush communities across the biome have not been fully developed.

Need 7: Assess the long-term effects of conifer removal treatments on hydrology, geochemical cycling, vegetation, wildlife, fuels, fire behavior, and economics.

1.00 Addressed: A substantial number of local and regional scale studies distributed throughout the sagebrush biome have investigated the response of vegetation communities (including native and non-native plants) and wildlife to various conifer removal treatment methods in Wyoming and mountain big sagebrush communities. Many studies have evaluated hydrological process, and to a lesser degree carbon fluxes in response to conifer removal treatments. Studies examining long-term vegetation responses to conifer removal treatments in relation to the biophysical setting have been replicated across the sagebrush biome. Associations between conifer removal and fire and fuel dynamics have been described (see also Fire topic Need 3). The costs and benefits of implementing mechanical versus prescribed fire have been evaluated. Several reviews and syntheses have been completed describing the effects of conifer removal on wildlife, hydrology, and climate change. Outstanding: Studies investigating the effects of conifer removal treatments on the biogeochemical cycle are lacking. Although studied extensively, the long-term hydrologic, vegetation, and wildlife responses to conifer removal treatments across the array of biophysical settings being treated is a broad topic that could benefit from additional research.

Need 8: Evaluate the effectiveness of various rehabilitation or restoration activities in sage-grouse habitat to help determine if offsite mitigation is a viable option, because if restoration of sites to conditions useful for sagegrouse is not possible (for near-term benefits), then mitigation procedures might warrant reevaluation.

0.75 Addressed: Numerous local and regional scale studies have examined the effectiveness of land treatment projects, including various conifer or sagebrush removal treatments, for providing habitat for sage-grouse. Local scale studies in eastern portions of the sagebrush biome have quantified the response of sage-grouse to mitigation efforts at energy development sites. Guidelines and tools to inform sagebrush restoration efforts based on state-and-transition models, threat-based models, and ecological site potential that have relevance informing sage-grouse mitigation efforts have been completed. Outstanding: Syntheses or meta-analyses of sagebrush habitat response to the suite of restoration treatments across the sagebrush biome have not been completed. Unified metrics for quantifying changes in sagebrush habitat suitability and quality for sagegrouse in response to restoration activities and sage-grouse population or demographic trends have not been developed limiting the ability to evaluate mitigation success and assess whether mitigation is a viable option.

Need 9: Develop decision-support tools to assist in planning and implementing conifer removal treatments that will maximize maintenance of sagebrush systems, greater sage-grouse, and other sensitive species.

0.75 Addressed: Vegetation community succession following mechanical and prescribed fire treatments of conifers has been investigated through numerous local scale studies distributed throughout the sagebrush biome. Reviews describing the socioecological aspects of woodland expansion and management actions taken to reduce threats to sage-grouse have been completed. Several decision-support tools have been developed to identify areas where conifer removal would be most effective based on criteria such as treatment costs, benefits to sage-grouse, livestock forage, and resistance and resilience of plant communities. See also Restoration topic Need 7 summary. Outstanding: Studies investigating the effects of fire on conifer seedbanks within sagebrush communities have not been completed. Further syntheses are needed to better understand how variability in site characteristics and treatment methods throughout the sagebrush biome influence vegetation responses to restoration treatments.

Results and Summary 11 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Restoration topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (score), and a summary of science objectives addressed and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20.—Continued Need Need 10: Assess soil degradation and develop treatments, soil amendments, and other site-preparation techniques that enhance germination, establishment, and development of healthy sagebrush communities capable of resisting invasion by nonnative plant species.

Score

Summary of 2015–20 literature

0.67 Addressed: Numerous local and regional scale studies distributed across the sagebrush biome evaluated the effects of disturbances including fire, grazing, conifer treatments, herbicides, and conifer and invasive annual grass invasion on soil degradation (for example, biological soil crusts, microbial community, soil nutrients, and soil moisture and temperature). Relationships between post-fire restoration treatments and wind erosion have been investigated at local scales. Regional-scale studies linking soil moisture and temperature to sagebrush restoration success after fire have been conducted in the Great Basin. Several local scale water and wind-erosion models have been developed. Restoration tools that incorporate soil properties in assessments of the reestablishment of plant communities after fire have been explored and tested range-wide. See also Restoration topic Need 2 summary. Outstanding: A synthesis describing the effects of fire and invasive annual grasses on soil biogeochemistry for the sagebrush biome has not been completed. Studies investigating plant establishment in response to differences in soil water and chemistry after fire need to be replicated outside the Great Basin. The effects of grazing heterogeneity on biological soil crusts need evaluated. Wind and water-erosion models have not been developed for post-fire sagebrush communities in eastern portions of the sagebrush biome.

None of the Needs in the topic were partially addressed (scores 0.50–0.66). The Needs that were addressed poorly (scores <0.49) included the development of methods for the rapid recovery of sagebrush and native herbaceous plants following wildfire to benefit sage-grouse and mitigate impacts from future fires (Need 1); determination of thresholds for successful restoration of sagebrush habitats and development of decision support tools to assist with restoration effectiveness monitoring (Need 3); and development and evaluation of the utility of seed transfer zones (Need 4). The effects of post-fire habitat restoration efforts (for example, sagebrush seedings) have not been explicitly linked to sage-grouse occupancy or population dynamics except in the western portion of the species’ range. Information from land treatment effectiveness monitoring on operational restoration projects (for example, BLM Emergency, Stabilization, and Rehabilitation) has not been synthesized to establish criteria and determine thresholds. Replication is needed to determine when sagebrush seedlings and recovering native herbaceous species can tolerate grazing by large herbivores and provide resistance to invasive annual grasses after fire and restoration across multiple ecological sites. Seed-zone models and seed transfer tools that incorporate uncertainty and evaluate risk are limited. Meta-analyses have not been completed to determine patterns and thresholds between perennial bunchgrasses and climate variables or to test generalities of seed transfer for other functional plant groups used for restoration. There were several Next Steps identified under the Restoration topic that were addressed poorly, even when the overall Need was addressed well. There remains a need to develop, synthesize and centralize restoration seed-zone maps, seed-transfer guidelines and species’ data and provide links

to tools and databases required for all aspects of restoration planning (Need 2). Most studies that investigated vegetation responses to different restoration techniques, including restoration of areas affected by wildfire, are local and the broaderscale applicability and transferability of findings have not been investigated or validated (Need 5). Syntheses of information on site preparation, seeding and transplanting strategies, and identification of different potential species for the restoration of sagebrush communities across the biome have not been fully developed (Need 6). Studies investigating the effects of conifer removal treatments on soil biogeochemistry and the biogeochemical cycle are lacking (Needs 7, 10). Syntheses of sagebrush habitat response to the suite of restoration treatment options across the biome, and unified metrics for quantifying the response of sagebrush-dependent species to these restoration activities have not been developed; this is contributing to limitations evaluating mitigation success and establishing whether mitigation is a viable option (Need 8). Studies investigating the effects of fire on conifer seedbanks within sagebrush communities have not been completed (Need 9). The completion scores and summaries in this report provide the basis to identify new actionable science priorities that are needed to address the issues continuing to drive the loss, degradation, restoration, and conservation of sagebrush habitats in the western United States. The resulting information can directly inform an update to the Plan, as well as other highly relevant science planning documents including, but not limited to: Parts 1 and 2 of the Science Framework (Chambers and others, 2017; Crist and others, 2019), the WAFWA Sagebrush Conservation Strategy (Remington and others, 2021), and online science portals for managers in various stages of development. Because actionable science production

12 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 continues to move forward quickly, Needs and Next Steps likely to be addressed by science released after 2020 will require consideration in Plan updates.

Acknowledgments We extend particular thanks to Zachary Bowen and Anne Kinsinger, U.S. Geological Survey. Report drafts were thoughtfully reviewed by Michael Duniway and Seth Munson, U.S. Geological Survey.

References Cited Balch, J.K., Bradley, B.A., D’Antonio, C.M., and GómezDans, J., 2013, Introduced annual grass increases regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980–2009): Global Change Biology, v. 19, no. 1, p. 173–183.

Chambers, J.C., Beck, J.L., Bradford, J.B., Bybee, J., Campbell, S., Carlson, J., Christiansen, T.J., Clause, K.J., Collins, G., Crist, M.R., Dinkins, J.B., Doherty, K.E., Edwards, F., Espinosa, S., Griffin, K.A., Griffin, P., Haas, J.R., Hanser, S.E., Havlina, D.W., Henke, K.F., Hennig, J.D., Joyce, L.A., Kilkenny, F.M., Kulpa, S.M., Kurth, L.L., Maestas, J.D., Manning, M., Mayer, K.E., Mealor, B.A., McCarthy, C., Pellant, M., Perea, M.A., Prentice, K.L., Pyke, D.A., Wiechman, L.A., and Wuenschel, A., 2017, 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: Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-360, 213 p. [Also available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/53983.] Chambers, J.C., Bradley, B.A., Brown, C.S., D’Antonio, C., Germino, M.J., Grace, J.B., Hardegree, S.P., Miller, R.F., and Pyke, D.A., 2014, Resilience to stress and disturbance, and resistance to Bromus tectorum L. invasion in cold desert shrublands of Western North America: New York, Ecosystems, v. 17, no. 2, p. 360–375.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2020, Final programmatic EIS for fuels reduction and rangeland restoration in the Great Basin: BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, 153 Crist, M.R., Chambers, J.C., Phillips, S.L., Prentice, K.L., and Wiechman, L.A., eds., 2019, Science framework for conp. [Also available at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ servation and restoration of the sagebrush biome: Linking project/122968/570.] the Department of the Interior's Integrated Rangeland Fire Brooks, M.L., Matchett, J.R., Shinneman, D.J., and Coates, Management Strategy to long-term strategic conservation P.S., 2015, Fire patterns in the range of greater sageactions—Part 2. Management applications: Fort Collins, grouse, 1984–2013—Implications for conservation and Colorado, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-389, 237 p. [Also 2015–1167, 66 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ available at https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-389.] ofr20151167.] Germino, M.J., Belnap, J., Stark, J.M., Allen, E.B., and Rau, Carter, S.K., Arkle, R.S., Bencin, H.L., Harms, B.R., B.M., 2016, Ecosystem impacts of exotic annual invaders Manier, D.J., Johnston, A.N., Phillips, S.L., Hanser, S.E., in the Genus Bromus, in Germino, M.J., Chambers, J.C., and Bowen, Z.H., 2020, Annotated bibliography of sciand Brown, C.S., eds., Exotic brome-grasses in arid and entific research on greater sage-grouse published from semiarid ecosystems of the Western U.S.: Springer Series 2015 to 2019: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report on Environmental Management, Switzerland, Springer 2020–1103, 264 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ International Publishing, p. 61–95, [Also available at 10.3133/ofr20201103.] https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24930-8_1.] Hanser, S.E., Deibert, P.A., Tull, J.C., Carr, N.B., Aldridge, C.L., Bargsten, T.C., Christiansen, T.J., Coates, P.S., Crist, M.R., Doherty, K.E., Ellsworth, E.A., Foster, L.J., Herren, V.A., Miller, K.H., Moser, A., Naeve, R.M., Prentice, K.L., Remington, T.E., Ricca, M.A., Shinneman, D.J., Truex, R.L., Wiechman, L.A., Wilson, D.C., and Bowen, Z.H., 2018, Greater sage-grouse science (2015–17)—Synthesis and potential management implications: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018–1017, 46 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181017.]

References Cited 13 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team, 2016, The Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, 128 p. [Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ 70178487.] Kitzberger, T., Falk, D.A., Westerling, A.L., and Swetnam, T.W., 2017, Direct and indirect climate controls predict heterogeneous early mid-21st century wildfire burned area across western and boreal North America: PLoS ONE, v. 12, no. 12, 24 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal. pone.0188486.] Kleist, N.J., and Enns, K.D., 2022, USGS BiblioSearch—A python tool to facilitate searching, cleaning, and compiling of literature citations from across multiple databases, Version 1.0.0: U.S. Geological Survey software release, [Also available at https://doi.org/10.5066/P9EW8BO5.] Knick, S.T., Dobkin, D.S., Rotenberry, J.T., Schroeder, M.A., Vander Haegen, W.M., and Van Riper, C., III, 2003, Teetering on the edge or too late?—Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats: The Condor, v. 105, no. 4, p. 611–634. Miller, R.F., and Eddleman, L.L., 2001, Spatial and temporal changes of sage-grouse habitat in the sagebrush biome: Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin, no. 151, 39 p. [Also available at ht tps://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/tb151.] Miller, R.F., Knick, S.T., Pyke, D.A., Meinke, C.W., Hanser, S.E., Wisdom, M.J., and Hild, A.L., 2011, Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term conservation, in Knick, S.T., and Connelly, J.W., eds., Greater sagegrouse—Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats: Berkeley, University of California Press, Studies in Avian Biology, no. 38, p. 145–184. Poor, E.E., Kleist, N.J., Bencin, H.L., Foster, A.C., and Carter, S.K., 2021, Annotated bibliography of scientific research on Ventenata dubia published from 2010 to 2020: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2021–1031, 26 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20211031.]

Remington, T.E., Deibert, P.A., Hanser, S.E., Davis, D.M., Robb, L.A., and Welty, J.L., 2021, Sagebrush conservation strategy—Challenges to sagebrush conservation: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020–1125, 327 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201125.] Shinneman, D.J., 2019, North American sagebrush steppe and shrubland, in Goldstein, M.I., and DellaSala, D.A., eds., Encyclopedia of the World’s Biomes, v. 3, no. 6, p. 505–515, [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- 12-409548-9.11982-7.] Stiver, S.J., Apa, A.D., Bohne, J.R., Bunnell, S.D., Deibert, P.A., Gardner, S.C., Hilliard, M.A., McCarthy, C.W., and Schroeder, M.A., 2006, Greater sage-grouse comprehensive conservation strategy—Unpublished report: Cheyenne, WY, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 442 p. [Also available at https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01317/ wdfw01317.pdf.] Suring, L.H., Rowland, M.M., and Wisdom, M.J., 2005, Identifying species of conservation concern, in Wisdom, M.J., Rowland, M.M., and Suring, L.H., eds., Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem—Methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin: Lawrence, KS, Alliance Communications Group, p. 150–162. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 2015, An integrated rangeland fire management strategy—The final report to the Secretary: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, 94 p. [Also available at https://www.fores tsandrangelands.gov/documents/rangeland/IntegratedRa ngelandFireManagementStrategy_FinalReportM ay2015.pdf.] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013, Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation objectives— Final report: Denver, Colorado, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 115 p. [Also available at http://www.sageg rouseinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/USFWS_ ConservationObjectives-report.pdf.] Western Governors’ Association, 2017, Western governors’ national forest and rangeland management initiative—The chairman’s initiative of Montana Governor Steve Bullock: Denver, CO, USA, 32 p. [Also available at westgov.org/ images/files/2017_NFRMI_Report_for_Web.pdf.]

14 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20

Glossary Addressed Objective detailed in a Next Step that was addressed in the literature published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020

Outstanding Objective detailed in a Next Step that was not addressed in the literature published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020

Fire frequency The recurrence of fire in a given area over time

Plan IRFMS Actionable Science Plan (Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team, 2016)

Need A shared vision among researchers and managers of priority science required to fill knowledge gaps and inform the next generation of management strategies and tools Next step Science objectives (that is, new research, syntheses, and tools) required to address a Need Objective Science or research goals detailed as Next Steps in the Plan

Score Relative measure of the level of progress towards addressing the Next Steps established in a Need Topic One of five science themes identified in the Plan relevant to the management of sagebrush ecosystems

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 15

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan The literature in this appendix is organized by Need and Next Step. Needs are defined as a shared vision among researchers and managers of priority science required to fill knowledge gaps and inform the next generation of management strategies and tools. Next Steps are defined as science objectives (that is, new research, syntheses, and tools) required to address a Need. Next Steps scored as 0.00 in table 2 are described as “Not addressed.” Next Steps that could not be assessed through literature review approach used (for example, development of databases) are described as “NA.”

Davidson, B.E., Germino, M.J., Richardson, B., and Barnard, D.M., 2019, Landscape and organismal factors affecting sagebrush‐seedling transplant survival after megafire restoration: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 5, p. 1008–1020.

Restoration Need 1

Next Step 1c

Develop methods for “jumpstarting” growth and recovery of sagebrush and native grasses and forbs to encourage rapid re-establishment of sagebrush and enable re-colonization by sage-grouse as soon as possible to help offset effects of wildfire and help mitigate potential effects of future fires.

Monitor and analyze the use of re-vegetated treatments by sage-grouse and quantify their seasonal survival and reproductive success at those sites. Not addressed.

Next Step 1a Assess the minimum and ideal sagebrush cover, patch size, and landscape requirements for sage-grouse occupancy in fire-impacted habitats during breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering seasons. Foster, L.J., Dugger, K.M., Hagen, C.A., and Budeau, D.A., 2019, Greater sage-grouse vital rates after wildfire— Sage-grouse wildfire response: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 1, p. 121–134. Lockyer, Z.B., Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J., 2015, Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 79, no. 5, p. 785–797. O’Neil, S.T., Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C., and Delehanty, D.J., 2020, Wildfire and the ecological niche—Diminishing habitat suitability for an indicator species within semi-arid ecosystems: Global Change Biology, v. 26, no. 11, p. 6296–6312.

Next Step 1b Plant and measure the survival and growth of sagebrush seedlings greater than 1 year old versus seeded sagebrush in burned sage-grouse habitat, designing treatments to meet the multi-scale habitat-selection. requirements of sage-grouse across a range of fire and site conditions.

