ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

OR
AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT

AND RANGELAND CONDITION

S. Goodrich, Jan. 1996

There are other problems with the term "ecosystem management". Ecosystems are quite difficult to delineate. Delineations on maps or on the ground do not include components such as the sun, climate and weather. The delineation of an ecosystem on the ground might infer independence of that system from surrounding ecosystems which is hardly the case. Ecosystem management seems to be a concept more than a practice. If properly applied it might be a useful concept. Applying this concept might be considered "an ecological approach to management" in which data about ecosystem components is gathered and assembled in such a way that it is available to make management decisions. These decisions will likely have more to with managing human activities, vegetation, and wildlife than they will with total ecosystem management. Thus when it comes to practices and actual management the term" ecological approach to management" seems more appropriate than does "ecosystem management".

An ecological approach requires an understanding of values and inherent capabilities of specific land units. This approach to management seems to coincide with the concepts proposed by the Task Group on Unity in Concepts and Terminology (1995) [Task Group (1995)] in which evaluations of rangelands should be made from the basis of the same land unit. Plant communities likely to occur on a site should be evaluated for protection of that site against accelerated erosion (Task Group 1995). Desired plant communities need to be identified that meet land use goals and that are consistent with site capabilities (Olson and Burkhardt 1992; Task Group 1995). This approach seems to parallel the viewpoint expressed by Scarnecchia (1995) for a rangeland condition concept in which different ecological theories and field data are interchangeable components to be applied locally on appropriate, specific areas. Scarnecchia (1995) further stated that isolation of the concept can be accomplished by limiting the concept of range condition to an objective function. The concept of an objective or goal driven desired plant community has also been suggested by Borman and Pyke (1994). Goals and objectives are very much a function of values including consumptive and non consumptive values. At least some of these values need to be known to take ecological approach to management. A contrasting approach to management might be to draft standard criteria and apply it to all lands when monitoring, planning, and managing. Such a concept has appeal when faced with low budgets. It also has great appeal when busy managers prefer to focus on management of organizations rather than management of natural resources. A point can be made that standard criteria might be developed for monitoring that would not imply standards for planning and management. However, monitoring should be the basis for planning and management. Thus criteria for monitoring becomes criteria for planning and management.

Components of an ecological approach to management might include the following: classification, inventory, capabilities of land units, values of land units, a published decision stating desired condition, actions to achieve desired condition, and monitoring to see if these actions were taken, and monitoring to see if desired condition was achieved by those actions, and continued monitoring to see if the desired condition and associated actions are appropriate over time.

Classification helps define land units and is necessary before land can be inventoried. Inventory gives location and size of individual land units and indicate relationships of one land unit to others.

To define capabilities, information about features of land units is needed. How do geology and geomorphology influence resources and activities? What is the precipitation regime of the area? What does the soil indicate about potential and other site features? What is known about fire regime of the area? What plants grow there? How do plant communities respond to disturbance? How do various animals of the area relate to composition and structure of plant communities that are capable of occupying the area? What is the potential for ground cover? Potential for ground cover becomes critical to understanding site conservation thresholds. What studies or other information already exists that pertains to particular land units? Repeat photography and notes of 40 years by Sharp et al. (1990) in Idaho demonstrates the need for long term studies in order to understand the dynamic nature of some rangelands.

To define capabilities requires studies, literature search, and documented observations of land features. This process parallels the concept of the "ecological site description" as defined by the Task Group (1995). This group recognized that understanding of features that characterize a site or land unit is necessary for planning, managing, and monitoring resources.

Values are indicated by past, present, and emerging uses of land units. Both consumptive and nonconsumptive (intrinsic, existent) uses indicate value. Wildlife uses as well as human uses indicate values. Objections to the idea that values are equated to use are understandable. However, it is not important to debate this. It should be sufficient to recognize intrinsic values are important.

There is great need to define desired plant community or desired condition which will provide criteria on which to validate status of the land. Failure to do so was recognized by Olsen and Burkhardt (1992) as a common deficiency in allotment management plans on public lands. Without this, management actions and subsequent monitoring lack focus. Desired condition must be within the range of conditions that is realistic. Tall grass prairie should not be expected on desert shrub lands. This may sound absurd, but subconsciously or wishfully it seems to happen. Having a classification and inventory, and having an idea of land capabilities, and values can greatly contribute to defining realistic desired conditions or desired plant communities.