Pyke, D.A., Shriver, R.K., Arkle, R.S., Pilliod, D.S., Aldridge, C.L., Coates, P.S., Germino, M.J., Heinrichs, J.A., Ricca, M.A., and Shaff, S.E., 2020, Postfire growth of seeded and planted big sagebrush—Strategic designs for restoring greater sage-grouse nesting habitat: Restoration Ecology, v. 28, no. 6, p. 1495–1504.

Next Step 1d Develop spatially explicit habitat-population modeling tools to link habitat restoration efforts with modeled sagegrouse responses, and predict times to sagebrush and sagegrouse recovery based on burn severity and size, sage-grouse movement, and sage-grouse space-use. Ricca, M.A., Coates, P.S., Gustafson, K.B., Brussee, B.E., Chambers, J.C., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C., Lisius, S., Ziegler, P., Delehanty, D.J., and Casazza, M.L., 2018, A conservation planning tool for greater sage-grouse using indices of species distribution, resilience, and resistance: Ecological Applications, v. 28, no. 4, p. 878–896.

Next Step 1e Evaluate the degree to which enhancing sagebrush recovery also fast-tracks the return of the associated community, including other types of vegetation and sagebrushobligate species. Vander Haegen, W.M., Schroeder, M.A., Chang, W.-Y., and Knapp, S.M., 2015, Avian abundance and reproductive success in the intermountain west—Local-scale response to the conservation reserve program: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 39, no. 2, p. 276–291.

16 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20

Next Step 1f Assess the degree to which investments in sagebrush restoration are likely to compensate for lost sage-grouse population contributions, and evaluate the efficacy of sagebrush jumpstarting relative to the benefits that could be achieved using alternative means of recovering sage-grouse. Ricca, M.A., Coates, P.S., Gustafson, K.B., Brussee, B.E., Chambers, J.C., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C., Lisius, S., Ziegler, P., Delehanty, D.J., and Casazza, M.L., 2018, A conservation planning tool for greater sage-grouse using indices of species distribution, resilience, and resistance: Ecological Applications, v. 28, no. 4, p. 878–896.

Next Step 1g Synthesize the results of continued sagebrush and sagegrouse responses to develop post-fire sagebrush restoration guidelines for revegetating sage-grouse habitat. Not addressed.

Next Step 1h Develop an integrative assessment tool that identifies priority sagebrush restoration areas based on their value for local and regional sage-grouse populations, likelihood of rapid restoration success (resistance and resilience concepts), and vulnerability to transitioning to nonnative conditions. Chambers, J.C., Beck, J.L., Bradford, J.B., Bybee, J., Campbell, S., Carlson, J., Christiansen, T.J., Clause, K.J., Collins, G., Crist, M.R., Dinkins, J.B., Doherty, K.E., Edwards, F., Espinosa, S., Griffin, K.A., Griffin, P., Haas, J.R., Hanser, S.E., Havlina, D.W., Henke, K.F., Hennig, J.D., Joyce, L.A., Kilkenny, F.M., Kulpa, S.M., Kurth, L.L., Maestas, J.D., Manning, M., Mayer, K.E., Mealor, B.A., McCarthy, C., Pellant, M., Perea, M.A., Prentice, K.L., Pyke, D.A., Wiechman, L.A., and Wuenschel, A., 2017a, 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: Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR360, 213 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.2737/RMRS-GTR-360.]

Chambers, J.C., Beck, J.L., Campbell, S., Carlson, J., Christiansen, T.J., Clause, K.J., Dinkins, J.B., Doherty, K.E., Griffin, K.A., Havlina, D.W., Mayer, K.F., Hennig, J.D., Kurth, L.L., Maestas, J.D., Manning, M., Mealor, B.A., McCarthy, C., Perea, M.A., and Pyke, D.A., 2016, Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage threats to sagebrush ecosystems, Gunnison sage-grouse, and greater sage-grouse in their eastern range—A strategic multi-scale approach: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-356, 143 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS- GTR-356.] Chambers, J.C., Maestas, J.D., Pyke, D.A., Boyd, C.S., Pellant, M., and Wuenschel, A., 2017b, Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage persistent threats to sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 2, p. 149–164. Crist, M.R., Chambers, J.C., Phillips, S.L., Prentice, K.L., and Wiechman, L.A., eds., 2019, 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 2. Management applications: Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-389, 237 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-389.] Maestas, J.D., Campbell, S.B., Chambers, J.C., Pellant, M., and Miller, R.F., 2016, Tapping soil Survey information for rapid assessment of sagebrush ecosystem resilience and resistance: Rangelands, v. 38, no. 3, p. 120–128. Ricca, M.A., Coates, P.S., Gustafson, K.B., Brussee, B.E., Chambers, J.C., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C., Lisius, S., Ziegler, P., Delehanty, D.J., and Casazza, M.L., 2018, A conservation planning tool for greater sage-grouse using indices of species distribution, resilience, and resistance: Ecological Applications, v. 28, no. 4, p. 878–896.

Studies Related to Need 1, But Not Any of the Next Steps Davies, K.W., Bates, J.D., and Hulet, A., 2017, Attempting to restore mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) four years after fire—Attempting sagebrush restoration: Restoration Ecology, v. 25, no. 5, p. 717–722. Germino, M.J., Barnard, D.M., Davidson, B.E., Arkle, R.S., Pilliod, D.S., Fisk, M.R., and Applestein, C., 2018, Thresholds and hotspots for shrub restoration following a heterogeneous megafire: Landscape Ecology, v. 33, no. 7, p. 1177–1194.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 17

Restoration Need 2 Develop and improve seeding methods, seed mixes, and equipment used for post-fire rehabilitation or habitat restoration to improve native plant (especially sagebrush) reestablishment.

Next Step 2d Update Seed Lot Selection Tool. NA.

Next Step 2e

Next Step 2a

Develop a protocol for identifying subspecies composition of big sagebrush seed lots.

Synthesize ecological and restoration-related data for commonly seeded or planted native species of the sagebrush ecosystem, including seed and seedling production data.

Richardson, B.A., Boyd, A.A., Tobiasson, T., and Germino, M.J., 2018, Spectrophotometry of Artemisia tridentata to quantitatively determine subspecies: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 1, p. 87–90.

Leger, E.A., and Baughman, O.W., 2015, What seeds to plant in the Great Basin? Comparing traits prioritized in native plant cultivars and releases with those that promote survival in the field: Natural Areas Journal, v. 35, no. 1, p. 54–68. Pyke, D.A. and Wirth, T.A. 2017, Compilation of Bureau of Land Management monitoring reports assessing postwildfire seeding of rangelands, 2001–09: U.S. Geological Survey data release, [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.5066/F7445JPQ.]

Richardson, B.A., Ortiz, H.G., Carlson, S.L., Jaeger, D.M., and Shaw, N.L., 2015, Genetic and environmental effects on seed weight in subspecies of big sagebrush—Applications for restoration: Ecosphere, v. 6, no. 10, 13 p. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES15-00249.1.]

Next Step 2f

Pyke, D.A. and Wirth, T.A., 2017, Compilation of studies assessing post-wildfire seeding of rangelands worldwide, 1965–2010: U.S. Geological Survey data release, [Also available at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7MW2F9B.]

Develop a basin and Wyoming big sagebrush seed-zone map and seed-transfer guidelines, and include information about projected changes in subspecies distributions with climate change.

Next Step 2b

Brabec, M.M., Germino, M.J., and Richardson, B.A., 2017, Climate adaption and post-fire restoration of a foundational perennial in cold desert—Insights from intraspecific variation in response to weather: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 54, no. 1, p. 293–302.

Centralize synthesized species data and links to tools and databases required for all aspects of restoration planning. NA.

Next Step 2c Identify priority equipment needs and support modification of existing equipment or development of new equipment by agricultural engineers. Ott, J.E., Cox, R.D., and Shaw, N.L., 2017, Comparison of postfire seeding practices for Wyoming big sagebrush: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 5, p. 625–632. Ott, J.E., Cox, R.D., Shaw, N.L., Newingham, B.A., Ganguli, A.C., Pellant, M., Roundy, B.A., and Eggett, D.L., 2016, Postfire drill-seeding of Great Basin plants—Effects of contrasting drills on seeded and nonseeded species: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 5, p. 373–385.

Martyn, T.E., Bradford, J.B., Schlaepfer, D.R., Burke, I.C., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2016, Seed bank and big sagebrush plant community composition in a range margin for big sagebrush: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 10, 11 p.

Next Step 2g Complete the planning tool component of the Land Treatment Digital Library. Pilliod, D.S., Welty, J.L., Jeffries, M.I., Schueck, L.S., and Zarriello, T.J., 2018, Land treatment exploration tool (rev. 1.1, October 2018): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2018–3042, 2 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ fs20183042.]

18 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20

Next Step 2h Develop ecological data, where missing, for restorationrelevant species, including information related to potential performance onsite, including establishment requirements, growth rates, mature size, seed dispersal, pollinator requirements, and interactions with nonnative species. Barga, S., and Leger, E.A., 2018, Shrub cover and fire history predict seed bank composition in Great Basin shrublands: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 154, p. 40–50. Barron, R., Martinez, P., Serpe, M., and Buerki, S., 2020, Development of an In Vitro method of propagation for Artemisia tridentata subsp. tridentata to support genome sequencing and genotype-by-environment research: Plants, v. 9, no. 12, 16 p. [Also available at https://doi:10.3390/ plants9121717.] Blank, R.R., Morgan, T., and Allen, F., 2015, Suppression of annual Bromus tectorum by perennial Agropyron cristatum—Roles of soil nitrogen availability and biological soil space: AoB Plants, v. 7, 12 p. [Also available at https://doi:10.1093/aobpla/plv006.] Boyd, C.S., Davies, K.W., and Lemos, J.A., 2017, Influence of soil color on seedbed microclimate and seedling demographics of a perennial bunchgrass: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 5, p. 621–624. Boyd, C.S., and Lemos, J.A., 2015, Evaluating winter/spring seeding of a native perennial bunchgrass in the sagebrush steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 6, p. 494–500. Cane, J.H., and Love, B., 2016, Floral guilds of bees in sagebrush steppe—Comparing bee usage of wildflowers available for postfire restoration: Natural Areas Journal, v. 36, no. 4, p. 377–391. Condon, L.A., and Weisberg, P.J., 2016, Topographic context of the burn edge influences postfire recruitment of arid land shrubs: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 2, p. 129–133. Davies, K.W., and Boyd, C.S., 2018, Longer-term evaluation of revegetation of medusahead-invaded sagebrush steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 3, p. 292–297. Drenovsky, R.E., Thornhill, M.L., Knestrick, M.A., Dlugos, D.M., Svejcar, T.J., and James, J.J., 2016, Seed production and seedling fitness are uncoupled from maternal plant productivity in three aridland bunchgrasses: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 3, p. 161–168.

Fisk, M.R., Apostol, K.G., Ross‐Davis, A.L., Cahoy, D.O., and Davis, A.S., 2019, Informing native plant sourcing for ecological restoration—Cold‐hardiness dynamics, flowering phenology, and survival of Eriogonum umbellatum: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 3, p. 616–625. Fund, A.J., Hulvey, K.B., Jensen, S.L., Johnson, D.A., Madsen, M.D., Monaco, T.A., Tilley, D.J., Arora, E., and Teller, B., 2019, Basalt milkvetch responses to novel restoration treatments in the Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 3, p. 492–500. Germain, S.J., Mann, R.K., Monaco, T.A., and Veblen, K.E., 2018, Short-term regeneration dynamics of Wyoming big sagebrush at two sites in northern Utah: Western North American Naturalist, v. 78, no. 1, p. 7–16. Germino, M.J., Fisk, M.R., and Applestein, C., 2019, Bunchgrass root abundances and their relationship to resistance and resilience of burned shrub-steppe landscape: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 5, p. 783–790. Gibson, A., Nelson, C.R., and Atwater, D.Z., 2018, Response of bluebunch wheatgrass to invasion—Differences in competitive ability among invader‐experienced and invader‐ naïve populations: Functional Ecology, v. 32, no. 7, p. 1857–1866. Hamerlynck, E.P., Denton, E.M., Davies, K.W., and Boyd, C.S., 2019, Photosynthetic regulation in seed heads and flag leaves of sagebrush-steppe bunchgrasses: Conservation Physiology, v. 7, no. 1, p. 1–12. Hamerlynck, E.P., and Ziegenhagen, L.L., 2020, Seed head photosynthetic light responses in clipped and unclipped sagebrush steppe bunchgrasses: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 172, p. 1–7. Harvey, A.J., Simanonok, S.C., Rew, L.J., Prather, T.S., and Mangold, J.M., 2020, Effect of Pseudoroegneria spicata (bluebunch wheatgrass) seeding date on establishment and resistance to invasion by Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass): Ecological Restoration, v. 38, no. 3, p. 145–152. James, J.J., Sheley, R.L., Leger, E.A., Adler, P.B., Hardegree, S.P., Gornish, E.S., and Rinella, M.J., 2019, Increased soil temperature and decreased precipitation during early life stages constrain grass seedling recruitment in cold desert restoration: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 56, no. 12, p. 2609–2619. Kildisheva, O.A., Erickson, T.E., Kramer, A.T., Zeldin, J., and Merritt, D.J., 2019a, Optimizing physiological dormancy break of understudied cold desert perennials to improve seed-based restoration: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 170, 9 p.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 19 Kildisheva, O.A., Erickson, T.E., Madsen, M.D., Dixon, K.W., and Merritt, D.J., 2019b, Seed germination and dormancy traits of forbs and shrubs important for restoration of North American dryland ecosystems: Plant Biology, v. 21, no. 3, p. 458–469.

Rinella, M.J., Espeland, E.K., and Moffatt, B.J., 2016, Studying long-term, large-scale grassland restoration outcomes to improve seeding methods and reveal knowledge gaps: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 53, no. 5, p. 1565–1574.

Kildisheva, O.A., Erickson, T.E., Merritt, D.J., Madsen, M.D., Dixon, K.W., Vargas, J., Amarteifio, R., and Kramer, A.T., 2018, Do abrasion- or temperature-based techniques more effectively relieve physical dormancy in seeds of cold desert perennials?: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 3, p. 318–322.

Roundy, B.A., and Madsen, M.D., 2016, Frost dynamics of sagebrush steppe soils: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 80, no. 5, p. 1403–1410.

Leger, E.A., Atwater, D.Z., and James, J.J., 2019, Seed and seedling traits have strong impacts on establishment of a perennial bunchgrass in invaded semi‐arid systems: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 56, no. 6, p. 1343–1354. Leger, E.A., and Goergen, E.M., 2017, Invasive Bromus tectorum alters natural selection in arid systems: Journal of Ecology, v. 105, no. 6, p. 1509–1520. Mummey, D.L., Herget, M.E., Hufford, K.M., and Shreading, L., 2016, Germination timing and seedling growth of Poa secunda and the invasive grass, Bromus tectorum, in response to temperature—Evaluating biotypes for seedling traits that improve establishment: Ecological Restoration, v. 34, no. 3, p. 200–208. Phillips, A.J., and Leger, E.A., 2015, Plastic responses of native plant root systems to the presence of an invasive annual grass: American Journal of Botany, v. 102, no. 1, p. 73–84. Ploughe, L.W., Carlyle, C.N., and Fraser, L.H., 2020, Priority effects—How the order of arrival of an invasive grass, Bromus tectorum, alters productivity and plant community structure when grown with native grass species: Ecology and Evolution, v. 10, no. 23, p. 13173–13181. Porensky, L.M., Perryman, B.L., Williamson, M.A., Madsen, M.D., and Leger, E.A., 2018, Combining active restoration and targeted grazing to establish native plants and reduce fuel loads in invaded ecosystems: Ecology and Evolution, v. 8, no. 24, p. 12533–12546. Rinella, M.J., and James, J.J., 2017, A modelling framework for improving plant establishment during ecological restoration: Ecological Modelling, v. 361, p. 177–183. Rinella, M.J., and Bellows, S.E., 2016, Evidence-targeted grazing benefits to invaded rangelands can increase over extended time frames: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 3, p. 169–172.

Schantz, M.C., Sheley, R.L., and James, J.J., 2015, Role of propagule pressure and priority effects on seedlings during invasion and restoration of shrub-steppe: Biological Invasions, v. 17, no. 1, p. 73–85. Schantz, M.C., Sheley, R.L., and James, J.J., 2018, Effects of propagule pressure and priority effects on seedling recruitment during restoration of invaded grassland: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 150, p. 62–70. Schantz, M.C., Sheley, R.L., and James, J.J., 2019, Propagule pressure and priority seeding effects on the demography of invasive annual and native perennial grass species: Plant Ecology & Diversity, v. 12, no. 2, p. 139–150. Schantz, M.C., Sheley, R.L., James, J.J., and Hamerlynck, E.P., 2016, Role of dispersal timing and frequency in annual grass—Invaded Great Basin ecosystems—How modifying seeding strategies increases restoration success: Western North American Naturalist, v. 76, no. 1, p. 36–52. Shock, C.C., Feibert, E.B.G., Shaw, N.L., Shock, M.P., and Saunders, L.D., 2015, Irrigation to enhance native seed production for Great Basin restoration: Natural Areas Journal, v. 35, no. 1, p. 74–82. Shriver, R.K., Andrews, C.M., Arkle, R.S., Barnard, D.M., Duniway, M.C., Germino, M.J., Pilliod, D.S., Pyke, D.A., Welty, J.L., and Bradford, J.B., 2019, Transient population dynamics impede restoration and may promote ecosystem transformation after disturbance: Ecology Letters, v. 22, no. 9, p. 1357–1366.

Next Step 2i Develop the data necessary to identify additional native species for inclusion in restoration programs and to make recommendations for appropriate application in wildland seedings and plantings. Barak, R.S., Fant, J.B., Kramer, A.T., and Skogen, K.A., 2015, Assessing the value of potential “Native Winners” for restoration of cheatgrass-invaded habitat: Western North American Naturalist, v. 75, no. 1, p. 58–69.

20 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Cane, J.H., and Love, B., 2016, Floral guilds of bees in sagebrush steppe—Comparing bee usage of wildflowers available for postfire restoration: Natural Areas Journal, v. 36, no. 4, p. 377–391. Fisk, M.R., Apostol, K.G., Ross‐Davis, A.L., Cahoy, D.O., and Davis, A.S., 2019, Informing native plant sourcing for ecological restoration—Cold‐hardiness dynamics, flowering phenology, and survival of Eriogonum umbellatum: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 3, p. 616–625. Kildisheva, O.A., Erickson, T.E., Kramer, A.T., Zeldin, J., and Merritt, D.J., 2019, Optimizing physiological dormancy break of understudied cold desert perennials to improve seed-based restoration: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 170, p. 1–9. Kildisheva, O.A., Erickson, T.E., Merritt, D.J., Madsen, M.D., Dixon, K.W., Vargas, J., Amarteifio, R., and Kramer, A.T., 2018, Do abrasion- or temperature-based techniques more effectively relieve physical dormancy in seeds of cold desert perennials?: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 3, p. 318–322. Shock, C.C., Feibert, E.B.G., Shaw, N.L., Shock, M.P., and Saunders, L.D., 2015, Irrigation to enhance native seed production for Great Basin restoration: Natural Areas Journal, v. 35, no. 1, p. 74–82. Uselman, S.M., Snyder, K.A., Leger, E.A., and Duke, S.E., 2015, Emergence and early survival of early versus late seral species in Great Basin restoration in two different soil types: Applied Vegetation Science, v. 18, no. 4, p. 624–636.

Next Step 2j Complete, synthesize, and test results of ongoing studies of sagebrush seed-lot handling, seed and seedling ecology, establishment requirements, and seeding methods. Clenet, D.R., Davies, K.W., Johnson, D.D., and Kerby, J.D., 2019, Native seeds incorporated into activated carbon pods applied concurrently with indaziflam—A new strategy for restoring annual-invaded communities?: Activated carbon improves restoration: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 4, p. 738–744. Clenet, D.R., Davies, K.W., Johnson, D.D., and Kerby, J.D., 2020, Herbicide protection pods (HPPs) facilitate sagebrush and bunchgrass establishment under imazapic control of exotic annual grasses: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 5, p. 687–693. Davies, K.W., Boyd, C.S., Madsen, M.D., Kerby, J., and Hulet, A., 2018, Evaluating a seed technology for sagebrush restoration across an elevation gradient—Support for bet hedging: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 1, p. 19–24.

Davies, K.W., Madsen, M.D., and Hulet, A., 2017, Using activated carbon to limit herbicide effects to seeded bunchgrass when revegetating annual grass-invaded rangelands: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 5, p. 604–608. Hardegree, S.P., Sheley, R.L., James, J.J., Reeves, P.A., Richards, C.M., Walters, C.T., Boyd, C.S., Moffet, C.A., and Flerchinger, G.N., 2020, Germination syndromes and their relevance to rangeland seeding strategies in the intermountain western United States: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 2, p. 334–341. Hoose, B.W., Call, R.S., Bates, T.H., Anderson, R.M., Roundy, B.A., and Madsen, M.D., 2019, Seed conglomeration—A disruptive innovation to address restoration challenges associated with small‐seeded species: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 5, p. 959–965. Johnston, D.B., and Garbowski, M., 2020, Responses of native plants and downy brome to a water-conserving soil amendment: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 1, p. 19–29. Madsen, M.D., Davies, K.W., Boyd, C.S., Kerby, J.D., and Svejcar, T.J., 2016, Emerging seed enhancement technologies for overcoming barriers to restoration—Emerging seed enhancement technologies: Restoration Ecology, v. 24, p. S77–S84. Richardson, W.C., Badrakh, T., Roundy, B.A., Aanderud, Z.T., Petersen, S.L., Allen, P.S., Whitaker, D.R., and Madsen, M.D., 2019, Influence of an abscisic acid (ABA) seed coating on seed germination rate and timing of bluebunch wheatgrass: Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, no. 13, p. 7438–7447.

Next Step 2j Update the Revegetation Equipment Catalog and add a synthesis of research-based recommendations for selection of equipment to meet specific needs. NA.

Studies Related to Need 2, but Not Any of the Next Steps Liu, S., Bradford, K.J., Huang, Z., and Venable, D.L., 2020, Hydrothermal sensitivities of seed populations underlie fluctuations of dormancy states in an annual plant community: Ecology, v. 101, no. 3, p. 1–14. Metier, E.P., Rew, L.J., and Rinella, M.J., 2018, Establishing Wyoming big sagebrush in annual brome-invaded landscapes with deeding and herbicides: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 6, p. 705–713.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 21

Restoration Need 3 Determine the criteria and thresholds that indicate restoration and rehabilitation success or failure across the range of environmental conditions that characterize sage-grouse habitat. Develop decision support tools that define success or failure and the need for follow-up actions.

Next Step 3a Evaluate newly developed criteria and thresholds of treatment success across the range of sage-grouse to determine the efficacy. Bishop, T.B.B., Nusink, B.C., Lee Molinari, R., Taylor, J.B., and St. Clair, S.B., 2020, Earlier fall precipitation and low severity fire impacts on cheatgrass and sagebrush establishment: Ecosphere, v. 11, no. 1, p. 1–13. Boyd, C.S., Davies, K.W., and Lemos, J.A., 2017, Influence of soil color on seedbed microclimate and seedling demographics of a perennial bunchgrass: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 5, p. 621–624. Davidson, B.E., Germino, M.J., Richardson, B., and Barnard, D.M., 2019, Landscape and organismal factors affecting sagebrush‐seedling transplant survival after megafire restoration: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 5, p. 1008–1020. Denton, E.M., Smith, B.S., Hamerlynck, E.P., and Sheley, R.L., 2018, Seedling defoliation and drought stress— Variation in intensity and frequency affect performance and survival: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 1, p. 25–34.

Hardegree, S.P., Walters, C.T., Boehm, A.R., Olsoy, P.J., Clark, P.E., and Pierson, F.B., 2015, Hydrothermal germination models—Comparison of two data‐fitting approaches with probit optimization: Crop Science, v. 55, no. 5, p. 2276–2290. Herriman, K.R., Davis, A.S., Apostol, K.G., Kildisheva, O.A., Ross-Davis, A.L., and Dumroese, R.K., 2016, Do container volume, site preparation, and field fertilization affect restoration potential of Wyoming big sagebrush?: Natural Areas Journal, v. 36, no. 2, p. 194–201. James, J.J., Sheley, R.L., Leger, E.A., Adler, P.B., Hardegree, S.P., Gornish, E.S., and Rinella, M.J., 2019, Increased soil temperature and decreased precipitation during early life stages constrain grass seedling recruitment in cold desert restoration: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 56, no. 12, p. 2609–2619. McAdoo, J.K., Swanson, J.C., Murphy, P.J., and Shaw, N.L., 2017, Evaluating strategies for facilitating native plant establishment in northern Nevada crested wheatgrass seedings—Native plant establishment in crested wheatgrass: Restoration Ecology, v. 25, no. 1, p. 53–62. Morris, C., Morris, L.R., and Monaco, T.A., 2019, Evaluating the effectiveness of low soil-disturbance treatments for improving native plant establishment in stable crested wheatgrass stands: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 237–248. Mummey, D.L., and Ramsey, P.W., 2017, Can Sainfoin improve conditions for establishment of native forbs in crested wheatgrass stands?: Ecological Restoration, v. 35, no. 2, p. 127–137.

Germino, M.J., Barnard, D.M., Davidson, B.E., Arkle, R.S., Pilliod, D.S., Fisk, M.R., and Applestein, C., 2018, Thresholds and hotspots for shrub restoration following a heterogeneous megafire: Landscape Ecology, v. 33, no. 7, p. 1177–1194.

O’Connor, R.C., Germino, M.J., Barnard, D.M., Andrews, C.M., Bradford, J.B., Pilliod, D.S., Arkle, R.S., and Shriver, R.K., 2020, Small-scale water deficits after wildfires create long-lasting ecological impacts: Environmental Research Letters, v. 15, no. 4, p. 1–10.

Hardegree, S.P., Sheley, R.L., Duke, S.E., James, J.J., Boehm, A.R., and Flerchinger, G.N., 2016, Temporal variability in microclimatic conditions for grass germination and emergence in the sagebrush steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 2, p. 123–128.

Porensky, L.M., Perryman, B.L., Williamson, M.A., Madsen, M.D., and Leger, E.A., 2018, Combining active restoration and targeted grazing to establish native plants and reduce fuel loads in invaded ecosystems: Ecology and Evolution, v. 8, no. 24, p. 12533–12546.

Rigby, C.W., Jensen, K.B., Creech, J.E., Thacker, E.T., Waldron, B.L., and Derner, J.D., 2018, Establishment and trends in persistence of selected perennial cool-season grasses in western United States: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 6, p. 681–690. Roundy, B.A., and Madsen, M.D., 2016, Frost dynamics of sagebrush steppe soils: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 80, no. 5, p. 1403–1410.

22 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Stonecipher, C.A., Panter, K.E., Jensen, K.B., Rigby, C.W., and Villalba, J.J., 2017, Revegetation of medusaheadinvaded rangelands in the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 3, p. 388–395.

Denton, E.M., Smith, B.S., Hamerlynck, E.P., and Sheley, R.L., 2018, Seedling defoliation and drought stress— Variation in intensity and frequency affect performance and survival: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 1, p. 25–34.

Wainwright, C.E., Davies, G.M., Dettweiler‐Robinson, E., Dunwiddie, P.W., Wilderman, D., and Bakker, J.D., 2020, Methods for tracking sagebrush‐steppe community trajectories and quantifying resilience in relation to disturbance and restoration: Restoration Ecology, v. 28, no. 1, p. 115–126.

Hamerlynck, E.P., Smith, B.S., Sheley, R.L., and Svejcar, T.J., 2016, Compensatory photosynthesis, water-use efficiency, and biomass allocation of defoliated exotic and native bunchgrass seedlings: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 3, p. 206–214.

Wilder, L., Veblen, K.E., Schupp, E.W., and Monaco, T.A., 2019, Seedling emergence patterns of six restoration species in soils from two big sagebrush plant communities: Western North American Naturalist, v. 79, no. 2, p. 233–246.

Next Step 3d

Next Step 3b Synthesize information on land treatment effectiveness monitoring to establish criteria and thresholds of treatment success determination that account for time since treatment and environmental variation across the range of sage-grouse. Fulbright, T.E., Davies, K.W., and Archer, S.R., 2018, Wildlife responses to brush management—A contemporary evaluation: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 1, p. 35–44. Hardegree, S.P., Sheley, R.A., Brunson, M.W., Taylor, M.H., and Moffet, C.A., 2019, Forum—Iterative-adaptive management and contingency-based restoration planning in variable environment: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 217–224. Svejcar, T., Boyd, C., Davies, K., Hamerlynck, E., and Svejcar, L., 2017, Challenges and limitations to native species restoration in the Great Basin, USA: Plant Ecology, v. 218, no. 1, p. 81–94.

Next Step 3c Evaluate effect of extended rest from grazing after a restoration seeding (beyond the typical 2 years) on restoration success, including root growth development and at what point plant are established to the point of tolerating grazing by livestock or feral horses and burros. Davies, K.W., Bates, J.D., and Boyd, C.S., 2020, Response of planted sagebrush seedlings to cattle grazing applied to decrease fire probability: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 5, p. 629–635.

Continue to update information from the short-term synthesis (above) based on new and ongoing studies, especially considering long-term patterns of success or failure for treatments older than 5 years. NA.

Next Step 3e Use short- and long-term data describing vegetation and sage-grouse responses to treatments to enhance the functionality of the USFWS Conservation Efforts Database, or to develop a decision-support tool that can be used by managers to record and report effectiveness monitoring data for treatments. The records and reporting should provide information about the probability of success over time, plus timely, relevant feedback for decisions for follow-up actions. Doherty, K.E., Evans, J.S., Coates, P.S., Juliusson, L.M., and Fedy, B.C., 2016, Importance of regional variation in conservation planning—A range-wide example of the greater sage‐grouse: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 10, p. 1–50. Ricca, M.A., and Coates, P.S., 2020, Integrating ecosystem resilience and resistance into decision support tools for multi-scale population management of a sagebrush indicator species: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, v. 7, 22 p. [Also available at https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ 10.3389/fevo.2019.00493/full.]

Studies Related to Need 3, but Not Any of the Next Steps Bates, J.D., Boyd, C.S., and Davies, K.W., 2020, Longerterm post-fire succession on Wyoming big sagebrush steppe: International Journal of Wildland Fire, v. 29, no. 3, p. 229–239.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 23 Boyd, C.S., Kerby, J.D., Svejcar, T.J., Bates, J.D., Johnson, D.D., and Davies, K.W., 2017, The sage-grouse habitat mortgage—Effective conifer management in space and time: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 141–148. Clark, P.E., Williams, C.J., Kormos, P.R., and Pierson, F.B., 2018, Postfire grazing management effects on mesic sagebrush-steppe vegetation—Mid-summer grazing: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 151, p. 104–112. Clark, P.E., Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., and Hardegree, S.P., 2016, Postfire grazing management effects on mesic sagebrush-steppe vegetation—Spring grazing: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 132, p. 49–59. Condon, L.A., Pietrasiak, N., Rosentreter, R., and Pyke, D.A., 2020, Passive restoration of vegetation and biological soil crusts following 80 years of exclusion from grazing across the Great Basin: Restoration Ecology, v. 28, no. S2, no. S2, p. S75–S85. Davies, K.W., Bates, J.D., and Boyd, C.S., 2016, Effects of intermediate-term grazing rest on sagebrush communities with depleted understories—Evidence of a threshold: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 3, p. 173–178. Dittel, J.W., Sanchez, D., Ellsworth, L.M., Morozumi, C.N., and Mata-Gonzalez, R., 2018, Vegetation response to juniper reduction and grazing exclusion in sagebrushsteppe habitat in eastern Oregon: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 2, p. 213–219.

Next Step 4a Conduct meta-analyses of existing datasets, such as bunchgrasses, to determine generalities and thresholds for climatic variables in the sagebrush ecosystem. Not addressed.

Next Step 4b Test the efficacy of existing seed-zone models in operational-scale restoration projects. Brabec, M.M., Germino, M.J., and Richardson, B.A., 2017, Climate adaption and post-fire restoration of a foundational perennial in cold desert—Insights from intraspecific variation in response to weather: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 54, no. 1, p. 293–302.

Next Step 4c Review and synthesize all common garden studies related to the sagebrush ecosystem to find general, adaptive trends. Not addressed.

Next Step 4d Review seed-zone construction methods to determine best practices for seed-zone modeling. Not addressed.

Hamerlynck, E.P., Sheley, R.L., Davies, K.W., and Svejcar, T.J., 2016, Postdefoliation ecosystem carbon and water flux and canopy growth dynamics in sagebrush steppe bunchgrasses: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 7, p. 1–21.

Next Step 4e

Restoration Need 4

Next Step 4f

Complete a generalized seed-zone map and determine (1) if it is more effective to develop seed-transfer zones by species or subspecies, (2) which climate parameters are most useful in developing transfer zones, (3) thresholds in climate adaptations, and (4) effects of using seed collected throughout a specified transfer zone versus seed collected from the local area to restore sagebrush habitats. Also demonstrate that actual planting success is improved for a given seed-transfer specification.

Develop statistical tools to incorporate variation and uncertainty into seed-zone models. Not addressed.

Refine generalized seed-zone maps for the sagebrush ecosystem. Munson, S.M., and Sher, A.A., 2015, Long-term shifts in the phenology of rare and endemic Rocky Mountain plants: American Journal of Botany, v. 102, no. 8, p. 1268–1276. Richardson, B.A., and Chaney, L., 2018, Climate‐based seed transfer of a widespread shrub—Population shifts, restoration strategies, and the trailing edge: Ecological Applications, v. 28, no. 8, p. 2165–2174.

24 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20

Next Step 4g

Next Step 4j

Develop a common garden network for high-throughput seed-transfer studies to speed up the process of developing data-rich seed-zone models (up to five per year for the sagebrush ecosystem). A minimum of 5 years is typically needed to establish and begin learning from a common garden; hence garden establishment is a short-term need. NA.

Conduct a meta-analysis of new studies of seed transfer to test generalities. Not addressed.

Nest Step 4h Perform molecular-marker studies on all taxa undergoing seed-zone development. Not addressed.