Popular elements or driving forces for desired condition have included "natural", pre-settlement, and climax vegetation. It seems natural, pre-settlement, and climax are sometimes advocated as superior or most valid because they not based on values. However, is advocacy of natural, pre-settlement, and climax value free? Were conditions prior to European settlement free of values? It seems we humans sometimes fix our eyes on a wildland scene at a point in time and declare to ourselves this is wonderful and of course natural. Then we seem to resist any change from that point in time as bad. Perhaps the romantic aura of "natural" is value driven. Perhaps nostalgia as much as anything else is the basis for this value. This is well displayed in the idea that conditions prior to European settlement are equal to natural. It seems that within this concept native Americans have been portrayed in total harmony with the environment where they had ultimate respect for resources and wasted nothing. Although it seems few are eager to champion these ideas on a professional basis, they still seem to be extremely prevalent within public opinion. Perhaps native Americans were subject to hunger and cold and sometimes did what was expedient to obtain food and fiber like drive hundreds of buffalo over jumps. Perhaps more buffalo were taken than could be used at one time. Perhaps sometimes they used fire to thwart an enemy and not for ecological reasons.

"Natural" is matter of opinion. Opinion is very real to each person who has one. The worth of people or of a person gives validity to opinion. Thus "natural" should not be taken lightly. However, a romantic fantasy emerges from this concept when it is implied to be value free, and thus sacred, above, or of greater validity than conditions based on values. The concept of natural is very much value driven. The above discussion does not include the concept of "potential natural community" as defined by Range Inventory Standardization Committee, Society for Range Management (1983). This concept is rooted in the theories of climax as discussed below.

Pre-settlement conditions are subject to much interpretation, and often the effect of populations prior European settlement are unknown or have been left out of the equation. Perhaps the idea of pre-settlement = natural would not be so appealing if pre-settlment conditions were known. There were pre-settlement conditions. This is not fantasy. However, there are problems to basing management on these conditions when there is so much unknown about these conditions. Fantasy emerges when pre-settlement conditions are inferred to be a standard for desired condition. This approach does not provide for different and changing values of diverse and changing populations of people.

It seems that undisturbed climax plant communities or potential natural communities are often assumed to be "the best" and therefore automatically desired. The idea that climax is universally desired might not come from trained ecologists or biologists. However, this assumption seems to have deep roots in popular romantic movements. However, this romantic stance is sometimes stood on end when faced with some realities. If one of the values of a forested landscape is goshawk habitat, then "old growth", climax subalpine fir forests might not be as desirable as seral communities of aspen and lodgepole pine. If a value for a rocky canyon is wild sheep habitat, then long-term occupancy of the canyon by dense stands of pinyon and juniper might not be desired condition.

There is much criticism of climax, equilibrium, and stable concepts based on climatic change over geological time. This is not a point in this paper. As stated by Padgett et al. (1989), potential change in vegetation over several thousands years is beyond the scope of current resource management. For the purposes of this paper, stability of sufficient length to base management decisions and make interpretations in monitoring studies is important. Although the concept of stable communities of this time scale seem very applicable to some coniferous forests, universal application of these concepts might not be appropriate.

To define capabilities of land units, it is important to recognize certain plants have greater capacity to command the resources of a site and thereby assert dominance. The concept of climax facilitates an understanding of dominance or ability to dominate. A basic concept of habitat types is the aggregation of land units capable of supporting similar climax communities. These classifications can be useful to resource managers for partitioning lands and for structuring management recommendations (Mueggler & Campbell 1986). Many habitat types based climax community concept have been developed for coniferous forests including those of Pfister et al. (1977), Steele et al. (1981), and Mauk & Henderson (1984). Habitat types have also been developed for some of the sagebrush steppe (Hironaka et al. (1983).

However, the habitat type concept based on climax, stability or equilibrium, becomes problematic in aspen, riparian, and pinyon-juniper communities. Some of the problems are due to human induced disturbance (Muggler and Campbell 1986, Padgett et al. 1989). Others are a function of inherent environmental conditions such as frequent floods and changes in water channels in riparian systems (Padgett et al. 1989). Hironaka (1987) pointed out difficulties of using climax in classification of pinyon-juniper. In this case the apparent climax is so extremely oppressive and of such low diversity that it does not facilitate classification, but has the opposite effect of covering up differences and making diverse lands look the same. These problems do not discount climax theory for these vegetation types. However, they do present real difficulties in using these theories to define desired condition.