Next Step 4i Develop and improve empirical seed-zones for those species commonly used in restoration and rehabilitation actions that are widespread, intraspecifically diverse, and locally dominant. Barga, S.C., Dilts, T.E., and Leger, E.A., 2018, Contrasting climate niches among co-occurring subdominant forbs of the sagebrush steppe: Diversity & Distributions, v. 24, no. 9, p. 1291–1307. Brabec, M.M., Germino, M.J., Shinneman, D.J., Pilliod, D.S., McIlroy, S.K., and Arkle, R.S., 2015, Challenges of establishing big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) in rangeland restoration—Effects of herbicide, mowing, wholecommunity seeding, and sagebrush seed sources: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 5, p. 432–435. Chaney, L., Richardson, B.A., and Germino, M.J., 2017, Climate drives adaptive genetic responses associated with survival in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata): Evolutionary Applications, v. 10, no. 4, p. 313–322. Davidson, B.E., and Germino, M.J., 2020, Spatial grain of adaptation is much finer than ecoregional‐scale common gardens reveal: Ecology and Evolution, v. 10, no. 18, p. 9920–9931. Ferguson, S.D., Leger, E.A., Li, J., and Nowak, R.S., 2015, Natural selection favors root investment in native grasses during restoration of invaded fields: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 116, p. 11–17. Lazarus, B.E., Germino, M.J., and Richardson, B.A., 2019, Freezing resistance, safety margins, and survival vary among big sagebrush populations across the western United States: American Journal of Botany, v. 106, no. 7, p. 922–934.

Next Step 4k Develop dynamic “on-the-fly” seed-transfer tools that use underlying data structures and models to include uncertainty and acceptable risk. Not addressed.

Next Step 4l Further refine generalized seed-zone maps based on new knowledge. Richardson, B.A., and Chaney, L., 2018, Climate‐based seed transfer of a widespread shrub—Population shifts, restoration strategies, and the trailing edge: Ecological Applications, v. 28, no. 8, p. 2165–2174.

Studies Related to Need 4, but Not Any of the Next Steps Germino, M.J., Moser, A.M., and Sands, A.R., 2019, Adaptive variation, including local adaptation, requires decades to become evident in common gardens: Ecological Applications, v. 29, no. 2, p. 1–7. Richardson, B.A., Chaney, L., Shaw, N.L., and Still, S.M., 2017, Will phenotypic plasticity affecting flowering phenology keep pace with climate change?: Global Change Biology, v. 23, no. 6, p. 2499–2508.

Restoration Need 5 Conduct retrospective studies of selected native plant restoration projects to evaluate short- and long-term responses of plant communities to these treatments and to biotic and abiotic conditions.

Next Step 5a Evaluate and synthesize outcomes of restoration projects that are underway or moving forward. NA.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 25

Next Step 5b Re-sample those projects that have been quantitatively assessed before, to enable development of models that predict the temporal trajectory of vegetation on restoration projects. Davies, K.W., Boyd, C.S., Bates, J.D., Hamerlynck, E.P., and Copeland, S.M., 2020, Restoration of sagebrush in crested wheatgrass communities—Longer-term evaluation in northern Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 1, p. 1–8. Grant-Hoffman, M.N., Lincoln, A., and Dollerschell, J., 2018, Post-fire native seed use in western Colorado—A look at burned and unburned vegetation communities: Natural Areas Journal, v. 38, no. 4, p. 286–297. Johnston, A.N., Beever, E.A., Merkle, J.A., and Chong, G., 2018, Vegetation responses to sagebrush-reduction treatments measured by satellites: Ecological Indicators, v. 87, p. 66–76. Hanna, S.K., and Fulgham, K.O., 2015, Post-fire vegetation dynamics of a sagebrush steppe community change significantly over time: California Agriculture, v. 69, no. 1, p. 36–42. Monroe, A.P., Aldridge, C.L., O’Donnell, M.S., Manier, D.J., Homer, C.G., and Anderson, P.J., 2020, Using remote sensing products to predict recovery of vegetation across space and time following energy development: Ecological Indicators, v. 110, 15 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105872.] Morris, L.R., and Leger, E.A., 2016, Secondary succession in the sagebrush semidesert 66 years after fire in the Great Basin, USA: Natural Areas Journal, v. 36, no. 2, p. 187–193. Ott, J.E., Kilkenny, F.F., Summers, D.D., and Thompson, T.W., 2019, Long-term vegetation recovery and invasive annual suppression in native and introduced postfire seeding treatments: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 4, p. 640–653. Ripplinger, J., Franklin, J., and Edwards, T.C., Jr., 2015, Legacy effects of no-analogue disturbances alter plant community diversity and composition in semi-arid sagebrush steppe: Journal of Vegetation Science, v. 26, no. 5, p. 923–933. Seipel, T., Rew, L.J., Taylor, K.T., Maxwell, B.D., and Lehnhoff, E.A., 2018, Disturbance type influences plant community resilience and resistance to Bromus tectorum invasion in the sagebrush steppe: Applied Vegetation Science, v. 21, no. 3, p. 385–394.

Shriver, R.K., Andrews, C.M., Pilliod, D.S., Arkle, R.S., Welty, J.L., Germino, M.J., Duniway, M.C., Pyke, D.A., and Bradford, J.B., 2018, Adapting management to a changing world—Warm temperatures, dry soil, and interannual variability limit restoration success of a dominant woody shrub in temperate drylands: Global Change Biology, v. 24, no. 10, p. 4972–4982. Wilder, L.E., Veblen, K.E., Gunnell, K.L., and Monaco, T.A., 2019, Influence of fire and mechanical sagebrush reduction treatments on restoration seedings in Utah, United States— Sagebrush reduction and seeding success: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 2, p. 308–319.

Next Step 5c Create a searchable database of existing treatments and outcomes to help managers prioritize and set expectations for treatments, and develop associated guide(s) to metrics for improving restoration success. Barker, B.S., Pilliod, D.S., Welty, J.L., Arkle, R.S., Karl, M.G., and Toevs, G.R., 2018, An introduction and practical guide to use of the soil-vegetation inventory method (SVIM) data: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 6, p. 671–680. Pilliod, D.S., Welty, J.L., Jeffries, M.I., Schueck, L.S., and Zarriello, T.J., 2018, Land treatment exploration tool—(rev. 1.1, October 2018): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2018–3042, 2 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ fs20183042.]

Next Step 5d Validate the accuracy of models produced in the short term, and continue to update these models for about 50–80 years following restoration treatment and for several hundred treatments spanning the region of interest. Avirmed, O., Lauenroth, W.K., Burke, I.C., and Mobley, M.L., 2015, Sagebrush steppe recovery on 30–90-year-old abandoned oil and gas wells: Ecosphere, v. 6, no. 1–10. Barnard, D.M., Germino, M.J., Pilliod, D.S., Arkle, R.S., Applestein, C., Davidson, B.E., and Fisk, M.R., 2019, Cannot see the random forest for the decision trees— Selecting predictive models for restoration ecology: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 5, p. 1053–1063. Moffet, C.A., Taylor, J.B., and Booth, D.T., 2015, Post-fire shrub cover dynamics—A 70-year fire chronosequence in mountain big sagebrush communities: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 114, p. 116–123.

26 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20

Studies Related to Need 5, but Not Any of the Next Steps Copeland, S.M., Munson, S.M., Bradford, J.B., Butterfield, B.J., and Gunnell, K.L., 2019, Long-term plant community trajectories suggest divergent responses of native and non-native perennials and annuals to vegetation removal and seeding treatments—Long-term community response to treatments: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 4, p. 821–831. Love, B.G., and Cane, J.H., 2019, Mortality and flowering of Great Basin perennial forbs after experimental burning— Implications for wild bees: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 310–317. Monaco, T.A., Jones, A., Pendergast, M., Thacker, E.T., and Greenhalgh, L., 2018, Influence of land-use legacies following shrub reduction and seeding of big sagebrush sites: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 6, p. 695–704. Rottler, C.M., Burke, I.C., Palmquist, K.A., Bradford, J.B., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2018, Current reclamation practices after oil and gas development do not speed up succession or plant community recovery in big sagebrush ecosystems in Wyoming—Reclamation and sagebrush plant community recovery: Restoration Ecology, v. 26, no. 1, p. 114–123. Waller, E.K., Villarreal, M.L., Poitras, T.B., Nauman, T.W., and Duniway, M.C., 2018, Landsat time series analysis of fractional plant cover changes on abandoned energy development sites: International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, v. 73, p. 407–419. Wood, D.J.A., Seipel, T., Irvine, K.M., Rew, L.J., and Stoy, P.C., 2019, Fire and development influences on sagebrush community plant groups across a climate gradient in northern Nevada: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 12, p. 1–20.

Restoration Need 6 Develop site preparation and seeding and transplanting strategies that improve plant establishment and community diversity.

Next Step 6a Develop assessment of species biology, interactions with other species, and species response to specific site conditions for management-relevant species. Adler, P.B., Kleinhesselink, A., Hooker, G., Taylor, J.B., Teller, B., and Ellner, S.P., 2018, Weak interspecific interactions in a sagebrush steppe? Conflicting evidence from observations and experiments: Ecology, v. 99, no. 7, p. 1621–1632.

Albright, M.B.N., Mueller, R.C., Gallegos-Graves, L.V., Belnap, J., Reed, S.C., and Kuske, C.R., 2019, Interactions of microhabitat and time control grassland bacterial and fungal composition: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, v. 7, p. 1–11. Barnard, D.M., Germino, M.J., Arkle, R.S., Bradford, J.B., Duniway, M.C., Pilliod, D.S., Pyke, D.A., Shriver, R.K., and Welty, J.L., 2019, Soil characteristics are associated with gradients of big sagebrush canopy structure after disturbance: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 6, 12 p. Bishop, T.B.B., Nusink, B.C., Lee Molinari, R., Taylor, J.B., and St. Clair, S.B., 2020, Earlier fall precipitation and lowseverity fire impacts on cheatgrass and sagebrush establishment: Ecosphere, v. 11, no. 1, p. 1–13. Blank, R.R., Mackey, B., and Morgan, T., 2016, Do a native and two exotic grasses respond differently in soils conditioned by native vegetation versus an exotic grass?: Rhizosphere, v. 2, p. 38–47. Clements, C.D., Harmon, D.N., Blank, R.R., and Weltz, M., 2017, Improving seeding success on cheatgrass-infested rangelands in northern Nevada: Rangelands, v. 39, no. 6, p. 174–181. Davies, K.W., Bates, J.D., and Clenet, D., 2020, Improving restoration success through microsite selection—An example with planting sagebrush seedlings after wildfire: Restoration Ecology, v. 28, no. 4, p. 859–868. Boyd, C.S., Davies, K.W., and Lemos, J.A., 2017, Influence of soil color on seedbed microclimate and seedling demographics of a perennial bunchgrass: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 5, p. 621–624. Davidson, B.E., Germino, M.J., Richardson, B., and Barnard, D.M., 2019, Landscape and organismal factors affecting sagebrush‐seedling transplant survival after megafire restoration: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 5, p. 1008–1020. Denton, E.M., Smith, B.S., Hamerlynck, E.P., and Sheley, R.L., 2018, Seedling defoliation and drought stress— Variation in intensity and frequency affect performance and survival: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 1, p. 25–34. Dierks, J., Denef, K., van Diepen, L.T.A., and de Graaff, M.-A., 2019, Cheatgrass-associated AMF community negatively affects sagebrush root production but not C transfer to the soil: Plant and Soil, v. 436, no. 1–2, p. 381–396. Haight, J.D., Reed, S.C., and Faist, A.M., 2019, Seed bank community and soil texture relationships in a cold desert: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 164, p. 46–52.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 27 Hamerlynck, E.P., and Davies, K.W., 2019, Changes in abundance of 8 sagebrush-steppe bunchgrass species 13 years after coplanting: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 1, p. 23–27.

Jordan, S.E., Palmquist, K.A., Bradford, J.B., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2020, Soil water availability shapes species richness in mid‐latitude shrub steppe plant communities: Journal of Vegetation Science, v. 31, no. 4, p. 646–657.

Lesica, P., and Cooper, S.V., 2019, Choosing native species for restoring crested wheatgrass fields on the Great Plains of northeast Montana: American Midland Naturalist, v. 181, no. 2, p. 327–334.

Hardegree, S.P., Sheley, R.L., James, J.J., Reeves, P.A., Richards, C.M., Walters, C.T., Boyd, C.S., Moffet, C.A., and Flerchinger, G.N., 2020, Germination syndromes and their relevance to rangeland seeding strategies in the Intermountain Western United States: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 2, p. 334–341. Hardegree, S.P., Walters, C.T., Boehm, A.R., Olsoy, P.J., Clark, P.E., and Pierson, F.B., 2015, Hydrothermal germination models—Comparison of two data‐fitting approaches with probit optimization: Crop Science, v. 55, no. 5, p. 2276–2290. Herget, M.E., Hufford, K.M., Mummey, D.L., Mealor, B.A., and Shreading, L.N., 2015, Effects of competition with Bromus tectorum on early establishment of Poa secunda accessions—Can seed source impact restoration success?: Restoration Ecology, v. 23, no. 3, p. 277–283.

Liu, L., Veblen, K.E., and Monaco, T.A., 2020, Shrub size modulates resource heterogeneity in a sagebrush-steppe ecosystem: Western North American Naturalist, v. 80, no. 1, p. 28–37. Lucero, J.E., and Callaway, R.M., 2018a, Granivory from native rodents and competition from an exotic invader strongly and equally limit the establishment of native grasses: Oecologia, v. 186, no. 4, p. 1043–1053. Lucero, J.E., and Callaway, R.M., 2018b, Native granivores reduce the establishment of native grasses but not invasive Bromus tectorum: Biological Invasions, v. 20, no. 12, p. 3491–3497. Lukacs, P.M., Seglund, A., and Boyle, S., 2015, Effects of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat treatment efforts on associated avifauna and vegetation structure: Avian Conservation & Ecology, v. 10, no. 2, p. 1–13.

Herriman, K.R., Davis, A.S., Apostol, K.G., Kildisheva, O.A., Ross-Davis, A.L., and Dumroese, R.K., 2016, Do container volume, site preparation, and field fertilization affect restoration potential of Wyoming big sagebrush?: Natural Areas Journal, v. 36, no. 2, p. 194–201.

McAdoo, J.K., Swanson, J.C., Murphy, P.J., and Shaw, N.L., 2017, Evaluating strategies for facilitating native plant establishment in northern Nevada crested wheatgrass seedings—Native plant establishment in crested wheatgrass: Restoration Ecology, v. 25, no. 1, p. 53–62.

Holthuijzen, M.F., and Veblen, K.E., 2015, Grass-shrub associations over a precipitation gradient and their implications for restoration in the Great Basin, USA: PLoS One, v. 10, no. 12, 19 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0143170.]

Mitra, B., Mackay, D.S., Ewers, B.E., and Pendall, E., 2016, Response of sagebrush carbon metabolism to experimental precipitation pulses: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 135, p. 181–194.

Ishizaki, S., Shiojiri, K., Karban, R., and Ohara, M., 2016, Seasonal variation of responses to herbivory and volatile communication in sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) (Asteraceae): Journal of Plant Research, v. 129, no. 4, p. 659–666. James, J.J., Sheley, R.L., Leger, E.A., Adler, P.B., Hardegree, S.P., Gornish, E.S., and Rinella, M.J., 2019, Increased soil temperature and decreased precipitation during early life stages constrain grass seedling recruitment in cold desert restoration: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 56, no. 12, p. 2609–2619. Johnston, D.B., 2019, Rough soil surface lessens annual grass invasion in disturbed rangeland: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 292–300.

Morris, C., Morris, L.R., and Monaco, T.A., 2019, Evaluating the effectiveness of low soil-disturbance treatments for improving native plant establishment in stable crested wheatgrass stands: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 237–248. Mummey, D.L., Stoffel, L., and Ramsey, P.W., 2018, Preestablished plant influences of antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) seedling recruitment and growth— Analysis of species and positional effects: Natural Areas Journal, v. 38, no. 1, p. 44–53. Nafus, A.M., Svejcar, T.J., and Davies, K.W., 2016, Disturbance history, management, and seeding year precipitation influences vegetation characteristics of crested wheatgrass stands: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 4, p. 248–256.

28 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Nafus, A.M., Svejcar, T.J., and Davies, K.W., 2020, Native vegetation composition in crested wheatgrass in northwestern Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 1, p. 9–18. Nafus, A.M., Svejcar, T.J., Ganskopp, D.C., and Davies, K.W., 2015, Abundances of coplanted native bunchgrasses and crested wheatgrass after 13 years: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 2, p. 211–214. Paolini, K.E., Modlin, M., Suazo, A.A., Pilliod, D.S., Arkle, R.S., Vierling, K.T., and Holbrook, J.D., 2020, Harvester ant seed removal in an invaded sagebrush ecosystem— Implications for restoration: Ecology and Evolution, v. 10, no. 24, p. 13731–13741. Pennington, V.E., Palmquist, K.A., Bradford, J.B., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2017, Climate and soil texture influence patterns of forb species richness and composition in big sagebrush plant communities across their spatial extent in the western U.S: Plant Ecology, v. 218, no. 8, p. 957–970. Porensky, L.M., Perryman, B.L., Williamson, M.A., Madsen, M.D., and Leger, E.A., 2018, Combining active restoration and targeted grazing to establish native plants and reduce fuel loads in invaded ecosystems: Ecology and Evolution, v. 8, no. 24, p. 12533–12546. Ricks, K.D., and Koide, R.T., 2019, The role of inoculum dispersal and plant species identity in the assembly of leaf endophytic fungal communities: PLoS One, v. 14, no. 7, 17 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0219832.] Rigby, C.W., Jensen, K.B., Creech, J.E., Thacker, E.T., Waldron, B.L., and Derner, J.D., 2018, Establishment and trends in persistence of selected perennial cool-season grasses in western United States: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 6, p. 681–690. Rinella, M.J., Hammond, D.H., Bryant, A.-E.M., and Kozar, B.J., 2015, High precipitation and seeded species competition reduce seeded shrub establishment during dryland restoration: Ecological Applications, v. 25, no. 4, p. 1044–1053. Robertson, I.C., and Schmasow, M.S., 2018, Modification of diet and foraging range by harvester ants in response to altered seed availability: Journal of Insect Behavior, v. 31, no. 4, p. 361–372. Rosentreter, R., and Root, H.T., 2019, Biological soil crust diversity and composition in southwest Idaho, U.S.A: The Bryologist, v. 122, no. 1, p. 10–22. Serpe, M.D., Thompson, A., and Petzinger, E., 2020, Effects of a companion plant on the formation of mycorrhizal propagules in Artemisia tridentata seedlings: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 1, p. 138–146.

Stonecipher, C.A., Panter, K.E., Jensen, K.B., Rigby, C.W., and Villalba, J.J., 2017, Revegetation of medusaheadinvaded rangelands in the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 3, p. 388–395. Sullivan, T.P., and Sullivan, D.S., 2018, Creation of bunchgrass, sagebrush, and perennial grassland habitats within a semi-arid agricultural setting—Implications for small mammals: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 156, p. 50–58. Valayamkunnath, P., Sridhar, V., Zhao, W., and Allen, R.G., 2019, A comprehensive analysis of interseasonal and interannual energy and water balance dynamics in semiarid shrubland and forest ecosystems: Science of the Total Environment, v. 651, p. 381–398. Wilder, L., Veblen, K.E., Schupp, E.W., and Monaco, T.A., 2019, Seedling emergence patterns of six restoration species in soils from two big sagebrush plant communities: Western North American Naturalist, v. 79, no. 2, p. 233–246. Williams, J.R., Morris, L.R., Gunnell, K.L., Johanson, J.K., and Monaco, T.A., 2017, Variation in sagebrush communities historically seeded with crested wheatgrass in the eastern Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 6, p. 683–690.

Next Step 6b Synthesize available data on site preparation and seeding and transplanting strategies for sagebrush communities. Hardegree, S.P., Jones, T.A., Roundy, B.A., Shaw, N.L., and Monaco, T.A., 2016, Assessment of range planting as a conservation practice: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 4, p. 237–247. Hulvey, K.B., Leger, E.A., Porensky, L.M., Roche, L.M., Veblen, K.E., Fund, A., Shaw, J., and Gornish, E.S., 2017, Restoration islands—A tool for efficiently restoring dryland ecosystems?: Restoration Ecology, v. 25, no. S2, p. S124–S134.

Next Step 6c Continue research about seeding and planting strategies, incorporating species being added to the “pool” available for restoration, Test methods developed for major sagebrush plant communities and for a range of site conditions. Clements, C.D., and Harmon, D.N., 2019, Survivability of Wyoming big sagebrush transplants: Rangelands, v. 41, no. 2, p. 88–93.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 29 Fleisher, K.R., and Hufford, K.M., 2020, Assessing habitat heterogeneity and vegetation outcomes of geomorphic and traditional linear-slope methods in post-mine reclamation: Journal of Environmental Management, v. 255, p. 1–9. Roundy, B.A., and Madsen, M.D., 2016, Frost dynamics of sagebrush steppe soils: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 80, no. 5, p. 1403–1410.

Next Step 6d Develop safe, effective, and reliable means of controlling nonnative annual grasses without risking damage to residual perennials or exposure of bare soil to wind erosion. Applestein, C., Germino, M.J., and Fisk, M.R., 2018, Vegetative community response to landscape-scale post-fire herbicide (imazapic) application: Invasive Plant Science and Management, v. 11, no. 3, p. 127–135. Aryal, P., and Islam, M.A., 2018, Effect of forage kochia on seedling growth of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and perennial grasses: Invasive Plant Science and Management, v. 11, no. 4, p. 201–207. Berleman, S.A., Suding, K.N., Fry, D.L., Bartolome, J.W., and Stephens, S.L., 2016, Prescribed fire effects on population dynamics of an annual grassland: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 6, p. 423–429. Blumenthal, D.M., LeCain, D.R., and Augustine, D.J., 2017, Composted manure application promotes long-term invasion of semi-arid rangeland by Bromus tectorum: Ecosphere, v. 8, no. 10, 12 p. Clark, S.L., Sebastian, D.J., Nissen, S.J., and Sebastian, J.R., 2019, Effect of indaziflam on native species in natural areas and rangeland: Invasive Plant Science and Management, v. 12, no. 1, p. 60–67. Clark, S.L., Sebastian, D.J., Nissen, S.J., and Sebastian, J.R., 2020, Evaluating winter annual grass control and native species establishment following applications of indaziflam on rangeland: Invasive Plant Science and Management, v. 13, no. 3, p. 199–209. Clenet, D.R., Davies, K.W., Johnson, D.D., and Kerby, J.D., 2019, Native seeds incorporated into activated carbon pods applied concurrently with indaziflam—A new strategy for restoring annual-invaded communities?: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 4, p.738–744. Clenet, D.R., Davies, K.W., Johnson, D.D., and Kerby, J.D., 2020, Herbicide protection pods (HPPs) facilitate sagebrush and bunchgrass establishment under imazapic control of exotic annual grasses: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 5, p. 687–693.

Cumberland, C., Jonas, J.L., and Paschke, M.W., 2017, Impact of grasshoppers and an invasive grass on establishment and initial growth of restoration plant species—Grasshoppercheatgrass interactions: Restoration Ecology, v. 25, no. 3, p. 385–395. Davies, K.W., 2018, Incorporating seeds in activated carbon pellets limits herbicide effects to seeded bunchgrasses when controlling exotic annuals: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 3, p. 323–326. Davies, K.W., Bates, J.D., and Boyd, C.S., 2019, Postwildfire seeding to restore native vegetation and limit exotic annuals—An evaluation in juniper-dominated sagebrush steppe—Seeding native species postfire: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 1, p. 120–127. Davies, K.W., Boyd, C.S., Johnson, D.D., Nafus, A.M., and Madsen, M.D., 2015, Success of seeding native compared with introduced perennial vegetation for revegetating medusahead-invaded sagebrush rangeland: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 3, p. 224–230. Davies, K.W., and Hamerlynck, E., 2019, Ventenata and other coexisting exotic annual grass control and plant community response to increasing imazapic application rates: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 4, p. 700–705. Davies, K.W., and Johnson, D.D., 2017, Established perennial vegetation provides high resistance to reinvasion by exotic annual grasses: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 6, p. 748–754. Hergert, H.J., Mealor, B.A., and Kniss, A.R., 2015, Interand intraspecific variation in native restoration plants for herbicide tolerance: Ecological Restoration, v. 33, no. 1, p. 74–81. Hulet, A., Boyd, C.S., Davies, K.W., and Svejcar, T.J., 2015, Prefire (preemptive) management to decrease fire-induced bunchgrass mortality and reduce reliance on postfire seeding: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 6, p. 437–444. Jabran, K., and Dogan, M.N., 2018, High carbon dioxide concentration and elevated temperature impact the growth of weeds but do not change the efficacy of glyphosate: Pest Management Science, v. 74, no. 3, p. 766–771. Johnston, D.B., 2015, Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) control for pipeline restoration: Invasive Plant Science and Management, v. 8, no. 2, p. 181–192. Johnston, D.B., 2019, Rough soil surface lessens annual grass invasion in disturbed rangeland: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 292–300.

30 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Jones, R.O., Chambers, J.C., Board, D.I., Johnson, D.W., and Blank, R.R., 2015, The role of resource limitation in restoration of sagebrush ecosystems dominated by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): Ecosphere, v. 6, no. 7, 21 p. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00285.1.] Kumar, V., and Jha, P., 2017, First report of Ser653Asn mutation endowing high-level resistance to imazamox in downy brome (Bromus tectorum)—First report of ALS-resistant downy brome from IMI-tolerant wheat: Pest Management Science, v. 73, no. 12, p. 2585–2591. Lehnhoff, E.A., Rew, L.J., Mangold, J.M., Seipel, T., and Ragen, D., 2019, Integrated management of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) with sheep grazing and herbicide: Basel, Agronomy, v. 9, no. 6, 21 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060315.] Metier, E.P., Lehnhoff, E.A., Mangold, J., Rinella, M.J., and Rew, L.J., 2020, Control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus) using glyphosate and four graminicides—Effects of herbicide rate, plant size, species, and accession: Weed Technology, v. 34, no. 2, p. 284–291. Monaco, T.A., Hardegree, S.P., Pellant, M., and Brown, C.S., 2016, Assessing restoration and management needs for ecosystems invaded by exotic annual Bromus species, in Germino, M.J., Chambers, J.C., and Brown, C.S., eds., Exotic Brome-grasses in arid and semiarid ecosystems of the western U.S.: Causes, consequences, and management implications: Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, Springer International Publishing Switzerland:, p. 339–370. Morris, C., Morris, L.R., and Surface, C., 2016, glyphosate application for selective control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) on Great Basin rangelands: Weed Technology, v. 30, no. 1, p. 297–302. Orr, M.R., Reuter, R.J., and Murphy, S.J., 2019, Solarization to control downy brome (Bromus tectorum) for smallscale ecological restoration: Invasive Plant Science and Management, v. 12, no. 2, p. 112–119. Rinella, M.J., Davy, J.S., Kyser, G.B., Mashiri, F.E., Bellows, S.E., James, J.J., and Peterson, V.F., 2018, Timing aminopyralid to prevent seed production controls medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and increases forage grasses: Invasive Plant Science and Management, v. 11, no. 1, p. 61–68. Rinella, M.J., Knudsen, A.D., Jacobs, J.S., and Mangold, J.M., 2020, Seeding causes long-term increases in grass forage production in invaded rangelands: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 2, p. 329–333.

Schantz, M., Sheley, R., and Hardegree, S., 2019, Restoring perennial grasses in medusahead habitat—Role of tilling, fire, herbicides, and seeding rate: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 249–259. Sebastian, D.J., Fleming, M.B., Patterson, E.L., Sebastian, J.R., and Nissen, S.J., 2017, Indaziflam—A new cellulosebiosynthesis-inhibiting herbicide provides long-term control of invasive winter annual grasses: Pest Management Science, v. 73, no. 10, p. 2149–2162. Seipel, T., Rew, L.J., Taylor, K.T., Maxwell, B.D., and Lehnhoff, E.A., 2018, Disturbance type influences plant community resilience and resistance to Bromus tectorum invasion in the sagebrush steppe: Applied Vegetation Science, v. 21, no. 3, p. 385–394. Stonecipher, C.A., Thacker, E., Welch, K.D., Ralphs, M.H., and Monaco, T.A., 2019, Long-term persistence of coolseason grasses planted to suppress broom snakeweed, downy brome, and weedy forbs: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 266–274. Wade, C.E., and Loik, M.E., 2017, A spring rainfall pulse causes greater in situ photosynthetic upregulation for Bromus tectorum compared to co-occurring native herbaceous species: Environmental and Experimental Botany, v. 143, p. 51–58.

Next Step 6e Expand existing databases such as the Land Treatment Digital Library to include seed sources, seed quality and seedling production specifications, planting details (for example, annotated plans, equipment, weather, and site conditions), and long-term monitoring data. NA.

Studies Related to Need 6, but Not Any of the Next Steps NA.

Restoration Need 7 Assess the long-term effects of conifer removal treatments on hydrology, geochemical cycling, vegetation, wildlife, fuels, fire behavior, and economics.

Next Step 7a Use retrospective studies of past management activities to evaluate timelines for post-treatment conifer succession and understory plant dynamics following different treatment types.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 31 Bates, J.D., and Davies, K.W., 2017, Effects of conifer treatments on soil nutrient availability and plant composition in sagebrush steppe: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 400, p. 631–644.

Gallo, T., Stinson, L.T., and Pejchar, L., 2017, Mitigation for energy development fails to mimic natural disturbance for birds and mammals: Biological Conservation, v. 212, p. 39–47.

Bates, J.D., Davies, K.W., Bournoville, J., Boyd, C., O’Connor, R., and Svejcar, T.J., 2019, Herbaceous biomass response to prescribed fire in juniper-encroached sagebrush steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 1, p. 28–35.

Bybee, J., Roundy, B.A., Young, K.R., Hulet, A., Roundy, D.B., Crook, L., Aanderud, Z., Eggett, D.L., and Cline, N.L., 2016, Vegetation response to piñon and juniper tree shredding: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 3, p. 224–234. Clark, P.E., Williams, C.J., and Pierson, F.B., 2018, Factors affecting efficacy of prescribed fire for western juniper control: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 3, p. 345–355. Copeland, S.M., Munson, S.M., Bradford, J.B., Butterfield, B.J., and Gunnell, K.L., 2019, Long-term plant community trajectories suggest divergent responses of native and non-native perennials and annuals to vegetation removal and seeding treatments—Long-term community response to treatments: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 4, p. 821–831. Davies, K.W., and Bates, J.D., 2019, Longer-term evaluation of sagebrush restoration after juniper control and herbaceous vegetation trade-offs: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 260–265. Davies, K.W., and Dean, A.E., 2019, Prescribed summer fire and seeding applied to restore juniper-encroached and exotic annual grass-invaded sagebrush steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 4, p. 635–639. Dittel, J.W., Sanchez, D., Ellsworth, L.M., Morozumi, C.N., and Mata-Gonzalez, R., 2018, Vegetation response to juniper reduction and grazing exclusion in sagebrushsteppe habitat in eastern Oregon: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 2, p. 213–219. Ellsworth, L.M., and Kauffman, J.B., 2017, Plant community response to prescribed fire varies by pre-fire condition and season of burn in mountain big sagebrush ecosystems: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 144, p. 74–80. Ernst-Brock, C., Turner, L., Tausch, R.J., and Leger, E.A., 2019, Long-term vegetation responses to pinyon-juniper woodland reduction treatments in Nevada, USA: Journal of Environmental Management, v. 242, p. 315–326. Gallo, T., Stinson, L.T., and Pejchar, L., 2016, Pinyon-juniper removal has long-term effects on mammals: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 377, p. 93–100.

Havrilla, C.A., Faist, A.M., and Barger, N.N., 2017, Understory plant community responses to fuel-reduction treatments and seeding in an upland piñon-juniper woodland: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 5, p. 609–620. Johnston, A.N., Beever, E.A., Merkle, J.A., and Chong, G., 2018, Vegetation responses to sagebrush-reduction treatments measured by satellites: Ecological Indicators, v. 87, p. 66–76. Kerns, B.K., Day, M.A., and Ikeda, D., 2020, Long-term seeding outcomes in slash piles and skid trails after conifer removal: Forests, v. 11, no. 8, p. 839. Reed-Dustin, C.M., Mata-González, R., and Rodhouse, T.J., 2016, Long-term fire effects on native and invasive grasses in protected area sagebrush steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 4, p. 257–264. Urza, A.K., Weisberg, P.J., Chambers, J.C., Dhaemers, J.M., and Board, D., 2017, Post-fire vegetation response at the woodland-shrubland interface is mediated by the pre-fire community: Ecosphere, v. 8, no. 6, 20 p. Williams, R.E., Roundy, B.A., Hulet, A., Miller, R.F., Tausch, R.J., Chambers, J.C., Matthews, J., Schooley, R., and Eggett, D., 2017, Pretreatment tree dominance and conifer removal treatments affect plant succession in sagebrush communities: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 6, p. 759–773. Wozniak, S.S., Strand, E.K., Johnson, T.R., Hulet, A., Roundy, B.A., and Young, K., 2020, Treatment longevity and changes in surface fuel loads after pinyon–juniper mastication: Ecosphere, v. 11, no. 8, 18 p.

Next Step 7b Establish instrumented networks of watersheds with experimental conifer-removal treatments and controls to measure hydrologic (including snowpack and soil moisture), physical (temperature and energy balance), and biogeochemical outcomes.

32 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Flerchinger, G.N., Seyfried, M.S., and Hardegree, S.P., 2016, Hydrologic response and recovery to prescribed fire and vegetation removal in a small rangeland catchment: Ecohydrology, v. 9, no. 8, p. 1604–1619. Kormos, P.R., Marks, D.G., Pierson, F.B., Williams, C.J., Hardegree, S.P., Boehm, A.R., Havens, S.C., Hedrick, A., Cram, Z.K., and Svejcar, T.J., 2017a, Meteorological, snow, streamflow, topographic, and vegetation height data from four western juniper-dominated experimental catchments in southwestern Idaho, USA: Earth System Science Data, v. 9, no. 1, p. 91–98. Kormos, P.R., Marks, D., Pierson, F.B., Williams, C.J., Hardegree, S.P., Havens, S., Hedrick, A., Bates, J.D., and Svejcar, T.J., 2017b, Ecosystem water availability in juniper versus sagebrush snow-dominated rangelands: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 116–128. Ray, G., Ochoa, C.G., Deboodt, T., and Mata-Gonzalez, R., 2019, Overstory–understory vegetation cover and soil water content observations in western juniper woodlands—A paired watershed study in central Oregon, USA: Forests, v. 10, no. 2, p. 151. Roundy, B.A., Miller, R.F., Tausch, R.J., Chambers, J.C., and Rau, B.M., 2020, Long‐term effects of tree expansion and reduction on soil climate in a semiarid ecosystem: Ecosphere, v. 11, no. 9, 18 p. Throop, H.L., and Lajtha, K., 2018, Spatial and temporal changes in ecosystem carbon pools following juniper encroachment and removal: Biogeochemistry, v. 140, no. 3, p. 373–388.

Next Step 7c Determine the impacts of the biophysical setting for conifer removal, including slope, aspect, soil type, soil nutrient status, and conifer-encroachment status, on post removal vegetation and wildlife responses. Aanderud, Z.T., Schoolmaster, D.R., Rigby, D., Bybee, J., Campbell, T., and Roundy, B.A., 2017, Soils mediate the impact of fine woody debris on invasive and native grasses as whole trees are mechanically shredded into firebreaks in piñon-juniper woodlands: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 137, p. 60–68. Cline, N.L., Roundy, B.A., and Christensen, W.F., 2018a, Using germination prediction to inform seeding potential—I. Temperature range validation of germination prediction models for the Great Basin, USA: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 150, p. 71–81.

Cline, N.L., Roundy, B.A., Hardegree, S., and Christensen, W., 2018b, Using germination prediction to inform seeding potential—II. Comparison of germination predictions for cheatgrass and potential revegetation species in the Great Basin, USA: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 150, p. 82–91. Davies, K.W., and Bates, J.D., 2017, Restoring big sagebrush after controlling encroaching western juniper with fire— Aspect and subspecies effects—Restoring sagebrush after fire: Restoration Ecology, v. 25, no. 1, p. 33–41. Monaco, T.A., and Gunnell, K.L., 2020, Understory vegetation change following woodland reduction varies by plant community type and seeding status—A region-wide assessment of ecological benefits and risks: Plants, v. 9, no. 9, 26 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9091113.] Nouwakpo, S.K., Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., Weltz, M.A., Kormos, P.R., Arslan, A., and Al-Hamdan, O.Z., 2020, Effectiveness of prescribed fire to re-establish sagebrush steppe vegetation and ecohydrologic function on woodlandencroached sagebrush rangelands, Great Basin, USA—Part II. Runoff and sediment transport at the patch scale: Catena, v. 185, 29 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.catena.2018.02.027.] Pierson, F.B., Williams, C.J., Kormos, P.R., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., Hardegree, S.P., and Clark, P.E., 2015, Short-term impacts of tree removal on runoff and erosion from pinyon- and juniper-dominated sagebrush hillslopes: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 5, p. 408–422. Roundy, B.A., Farmer, M., Olson, J., Petersen, S., Nelson, D.R., Davis, J., and Vernon, J., 2017, Runoff and sediment response to tree control and seeding on a high soil erosion potential site in Utah—Evidence for reversal of an abiotic threshold: Ecohydrology, v. 10, no. 1, 9 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1775.] Williams, C.J., Johnson, J.C., Pierson, F.B., Burleson, C.S., Polyakov, V.O., Kormos, P.R., and Nouwakpo, S.K., 2020a, Long-term effectiveness of tree removal to re-establish sagebrush steppe vegetation and associated spatial patterns in surface conditions and soil hydrologic properties: Basel, Water, v. 12, no. 8, 35 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w12082213.] Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., Kormos, P.R., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., and Johnson, J.C., 2020b, Vegetation, ground cover, soil, rainfall simulation, and overland-flow experiments before and after tree removal in woodland-encroached sagebrush steppe—The hydrology component of the Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project (SageSTEP): Earth System Science Data, v. 12, no. 2, p. 1347–1365.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 33 Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., Kormos, P.R., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., Nouwakpo, S.K., and Weltz, M.A., 2019, Vegetation, hydrologic, and erosion responses of sagebrush steppe 9 years following mechanical tree removal: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 1, p. 47–68. Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., Nouwakpo, S.K., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., Kormos, P.R., and Weltz, M.A., 2020c, Effectiveness of prescribed fire to re-establish sagebrush steppe vegetation and ecohydrologic function on woodland-encroached sagebrush rangelands, Great Basin, USA—Part I: Vegetation, hydrology, and erosion responses: Catena, v. 185, 29 p.

Next Step 7d Initiate long-term research and retrospective analyses to quantify the effects of juniper treatment on hydrology, geochemical cycling, wildlife habitat, and fire and fuel dynamics. Abdallah, M.A.B., Mata-González, R., Noller, J.S., and Ochoa, C.G., 2020, Ecosystem carbon in relation to woody plant encroachment and control—Juniper systems in Oregon, USA: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 290, 10 p. Bates, J.D., Svejcar, T., Miller, R., and Davies, K.W., 2017, Plant community dynamics 25 years after juniper control: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 3, p. 356–362. Bombaci, S.P., Gallo, T., and Pejchar, L., 2017, Small-scale woodland reduction practices have neutral or negative short-term effects on birds and small mammals: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 3, p. 363–373. Cook, A.A., Messmer, T.A., and Guttery, M.R., 2017, Greater sage-grouse use of mechanical conifer reduction treatments in northwest Utah—Sage-grouse response to management: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 41, no. 1, p. 27–33. Donnelly, J.P., Tack, J.D., Doherty, K.E., Naugle, D.E., Allred, B.W., and Dreitz, V.J., 2017, Extending conifer removal and landscape protection strategies from sage-grouse to songbirds, a range-wide assessment: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 95–105. Gallo, T., and Pejchar, L., 2017, Woodland reduction and longterm change in breeding bird communities—Long-term effects of tree removal on birds: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 2, p. 259–268. Gallo, T., Stinson, L.T., and Pejchar, L., 2017, Mitigation for energy development fails to mimic natural disturbance for birds and mammals: Biological Conservation, v. 212, p. 39–47.

Hamilton, B.T., Roeder, B.L., and Horner, M.A., 2019, Effects of sagebrush restoration and conifer encroachment on small mammal diversity in sagebrush ecosystem: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 1, p. 13–22. Knick, S.T., Hanser, S.E., Grace, J.B., Hollenbeck, J.P., and Leu, M., 2017, Response of bird community structure to habitat management in piñon-juniper woodland-sagebrush ecotones: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 400, p. 256–268. Massey, A.L., Rickart, E.A., and Rowe, R.J., 2017, Habitat use of the piñon mouse (Peromyscus truei) in the Toiyabe Range, Central Nevada: Western North American Naturalist, v. 77, no. 4, p. 464–477. Mathews, S.R., Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Ricca, M.A., Meyerpeter, M.B., Espinosa, S.P., Lisius, S., Gardner, S.C., and Delehanty, D.J., 2018, An integrated population model for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment, California and Nevada, 2003–17: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018–1177, 89 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ ofr20181177.] Niemeyer, R.J., Link, T.E., Seyfried, M.S., and Flerchinger, G.N., 2016, Surface water input from snowmelt and rain throughfall in western juniper—Potential impacts of climate change and shifts in semi‐arid vegetation: Hydrological Processes, v. 30, no. 17, p. 3046–3060. Peterson, M.E., Peterson, M.E., Rebar, C.E., Eisenhart, K.S., Stetson, D.I., and Stetson, D.I., 2017, Responses of small mammal communities to pinyon-juniper habitat treatments: Western North American Naturalist, v. 77, no. 3, p. 331–342. Sandford, C.P., Kohl, M.T., Messmer, T.A., Dahlgren, D.K., Cook, A., and Wing, B.R., 2017, Greater sage-grouse resource selection drives reproductive fitness under a conifer removal strategy: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 59–67. Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017a, Short-term response of sage-grouse nesting to conifer removal in the northern Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 50–58. Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Tack, J.D., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017b, Better living through conifer removal—A demographic analysis of sagegrouse vital rates: PLoS One, v. 12, no. 3, 17 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174347.] Young, K.R., Roundy, B.A., Bunting, S.C., and Eggett, D.L., 2015, Utah juniper and two-needle piñon reduction alters fuel loads: International Journal of Wildland Fire, v. 24, no. 2, p. 236–248.

34 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20

Next Step 7e Use results from retrospective vegetation studies to determine economic viability of different treatment options based on treatment lifetime and cost of application. Boyd, C.S., Kerby, J.D., Svejcar, T.J., Bates, J.D., Johnson, D.D., and Davies, K.W., 2017, The sage-grouse habitat mortgage—Effective conifer management in space and time: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 141–148.

Next Step 7f Synthesize findings from ongoing studies addressing the long-term effects of mechanical and fire-based conifer treatments on ecosystem properties. Bates, J.D., and Davies, K.W., 2017, Data set on the effects of conifer control and slash burning on soil carbon, total N, organic matter and extractable micro-nutrients: Data in Brief, v. 14, p. 515–523. Bombaci, S., and Pejchar, L., 2016, Consequences of pinyon and juniper woodland reduction for wildlife in North America: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 365, p. 34–50. Hartsell, J.A., Copeland, S.M., Munson, S.M., Butterfield, B.J., and Bradford, J.B., 2020, Gaps and hotspots in the state of knowledge of pinyon-juniper communities: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 455, 23 p. Limb, R.F., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., and Miller, R.F., 2016, Synthesis paper—Assessment of research on rangeland fire as a management practice: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 6, p. 415–422. Miller, R.F., Chambers, J.C., Evers, L., Williams, C.J., Snyder, K.A., Roundy, B.A., and Pierson, F.B., 2019, The ecology, history, ecohydrology, and management of pinyon and juniper woodlands in the Great Basin and Northern Colorado Plateau of the western United States: Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-403, 284 p. Miller, R.F., Chambers, J.C., and Pellant, M., 2015, A field guide for rapid assessment of post-wildfire recovery potential in sagebrush and piñon-juniper ecosystems in the Great Basin—Evaluating resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses and predicting vegetation response: Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-338, 70 p.

Williams, C.J., Snyder, K.A., and Pierson, F.B., 2018, Spatial and temporal variability of the impacts of pinyon and juniper reduction on hydrologic and erosion processes across climatic gradients in the western US—A Regional Synthesis: Basel, Water, v. 10, no. 11, 44 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111607.]

Studies Related to Need 7, but Not Any of the Next Steps Bernau, C.R., Strand, E.K., and Bunting, S.C., 2018, Fuel bed response to vegetation treatments in juniper-invaded sagebrush steppe: Fire Ecology, v. 14, no. 2, 13 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-018-0002-z.] Sambuco, E.N., Mark, B.G., Patrick, N., DeGrand, J.Q., Porinchu, D.F., Reinemann, S.A., Baker, G.M., and Box, J.E., 2020, Mountain temperature changes from embedded sensors spanning 2000 meters in Great Basin National Park, 2006–18: Lausanne, Frontiers in Earth Science, v. 8, 18 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00292.] Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017, Restoring sage‐grouse nesting habitat through removal of early successional conifer: Restoration Ecology, v. 25, no. 6, p. 1026–1034.

Restoration Need 8 Evaluate the effectiveness of various rehabilitation or restoration activities in sage-grouse habitat to help determine if offsite mitigation is a viable option, because if restoration of sites to conditions useful for sage-grouse is not possible (for near-term benefits), then mitigation procedures might warrant reevaluation.

Next Step 8a Conduct research on the effectiveness of land treatment projects for providing habitat for sage-grouse, taking into account the subtleties of treatment type, treatment implementation, time since treatment, and landscape context. Multiple research projects will be needed that span the range of environmental conditions across the range of the sage-grouse. Bates, J.D., Davies, K.W., Hulet, A., Miller, R.F., and Roundy, B., 2017, Sage-grouse groceries—Forb response to piñonjuniper treatments: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 106–115. Baxter, J.J., Baxter, R.J., Dahlgren, D.K., and Larsen, R.T., 2017, Resource selection by greater sage-grouse reveals preference for mechanically-altered habitats: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 4, p. 493–503.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 35 Beltz, C.W., Mobley, M.L., and Burke, I.C., 2019, Nitrogen addition pulse has minimal effect in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) communities on the Pinedale Anticline, Wyoming (USA): PLoS One, v. 14, no. 5, 16 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0206563.]

Rottler, C.M., Burke, I.C., Palmquist, K.A., Bradford, J.B., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2018, Current reclamation practices after oil and gas development do not speed up succession or plant community recovery in big sagebrush ecosystems in Wyoming—Reclamation and sagebrush plant community recovery: Restoration Ecology, v. 26, no. 1, p. 114–123.

Sandford, C.P., Kohl, M.T., Messmer, T.A., Dahlgren, D.K., Cook, A., and Wing, B.R., 2017, Greater sage-grouse resource selection drives reproductive fitness under a conifer removal strategy: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 59–67.

Cook, A.A., Messmer, T.A., and Guttery, M.R., 2017, Greater sage-grouse use of mechanical conifer reduction treatments in northwest Utah—Sage-grouse response to management: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 41, no. 1, p. 27–33.

Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017a, Short-term response of sage-grouse nesting to conifer removal in the northern Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 50–58.

Dahlgren, D.K., Larsen, R.T., Danvir, R., Wilson, G., Thacker, E.T., Black, T.A., Naugle, D.E., Connelly, J.W., and Messmer, T.A., 2015, Greater sage-grouse and range management—Insights from a 25-year case study in Utah and Wyoming: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 5, p. 375–382. Fremgen-Tarantino, M.R., Peña, J.J., Connelly, J.W., and Forbey, J.S., 2020, Foraging ecology of greater sage-grouse in a post-fire landscape: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 178, 10 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jaridenv.2020.104154.] Korfanta, N.M., Mobley, M.L., and Burke, I.C., 2015, Fertilizing western rangelands for ungulate conservation— An assessment of benefits and risks: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 39, no. 1, p. 1–8. Pennington, V.E., Schlaepfer, D.R., Beck, J.L., Bradford, J.B., Palmquist, K.A., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2016, Sagebrush, greater sage-grouse, and the occurrence and importance of forbs: Western North American Naturalist, v. 76, no. 3, p. 298–312. Petersen, S.L., Nicholes, B.K., Frey, S.N., Heaton, K.M., and Eggett, D.L., 2016, Response of greater sage-grouse to surface coal mining and habitat conservation in association with the mine: Human-Wildlife Interactions, v. 10, no. 2, p. 205–216. Rohde, A.T., Pilliod, D.S., and Novak, S.J., 2018, Insect communities in big sagebrush habitat are altered by wildfire and post-fire restoration seeding: Insect Conservation and Diversity, v. 12, no. 3, p. 216–230. Riginos, C., Veblen, K.E., Thacker, E.T., Gunnell, K.L., and Monaco, T.A., 2019, Disturbance type and sagebrush community type affect plant community structure after shrub reduction: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 4, p. 619–631.

Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017b, Restoring sage‐grouse nesting habitat through removal of early successional conifer: Restoration Ecology, v. 25, no. 6, p. 1026–1034. Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Tack, J.D., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017c, Better living through conifer removal—A demographic analysis of sagegrouse vital rates: PLoS One, v. 12, no. 3, 17 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174347.] Smith, K.T., and Beck, J.L., 2018, Sagebrushtreatments influence annual population change for greater sage-grouse— Treatments influence sage-grouse populations: Restoration Ecology, v. 26, no. 3, p. 497–505. Smith, K.T., Forbey, J.S., and Beck, J.L., 2018, Effects of mowing and Tebuthiuron on the nutritional quality of Wyoming big sagebrush: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 4, p. 417–423. Smith, K.T., LeVan, J.R., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Forb and invertebrate response to treatments for greater sage-grouse in Wyoming big sagebrush: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 5, p. 791–795. Summers, D.D., and Roundy, B.A., 2018, Evaluating mechanical treatments and seeding of a Wyoming big sagebrush community 10-years post treatment: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 3, p. 298–308.

Next Step 8b Conduct a review of existing state-and-transition models and other resources to determine relationships between current vegetation conditions and ecological site potential to inform mitigation measures relative to the ability of a site to achieve intended vegetation conditions.

36 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Boyte, S.P., Wylie, B.K., Gu, Y., and Major, D.J., 2020, Estimating abiotic thresholds for sagebrush condition class in the western United States: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 2, p. 297–308. Creutzburg, M.K., Halofsky, J.E., Halofsky, J.S., and Christopher, T.A., 2015a, Climate change and land management in the rangelands of central Oregon: Environmental Management, v. 55, no. 1, p. 43–55. Creutzburg, M.K., Henderson, E.B., and Conklin, D.R., 2015b, Climate change and land management impact rangeland condition and sage-grouse habitat in southeastern Oregon: AIMS Environmental Science, v. 2, no. 2, p. 203–236. Ellner, S.P., Snyder, R.E., Adler, P.B., and Hooker, G., 2019, An expanded modern coexistence theory for empirical applications: Ecology Letters, v. 22, no. 1, p. 3–18. Hardegree, S.P., Abatzoglou, J.T., Brunson, M.W., Germino, M.J., Hegewisch, K.C., Moffet, C.A., Pilliod, D.S., Roundy, B.A., Boehm, A.R., and Meredith, G.R., 2018, Weathercentric rangeland revegetation planning: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 1, p. 1–11. Jones, T.A., Monaco, T.A., and Rigby, C.W., 2015, The potential of novel native plant materials for the restoration of novel ecosystems: Elementa, v. 3, 18 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000047.] Pyke, D.A., Chambers, J.C., Pellant, M., Knick, S.T., Miller, R.F., Beck, J.L., Doescher, P.S., Schupp, E.W., Roundy, B.A., Brunson, M., and McIver, J.D., 2015, Restoration handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 1. Concepts for understanding and applying restoration: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1416, 44 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.3133/cir1416.] Pyke, D.A., Knick, S.T., Chambers, J.C., Pellant, M., Miller, R.F., Beck, J.L., Doescher, P.S., Schupp, E.W., Roundy, B.A., Brunson, M., and McIver, J.D., 2015, Restoration handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 2. Landscape level restoration decisions: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1418, 21 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1418.] Pyke, D.A., Chambers, J.C., Pellant, M., Miller, R.F., Beck, J.L., Doescher, P.S., Roundy, B.A., Schupp, E.W., Knick, S.T., Brunson, M., and McIver, J.D., 2018, Restoration handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 3. Site level restoration decisions (ver. 1.1, March 2018): U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1426, 62 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.3133/cir1426.]

Rigge, M., Homer, C., Shi, H., and Wylie, B., 2020, Departures of rangeland fractional component cover and land cover from Landsat-based ecological potential in Wyoming, USA: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 6, p. 856–870. Rigge, M., Homer, C., Wylie, B., Gu, Y., Shi, H., Xian, G., Meyer, D.K., and Bunde, B., 2019a, Using remote sensing to quantify ecosystem site potential community structure and deviation in the Great Basin, United States: Ecological Indicators, v. 96, p. 516–531. Rigge, M., Shi, H., Homer, C., Danielson, P., and Granneman, B., 2019b, Long‐term trajectories of fractional component change in the northern Great Basin, USA: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 6, 24 p. Shi, H., Rigge, M., Homer, C.G., Xian, G., Meyer, D.K., and Bunde, B., 2018, Historical cover trends in a sagebrush steppe ecosystem from 1985 to 2013—Links with climate, disturbance, and management: New York, Ecosystems, v. 21, no. 5, p. 913–929. Tipton, C.Y., Ocheltree, T.W., Mueller, K.E., Turk, P., and Fernández‐Giménez, M.E., 2018, Revision of a state‐and‐ transition model to include descriptions of state functional attributes: Ecosphere, v. 9, no. 5, 16 p.

Next Step 8c Synthesize information from existing, ongoing, and new (above) research using rigorous, standard, and reproducible meta-analyses that capture the variety of treatments in type, space, and time. James, J.J., Gornish, E.S., DiTomaso, J.M., Davy, J., Doran, M.P., Becchetti, T., Lile, D., Brownsey, P., and Laca, E.A., 2015, Managing medusahead (Taeniatherum caputmedusae) on rangeland—A meta-analysis of control effects and assessment of stakeholder needs: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 3, p. 215–223. Monaco, T.A., Mangold, J.M., Mealor, B.A., Mealor, R.D., and Brown, C.S., 2017, Downy brome control and impacts on perennial grass abundance—A systematic review spanning 64 years: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 3, p. 396–404.

Next Step 8d Using research and synthesis results to develop a decision support tool to inform mitigation efforts that incorporates information about existing vegetation conditions and threats (both local and landscape) relative to ecological site potential.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 37 Chambers, J.C., Allen, C.R., and Cushman, S.A., 2019a, Operationalizing ecological resilience concepts for managing species and ecosystems at risk: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, v. 7, 27 p. [Also available at https:// doi.org/ 10.3389/fevo.2019.00241.]

Svejcar, T., Boyd, C., Davies, K., Hamerlynck, E., and Svejcar, L., 2017, Challenges and limitations to native species restoration in the Great Basin, USA: Plant Ecology, v. 218, no. 1, p. 81–94.

Chambers, J.C., Brooks, M.L., Germino, M.J., Maestas, J.D., Board, D.I., Jones, M.O., and Allred, B.W., 2019b, Operationalizing resilience and resistance concepts to address invasive grass-fire cycles: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, v. 7, 25 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fevo.2019.00185.]

Studies Related to Need 8, but Not Any of the Next Steps

Chambers, J.C., Maestas, J.D., Pyke, D.A., Boyd, C.S., Pellant, M., and Wuenschel, A., 2017, Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage persistent threats to sagebrush ecosystems and greater sage-grouse: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 2, p. 149–164. Heinrichs, J.A., Aldridge, C.L., Gummer, D.L., Monroe, A.P., and Schumaker, N.H., 2018, Prioritizing actions for the recovery of endangered species—Emergent insights from greater sage-grouse simulation modeling: Biological Conservation, v. 218, p. 134–143. James, J.J., and Carrick, P.J., 2016, Toward quantitative dryland restoration models—Dryland restoration models: Restoration Ecology, v. 24, p. S85–S90. James, J.J., Gornish, E.S., DiTomaso, J.M., Davy, J., Doran, M.P., Becchetti, T., Lile, D., Brownsey, P., and Laca, E.A., 2015, Managing medusahead (Taeniatherum caputmedusae) on rangeland—A meta-analysis of control effects and assessment of stakeholder needs: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 3, p. 215–223. Limb, R.F., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., and Miller, R.F., 2016, Synthesis paper—Assessment of research on rangeland fire as a management practice: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 6, p. 415–422.

Carlisle, J.D., Chalfoun, A.D., Smith, K.T., and Beck, J.L., 2018, Nontarget effects on songbirds from habitat manipulation for greater sage-grouse—Implications for the umbrella species concept: The Condor, v. 120, no. 2, p. 439–455. Fedy, B.C., Kirol, C.P., Sutphin, A.L., and Maechtle, T.L., 2015, The influence of mitigation on sage-grouse habitat selection within an energy development field: PLoS One, v. 10, no. 4, 19 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0121603.] Kirol, C.P., Sutphin, A.L., Bond, L., Fuller, M.R., and Maechtle, T.L., 2015, Mitigation effectiveness for improving nesting success of greater sage-grouse influenced by energy development: Wildlife Biology, v. 21, no. 2, p. 98–109. Ritten, J., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Pritchett, J., Kachergis, E., and Bish, W., 2018, Using state and transition models to determine the opportunity cost of providing ecosystem services: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 6, p. 737–752. Smith, J.T., Evans, J.S., Martin, B.H., Baruch-Mordo, S., Kiesecker, J.M., and Naugle, D.E., 2016, Reducing cultivation risk for at-risk species—Predicting outcomes of conservation easements for sage-grouse: Biological Conservation, v. 201, p. 10–19.

Provencher, L., Frid, L., Czembor, C., and Morisette, J.T., 2016, State-and-transition models—Conceptual versus simulation perspectives, usefulness and breadth of use, and land management applications, in Germino, M.J., Chambers, J.C., and Brown, C.S., eds., Exotic bromegrasses in arid and semiarid ecosystems of the western U.S.—Causes, consequences, and management implications: Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, Springer International Publishing Switzerland, p. 257–274.

Restoration Need 9

Smith, B.S., and Sheley, R.L., 2015, Implementing strategic weed prevention programs to protect rangeland ecosystems: Invasive Plant Science and Management, v. 8, no. 2, p. 233–242.

Use retrospective studies of past management activities to evaluate timelines for post-treatment conifer succession and understory plant dynamics following mechanical (cutting and mastication) and prescribed fire treatment.

Develop decision-support tools to assist in planning and implementing conifer removal treatments that will maximize maintenance of sagebrush systems, greater sage-grouse, and other sensitive species.

Next Step 9a

Bates, J.D., and Davies, K.W., 2016, Seasonal burning of juniper woodlands and spatial recovery of herbaceous vegetation: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 361, p. 117–130.

38 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Bates, J.D., and Davies, K.W., 2017, Effects of conifer treatments on soil nutrient availability and plant composition in sagebrush steppe: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 400, p. 631–644.

Gallo, T., Stinson, L.T., and Pejchar, L., 2017, Mitigation for energy development fails to mimic natural disturbance for birds and mammals: Biological Conservation, v. 212, p. 39–47.

Bybee, J., Roundy, B.A., Young, K.R., Hulet, A., Roundy, D.B., Crook, L., Aanderud, Z., Eggett, D.L., and Cline, N.L., 2016, Vegetation response to piñon and juniper tree shredding: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 3, p. 224–234. Copeland, S.M., Munson, S.M., Bradford, J.B., Butterfield, B.J., and Gunnell, K.L., 2019, Long-term plant community trajectories suggest divergent responses of native and non-native perennials and annuals to vegetation removal and seeding treatments—Long-term community response to treatments: Restoration Ecology, v. 27, no. 4, p. 821–831. Davies, K.W., and Bates, J.D., 2019, Longer-term evaluation of sagebrush restoration after juniper control and herbaceous vegetation trade-offs: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 260–265. Davies, K.W., and Dean, A.E., 2019, Prescribed summer fire and seeding applied to restore juniper-encroached and exotic annual grass-invaded sagebrush steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 4, p. 635–639. Davies, K.W., Rios, R.C., Bates, J.D., Johnson, D.D., Kerby, J., and Boyd, C.S., 2019, To burn or not to burn— Comparing reintroducing fire with cutting an encroaching conifer for conservation of an imperiled shrub‐steppe: Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, no. 16, p. 9137–9148. Dittel, J.W., Sanchez, D., Ellsworth, L.M., Morozumi, C.N., and Mata-Gonzalez, R., 2018, Vegetation response to juniper reduction and grazing exclusion in sagebrushsteppe habitat in eastern Oregon: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 2, p. 213–219. Ellsworth, L.M., and Kauffman, J.B., 2017, Plant community response to prescribed fire varies by pre-fire condition and season of burn in mountain big sagebrush ecosystems: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 144, p. 74–80. Ernst-Brock, C., Turner, L., Tausch, R.J., and Leger, E.A., 2019, Long-term vegetation responses to pinyon-juniper woodland reduction treatments in Nevada, USA: Journal of Environmental Management, v. 242, p. 315–326. Gallo, T., Stinson, L.T., and Pejchar, L., 2016, Pinyon-juniper removal has long-term effects on mammals: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 377, p. 93–100.

Havrilla, C.A., Faist, A.M., and Barger, N.N., 2017, Understory plant community responses to fuel-reduction treatments and seeding in an upland piñon-juniper woodland: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 5, p. 609–620. Johnston, A.N., Beever, E.A., Merkle, J.A., and Chong, G., 2018, Vegetation responses to sagebrush-reduction treatments measured by satellites: Ecological Indicators, v. 87, p. 66–76. Kerns, B.K., Day, M.A., and Ikeda, D., 2020, Long-term seeding outcomes in slash piles and skid trails after conifer removal: Forests, v. 11, no. 8, 14 p. [Also available at http s://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/2020/rmrs_2020_ kerns_b001.pdf.] Pierson, F.B., Williams, C.J., Kormos, P.R., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., Hardegree, S.P., and Clark, P.E., 2015, Short-term impacts of tree removal on runoff and erosion from pinyon- and juniper-dominated sagebrush hillslopes: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 5, p. 408–422. Reed-Dustin, C.M., Mata-González, R., and Rodhouse, T.J., 2016, Long-term fire effects on native and invasive grasses in protected area sagebrush steppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 4, p. 257–264. Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017, Restoring sage‐grouse nesting habitat through removal of early successional conifer: Restoration Ecology, v. 25, no. 6, p. 1026–1034. Urza, A.K., Weisberg, P.J., Chambers, J.C., Dhaemers, J.M., and Board, D., 2017, Post-fire vegetation response at the woodland-shrubland interface is mediated by the pre-fire community: Ecosphere, v. 8, no. 6, p. e01851. Williams, R.E., Roundy, B.A., Hulet, A., Miller, R.F., Tausch, R.J., Chambers, J.C., Matthews, J., Schooley, R., and Eggett, D., 2017, Pretreatment tree dominance and conifer removal treatments affect plant succession in sagebrush communities: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 6, p. 759–773.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 39 Wozniak, S.S., Strand, E.K., Johnson, T.R., Hulet, A., Roundy, B.A., and Young, K., 2020, Treatment longevity and changes in surface fuel loads after pinyon–juniper mastication: Ecosphere, v. 11, no. 8, 18 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3226.]

Next Step 9b Study the impacts of fire on conifer seed banks. NA.

Next Step 9c Synthesize findings from ongoing studies to collate and refine knowledge of initial and long-term understory plant response to treatment as a function of site characteristics and treatment method. Miller, R.F., Chambers, J.C., Evers, L., Williams, C.J., Snyder, K.A., Roundy, B.A., and Pierson, F.B., 2019, The ecology, history, ecohydrology, and management of pinyon and juniper woodlands in the Great Basin and Northern Colorado Plateau of the western United States: Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-403, 284 p. Miller, R.F., Chambers, J.C., and Pellant, M., 2015, A field guide for rapid assessment of post-wildfire recovery potential in sagebrush and piñon-juniper ecosystems in the Great Basin—Evaluating resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses and predicting vegetation response: Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-338, 70 p. Miller, R.F., Naugle, D.E., Maestas, J.D., Hagen, C.A., and Hall, G., 2017, Special Issue—Targeted woodland removal to recover at-risk grouse and their sagebrush-steppe and prairie ecosystems: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 1–8.

Next Step 9d Incorporate treatment economics and durability into decision-support models that consider large areas and include plant-cover attributes, location of priority wildlife habitat, and plant community resistance and resilience. Allen, C.R., Angeler, D.G., Cumming, G.S., Folke, C., Twidwell, D., and Uden, D.R., 2016, Quantifying spatial resilience: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 53, no. 3, p. 625–635.

Boyd, C.S., Kerby, J.D., Svejcar, T.J., Bates, J.D., Johnson, D.D., and Davies, K.W., 2017, The sage-grouse habitat mortgage—Effective conifer management in space and time: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 141–148. Farzan, S., Young, D.J.N., Dedrick, A.G., Hamilton, M., Porse, E.C., Coates, P.S., and Sampson, G., 2015, Western juniper management—Assessing strategies for improving greater sage-grouse habitat and rangeland productivity: Environmental Management, v. 56, no. 3, p. 675–683. LeBeau, C.W., Strickland, M.D., Johnson, G.D., and Frank, M.S., 2018, Landscape-scale approach to quantifying habitat credits for a greater sage-grouse habitat conservation bank: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 2, p. 149–158. Ricca, M.A., Coates, P.S., Gustafson, K.B., Brussee, B.E., Chambers, J.C., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C., Lisius, S., Ziegler, P., Delehanty, D.J., and Casazza, M.L., 2018, A conservation planning tool for greater sage-grouse using indices of species distribution, resilience, and resistance: Ecological Applications, v. 28, no. 4, p. 878–896.

Studies Related to Need 9, but Not Any of the Next Steps Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Ziegler, P., and Casazza, M.L., 2017, Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of greater sage-grouse: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 25–38. Creutzburg, M.K., Halofsky, J.E., Halofsky, J.S., and Christopher, T.A., 2015, Climate change and land management in the rangelands of central Oregon: Environmental Management, v. 55, no. 1, p. 43–55. Doherty, K.E., Hennig, J.D., Dinkins, J.B., Griffin, K.A., Cook, A.A., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., and Beck, J.L., 2018, Understanding biological effectiveness before scaling up range-wide restoration investments for Gunnison sagegrouse: Ecosphere, v. 9, no. 3, 18 p. Falkowski, M.J., Evans, J.S., Naugle, D.E., Hagen, C.A., Carleton, S.A., Maestas, J.D., Khalyani, A.H., Poznanovic, A.J., and Lawrence, A.J., 2017, Mapping tree canopy cover in support of proactive prairie grouse conservation in western North America: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 15–24.

40 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Gustafson, K.B., Coates, P.S., Roth, C.L., Chenaille, M.P., Ricca, M.A., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., and Casazza, M.L., 2018, Using object-based image analysis to conduct highresolution conifer extraction at regional spatial scales: International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, v. 73, p. 148–155. Naugle, D.E., Allred, B.W., Jones, M.O., Twidwell, D., and Maestas, J.D., 2020, Coproducing science to inform working lands—The next frontier in nature conservation: Bioscience, v. 70, no. 1, p. 90–96. Reinhardt, J.R., Filippelli, S., Falkowski, M., Allred, B., Maestas, J.D., Carlson, J.C., and Naugle, D.E., 2020, Quantifying pinyon-juniper reduction within North America’s sagebrush ecosystem: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 3, p. 420–432. Reinhardt, J.R., Naugle, D.E., Maestas, J.D., Allred, B., Evans, J., and Falkowski, M., 2017, Next‐generation restoration for sage‐grouse—A framework for visualizing local conifer cuts within a landscape context: Ecosphere, v. 8, no. 7, 18 p.

Restoration Need 10

Boyd, C.S., Davies, K.W., and Hulet, A., 2015, Predicting firebased perennial bunchgrass mortality in big sagebrush plant communities: International Journal of Wildland Fire, v. 24, no. 4, p. 527–533. Brummer, T.J., Taylor, K.T., Rotella, J., Maxwell, B.D., Rew, L.J., and Lavin, M., 2016, Drivers of Bromus tectorum abundance in the western North American sagebrush steppe: New York, Ecosystems, v. 19, no. 6, p. 986–1000. Chandler, D.G., Cheng, Y., Seyfried, M.S., Madsen, M.D., Johnson, C.E., and Williams, C.J., 2018, Seasonal wetness, soil organic carbon, and fire influence soil hydrological properties and water repellency in a sagebrush‐steppe ecosystem: Water Resources Research, v. 54, no. 10, p. 8514–8527. Cline, L.C., Zak, D.R., Upchurch, R.A., Freedman, Z.B., and Peschel, A.R., 2017, Soil microbial communities and elk foraging intensity—Implications for soil biogeochemical cycling in the sagebrush steppe: Ecology Letters, v. 20, no. 2, p. 202–211. Condon, L.A., and Gray, M.L., 2020, Not all fuel‐reduction treatments degrade biocrusts—Herbicides cause mostly neutral to positive effects on cover of biocrusts: Land Degradation & Development, v. 31, no. 13, p. 1727–1734.

Assess soil degradation and develop treatments, soil amendments, and other site-preparation techniques that enhance germination, establishment, and development of healthy sagebrush communities capable of resisting invasion by nonnative plant species.

Condon, L.A., Pietrasiak, N., Rosentreter, R., and Pyke, D.A., 2020, Passive restoration of vegetation and biological soil crusts following 80 years of exclusion from grazing across the Great Basin: Restoration Ecology, v. 28, no. S2, no. S2, p. S75–S85.

Next Step 10a

Condon, L.A., and Pyke, D.A., 2018a, Fire and grazing influence site resistance to Bromus tectorum through their effects on shrub, bunchgrass and biocrust communities in the Great Basin (USA): New York, Ecosystems, v. 21, no. 7, p. 1416–1431.

Assess soil degradation across sagebrush ecosystems with regards to fire, nonnative annual grass invasion, grazing, and other disturbances. Aanderud, Z.T., Bahr, J., Robinson, D.M., Belnap, J., Campbell, T.P., Gill, R.A., McMillian, B., and St. Clair, S., 2019, The burning of biocrusts facilitates the emergence of a bare soil community of poorly-connected chemoheterotrophic bacteria with depressed ecosystem services: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, v. 7, no. 467, p. 1–13. Bates, J.D., and Davies, K.W., 2017, Effects of conifer treatments on soil nutrient availability and plant composition in sagebrush steppe: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 400, p. 631–644. Blank, R.R., ClementsTye, C., and Harmon, M.D., 2017, Sagebrush wildfire effects on surface soil nutrient availability—A temporal and spatial study: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 81, no. 5, p. 1203–1210.

Condon, L.A., and Pyke, D.A., 2018b, Resiliency of biological soil crusts and vascular plants varies among morphogroups with disturbance intensity: Plant and Soil, v. 433, no. 1–2, p. 271–287. Condon, L.A., and Pyke, D.A., 2020, Components and predictors of biological soil crusts vary at the regional vs. plant community scales: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, v. 7, 10 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3389/ fevo.2019.00449.] Connell, L.C., Scasta, J.D., and Porensky, L.M., 2018, Prairie dogs and wildfires shape vegetation structure in a sagebrush grassland more than does rest from ungulate grazing: Ecosphere, v. 9, no. 8, 19 p.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 41 Davies, K.W., Bates, J.D., Boyd, C.S., and Svejcar, T.J., 2016, Pre-fire grazing by cattle increases post-fire resistance to exotic annual grass (Bromus tectorum) invasion and dominance for decades: Ecology and Evolution, v. 6, no. 10, p. 3356–3366. DeCrappeo, N.M., DeLorenze, E.J., Giguere, A.T., Pyke, D.A., and Bottomley, P.J., 2017, Fungal and bacterial contributions to nitrogen cycling in cheatgrass-invaded and uninvaded native sagebrush soils of the western USA: Plant and Soil, v. 416, no. 1–2, p. 271–281. Dierks, J., Denef, K., van Diepen, L.T.A., and de Graaff, M.-A., 2019, Cheatgrass-associated AMF community negatively affects sagebrush root production but not C transfer to the soil: Plant and Soil, v. 436, no. 1–2, p. 381–396. Edwards, B.L., Webb, N.P., Brown, D.P., Elias, E., Peck, D.E., Pierson, F.B., Williams, C.J., and Herrick, J.E., 2019, Climate change impacts on wind and water erosion on US rangelands: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 74, no. 4, p. 405–418. Fernelius, K.J., Madsen, M.D., Hopkins, B.G., Bansal, S., Anderson, V.J., Eggett, D.L., and Roundy, B.A., 2017, Post-fire interactions between soil water repellency, soil fertility and plant growth in soil collected from a burned piñon-juniper woodland: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 144, p. 98–109. Ferrenberg, S., Faist, A.M., Howell, A., and Reed, S.C., 2018, Biocrusts enhance soil fertility and Bromus tectorum growth, and interact with warming to influence germination: Plant and Soil, v. 429, no. 1–2, p. 77–90. Gasch, C.K., Huzurbazar, S.V., and Stahl, P.D., 2015, Smallscale spatial heterogeneity of soil properties in undisturbed and reclaimed sagebrush steppe: Soil & Tillage Research, v. 153, p. 42–47. Gasch, C.K., Huzurbazar, S.V., and Stahl, P.D., 2016, Description of vegetation and soil properties in sagebrush steppe following pipeline burial, reclamation, and recovery time: Geoderma, v. 265, p. 19–26. Jones, R.O., Chambers, J.C., Board, D.I., Johnson, D.W., and Blank, R.R., 2015a, The role of resource limitation in restoration of sagebrush ecosystems dominated by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): Ecosphere, v. 6, no. 7,21 p. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00285.1.] Jones, R., Chambers, J.C., Johnson, D.W., Blank, R.R., and Board, D.I., 2015b, Effect of repeated burning on plant and soil carbon and nitrogen in cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) dominated ecosystems: Plant and Soil, v. 386, no. 1–2, p. 47–64.

Leffler, A.J., Monaco, T.A., James, J.J., and Sheley, R.L., 2016, Importance of soil and plant community disturbance for establishment of Bromus tectorum in the Intermountain West, USA: NeoBiota, v. 30, p. 111–125. Minnick, T.J., and Alward, R.D., 2015, Plant–soil feedbacks and the partial recovery of soil spatial patterns on abandoned well pads in a sagebrush shrubland: Ecological Applications, v. 25, no. 1, p. 3–10. Morris, K.A., Stark, J.M., Bugbee, B., and Norton, J.M., 2016, The invasive annual cheatgrass releases more nitrogen than crested wheatgrass through root exudation and senescence: Oecologia, v. 181, no. 4, p. 971–983. Nouwakpo, S.K., Weltz, M., Hernandez, M., Champa, T., and Fisher, J., 2016, Performance of the rangeland hydrology and erosion model for runoff and erosion assessment on a semiarid reclaimed construction site: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 71, no. 3, p. 220–236. Nouwakpo, S.K., Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., Weltz, M.A., Kormos, P.R., Arslan, A., and Al-Hamdan, O.Z., 2020, Effectiveness of prescribed fire to re-establish sagebrush steppe vegetation and ecohydrologic function on woodlandencroached sagebrush rangelands, Great Basin, USA—Part II. Runoff and sediment transport at the patch scale: Catena, v. 185, 29 p. [Also available at https://digitalcommon s.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context= sagestep_articles.] Parsons, M.A., Barkley, T.C., Rachlow, J.L., Johnson‐ Maynard, J.L., Johnson, T.R., Milling, C.R., Hammel, J.E., and Leslie, I., 2016, Cumulative effects of an herbivorous ecosystem engineer in a heterogeneous landscape: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 3, 17 p. Peschel, A.R., Zak, D.R., Cline, L.C., and Freedman, Z., 2015, Elk, sagebrush, and saprotrophs—Indirect top-down control on microbial community composition and function: Ecology, v. 96, no. 9, p. 2383–2393. Pierson, F.B., Williams, C.J., Kormos, P.R., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., Hardegree, S.P., and Clark, P.E., 2015, Short-term impacts of tree removal on runoff and erosion from pinyon- and juniper-dominated sagebrush hillslopes: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 5, p. 408–422. Root, H.T., Miller, J.E.D., and Rosentreter, R., 2020, Grazing disturbance promotes exotic annual grasses by degrading soil biocrust communities: Ecological Applications, v. 30, no. 1, 10 p. Roundy, B.A., Farmer, M., Olson, J., Petersen, S., Nelson, D.R., Davis, J., and Vernon, J., 2017, Runoff and sediment response to tree control and seeding on a high soil erosion potential site in Utah—Evidence for reversal of an abiotic threshold: Ecohydrology, v. 10, no. 1, 9 p.

42 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Stark, J.M., and Norton, J.M., 2015, The invasive annual cheatgrass increases nitrogen availability in 24-year-old replicated field plots: Oecologia, v. 177, no. 3, p. 799–809. Swanson, J.C., Murphy, P.J., Swanson, S.R., Schultz, B.W., and McAdoo, J.K., 2018, Plant community factors correlated with Wyoming big sagebrush site responses to fire: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 1, p. 67–76. Tipton, C.Y., Ocheltree, T.W., Mueller, K.E., Turk, P., and Fernández‐Giménez, M.E., 2018, Revision of a state‐and‐ transition model to include descriptions of state functional attributes: Ecosphere, v. 9, no. 5, 16 p. Warren, S.D., St.Clair, L.L., Johansen, J.R., Kugrens, P., Baggett, L.S., and Bird, B.J., 2015, Biological soil crust response to late season prescribed fire in a Great Basin juniper woodland: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 68, no. 3, p. 241–247.

Duniway, M.C., Palmquist, E., and Miller, M.E., 2015, Evaluating rehabilitation efforts following the Milford Flat Fire—Successes, failures, and controlling factors: Ecosphere, v. 6, no. 5, 33 p. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00318.1.] Ravi, S., Gonzales, H.B., Buynevich, I.V., Li, J., Sankey, J.B., Dukes, D., and Wang, G., 2019, On the development of a magnetic susceptibility‐based tracer for aeolian sediment transport research: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 44, no. 2, p. 672–678.

Next Step 10d Further elucidate soil water and chemistry with plant establishment after fire.

Weber, C.F., 2015, Reduced vertical stratification of soil bacterial community structure and composition is associated with Bromus tectorum invasion of sagebrush steppe: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 115, p. 90–99.

Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., Kormos, P.R., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., Nouwakpo, S.K., and Weltz, M.A., 2019, Vegetation, hydrologic, and erosion responses of sagebrush steppe 9 years following mechanical tree removal: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 1, p. 47–68.

Roundy, B.A., Chambers, J.C., Pyke, D.A., Miller, R.F., Tausch, R.J., Schupp, E.W., Rau, B., and Gruell, T., 2018, Resilience and resistance in sagebrush ecosystems are associated with seasonal soil temperature and water availability: Ecosphere, v. 9, no. 9, 27 p.

Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., Robichaud, P.R., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., Boll, J., and Strand, E.K., 2016, Structural and functional connectivity as a driver of hillslope erosion following disturbance: International Journal of Wildland Fire, v. 25, no. 3, p. 306–321.

Next Step 10b Synthesize findings on effects of nonnative annual grass invasion and fire on soil biogeochemistry.

Next Step 10e

Havrilla, C.A., Chaudhary, V.B., Ferrenberg, S., Antoninka, A.J., Belnap, J., Bowker, M.A., Eldridge, D.J., Faist, A.M., Huber‐Sannwald, E., Leslie, A.D., Rodriguez‐Caballero, E., Zhang, Y., and Barger, N.N., 2019, Towards a predictive framework for biocrust mediation of plant performance—A meta‐analysis: Journal of Ecology, v. 107, no. 6, p. 2789–2807.

Continue developing water and wind-erosion models for post-fire environments in the sagebrush ecosystem.

Next Step 10c Investigate the extent and ecological impacts of wind erosion.

Duniway, M.C., Palmquist, E., and Miller, M.E., 2015, Evaluating rehabilitation efforts following the Milford Flat Fire—Successes, failures, and controlling factors: Ecosphere, v. 6, no. 5, 33 p. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00318.1.] Roehner, C., Pierce, J.L., and Yager, E.M., 2020, Spatial and temporal changes in aeolian redistribution of sediments and nutrients following fire: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 45, no. 11, p. 2556–2571.

Appendix 1. Literature Included in Scoring Next Steps for the Restoration Topic in the Actionable Science Plan 43 Vega, S.P., Williams, C.J., Brooks, E.S., Pierson, F.B., Strand, E.K., Robichaud, P.R., Brown, R.E., Seyfried, M.S., Lohse, K.A., Glossner, K., Pierce, J.L., and Roehner, C., 2020, Interaction of wind and cold‐season hydrologic processes on erosion from complex topography following wildfire in sagebrush steppe: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 45, no. 4, p. 841–861. Wagenbrenner, N.S., Chung, S.H., and Lamb, B.K., 2017, A large source of dust missing in particulate matter emission inventories? Wind erosion of post-fire landscapes: Elementa, v. 5, 10 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.1525/elementa.185.] Williams, C.J., Johnson, J.C., Pierson, F.B., Burleson, C.S., Polyakov, V.O., Kormos, P.R., and Nouwakpo, S.K., 2020a, Long-term effectiveness of tree removal to re-establish sagebrush steppe vegetation and associated spatial patterns in surface conditions and soil hydrologic properties: Basel, Water, v. 12, no. 8, 35 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w12082213.] Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., Kormos, P.R., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., and Johnson, J.C., 2020b, Vegetation, ground cover, soil, rainfall simulation, and overland-flow experiments before and after tree removal in woodland-encroached sagebrush steppe—The hydrology component of the sagebrush steppe treatment evaluation project (SageSTEP): Earth System Science Data, v. 12, no. 2, p. 1347–1365. Williams, C.J., Pierson, F.B., Nouwakpo, S.K., Al-Hamdan, O.Z., Kormos, P.R., and Weltz, M.A., 2020c, Effectiveness of prescribed fire to re-establish sagebrush steppe vegetation and ecohydrologic function on woodland-encroached sagebrush rangelands, Great Basin, USA: Part I: Vegetation, hydrology, and erosion responses: Catena, v. 185, 29 p.

Next Step 10f Develop restoration tools that incorporate soil properties in reestablishing plant communities. Antoninka, A., Faist, A., Rodriguez‐Caballero, E., Young, K.E., Chaudhary, V.B., Condon, L.A., and Pyke, D.A., 2020, Biological soil crusts in ecological restoration— Emerging research and perspectives: Restoration Ecology, v. 28, no. S2, no. S2, p. S3–S8. Barnard, D.M., Germino, M.J., Arkle, R.S., Bradford, J.B., Duniway, M.C., Pilliod, D.S., Pyke, D.A., Shriver, R.K., and Welty, J.L., 2019, Soil characteristics are associated with gradients of big sagebrush canopy structure after disturbance: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 6, 12 p. Bates, J.D., and Davies, K.W., 2017, Data set on the effects of conifer control and slash burning on soil carbon, total N, organic matter and extractable micro-nutrients: Data in Brief, v. 14, p. 515–523.

Blumenthal, D.M., LeCain, D.R., and Augustine, D.J., 2017, Composted manure application promotes long-term invasion of semi-arid rangeland by Bromus tectorum: Ecosphere, v. 8, no. 10, 12 p. Campos, X., Germino, M.J., and de Graaff, M.-A., 2017, Enhanced precipitation promotes decomposition and soil C stabilization in semiarid ecosystems, but seasonal timing of wetting matters: Plant and Soil, v. 416, no. 1–2, p. 427–436. Freund, S.M., Soper, F.M., Poulson, S.R., Selmants, P.C., and Sullivan, B.W., 2018, Actinorhizal species influence plant and soil nitrogen status of semiarid shrub-dominated ecosystems in the western Great Basin, USA: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 157, p. 48–56. Loik, M.E., Griffith, A.B., Alpert, H., Concilio, A.L., Wade, C.E., and Martinson, S.J., 2015, Impact of intra- versus inter-annual snow depth variation on water relations and photosynthesis for two Great Basin Desert shrubs: Oecologia, v. 178, no. 2, p. 403–414. Palmquist, K.A., Bradford, J.B., Martyn, T.E., Schlaepfer, D.R., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2018, STEPWAT2—An individual‐based model for exploring the impact of climate and disturbance on dryland plant communities: Ecosphere, v. 9, no. 8, 23 p. Schwabedissen, S.G., Lohse, K.A., Reed, S.C., Aho, K.A., and Magnuson, T.S., 2017, Nitrogenase activity by biological soil crusts in cold sagebrush steppe ecosystems: Biogeochemistry, v. 134, no. 1–2, p. 57–76.

Studies Related to Need 10, but Not Any of the Next Steps Boyd, C.S., Davies, K.W., and Lemos, J.A., 2017, Influence of soil color on seedbed microclimate and seedling demographics of a perennial bunchgrass: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 5, p. 621–624. Condon, L.A., and Pyke, D.A., 2016, Filling the interspace— Restoring arid land mosses—Source populations, organic matter, and overwintering govern success: Ecology and Evolution, v. 6, no. 21, p. 7623–7632. Garbowski, M., Brown, C.S., and Johnston, D.B., 2020, Soil amendment interacts with invasive grass and drought to uniquely influence aboveground versus belowground biomass in arid land restoration: Restoration Ecology, v. 28, no. S1, no. S1, p. A13–A23. Johnston, D.B., and Garbowski, M., 2020, Responses of native plants and downy brome to a water-conserving soil amendment: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 1, p. 19–29.

44 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20 Kulmatiski, A., Adler, P.B., Stark, J.M., and Tredennick, A.T., 2017, Water and nitrogen uptake are better associated with resource availability than root biomass: Ecosphere, v. 8, no. 3, 10 p.

Palmquist, K.A., Schlaepfer, D.R., Bradford, J.B., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2016b, Spatial and ecological variation in dryland ecohydrological responses to climate change— Implications for management: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 11, 20 p.

Niemeyer, R.J., Heinse, R., Link, T.E., Seyfried, M.S., Klos, P.Z., Williams, C.J., and Nielson, T., 2017, Spatiotemporal soil and saprolite moisture dynamics across a semi-arid woody plant gradient: Journal of Hydrology, v. 544, p. 21–35.

Williams, C.J., Snyder, K.A., and Pierson, F.B., 2018, Spatial and temporal variability of the impacts of pinyon and juniper reduction on hydrologic and erosion processes across climatic gradients in the western US—A regional synthesis: Basel, Water, v. 10, no. 11, 44 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111607.]

Palmquist, K.A., Schlaepfer, D.R., Bradford, J.B., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2016a, Mid-latitude shrub steppe plant communities—Climate change consequences for soil water resources: Ecology, v. 97, no. 9, p. 2342–2354.

For information about the research in this report, contact Director, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center 777 NW 9th Street Suite 400 Corvallis, OR 97330 https://www.usgs.gov/centers/forest-and-rangeland-ecosystem- science-center Manuscript approved on January 19, 2023 Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Science Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

Anthony and others—Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Restoration, 2015–20—OFR 2023–1004

ISSN 2331-1258 (online) https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20231004

Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Completion Assessment: Restoration Topic, 2015–20

Related documents