The concept that successional trajectory will always lead to a single stable plant community that might be considered climatic climax has been seriously questioned (Borman and Pyke 1994, Task group 1995, Tausch et al. 1993, Johnson and Mayeux 1992). Forty years of notes and repeat photography by Sharp et al. (1990) in a desert shrub community in southern Idaho demonstrates the unsteady and dynamic nature of some lands. Although there appeared to be a successional trend toward a shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) community, high frequency of change due to weather, insects, and other features was indicated in which there is hardly to be found a steady state. Nelson et al. (1989) displayed a series of observed shadscale dieoffs in the Great Basin over a 57 year period associated with below normal precipitation. The mean dieoff interval was about 10 years. In this case, stability if present at all, is likely to be shorter than the life of a management plan. Problems of using climax theories to define desired condition seem to be multiplied when trying to apply them to some cold desert shrub communities and other semiarid and arid lands.

The concept of climax, qualified by an appropriate time scale, can be a very useful in planing and management at least in some areas. However, the inference of precision in succession and in stable states for all land units is problematic. A fantasy emerges when climax is inferred as the universal desired condition.

Climax, pre-settlement, and "natural" are reference points in a range of conditions and values that can be considered in decisions of desired condition. However, the questions of best for what or desired for what points again to the need to define capabilities and values of specific land units.

This approach to management on public lands is indicated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Quick, easy, or rapid assessments based on standard criteria are not indicated by this act. Decisions of desired condition or desired plant community can be expected to be appealed and taken to court. The needed input from hydrologists, soil scientists, range conservations, foresters, ecologists, and others is to define inherent capabilities and features of numerous specific land units. Values are expected to vary with varied publics. Values should be evaluated in terms of capabilities. After decisions of desired condition are made and implemented, monitoring is needed to check effectiveness and validity of the decision over time.

EXAMPLES FROM THE ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST OF USING THE DESIRED CONDITION OR DESIRED PLANT COMMUNITY CONCEPT IN AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT

YELLOWSTONE CREEK EXAMPLE

TAVAPUTS PLATEAU EXAMPLE

Classification, inventory, and capabilities were inherent in the decision but were not a formal part of it. These were determined as a function of value. Identified was canyon bottomlands with obviously deeper soils than adjacent slopes where potential production was higher and which were suitable for cattle grazing. Inventory was largely made with the plow.

Later, two landtype phases were identified by formal classification and were inventoried. There is a phase where materials are washed from steep side slopes of an adjacent landtype that is inherently highly erosive. Salina wildrye is well adapted to these erosive slopes. As materials are washed from these slopes they move more or less perpendicular across drainage bottoms where they form fans. Included in these materials are seeds of Salina wildrye and other plants well adapted to disturbance which are planted in a fresh seed bed of new alluvium. Another landtype phase is on the wider, flat bottoms where deposition is parallel the drainages. Both landtype phases were plowed and seeded in the early 1960s. By the 1990s the seeding on the fans had been 70-90% covered with alluvium and seeded species were replaced by native species including Salina wildrye. On the bottom land type, seeded species persisted as dominants or at least as understory dominants with sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush.

Classification and inventory of landtypes were not available in the 1960s when the seeding was planed and completed. The data base did not include an indication of how rapid deposition was on the fans. By the 1990s classification and inventory was available, and monitoring studies which documented contrasting status of the seeding on the two landtype phases or landforms contributed to the data base. Based on classification, inventory, land capabilities, values, and monitoring, emphasis changed in the 1990s. Instead of trying to provide highly preferred forage by seeding the fans, emphasis changed to making cattle use Salina Wildrye which was abundant there. Desired plant community of the fans changed from one dominated by seeded species to one dominated by Salina wildrye. This change was based on inherent features of the land and economic values. Had a more complete data base been available, this might have been the decision in the 1960s. Without monitoring and learning from the action of the 1960s, a repeat would be more likely. Without considering geomorphic processes and succession of plants associated with these processes, livestock grazing would likely have been considered the primary factor of vegetation change. While grazing had some influence, this was extremely minor compared to geomorphic processes.

Additional observations and studies indicate a need for greater refinement of the classification and inventory of this canyon bottom landtype. New values have emerged. Elk were absent or rare in the 1960s. They were relatively abundant by the 1990s. Analysis based on a landscape approach in the 1990s, validates the value of these bottoms for ungulate forage with adjacent side slopes providing cover for wildlife. To provide for future decisions, the data base has to remain active. Perhaps we do not like things to change, but somehow they seem to anyway.

ANTELOPE FLAT EXAMPLE

This landtype was identified as Quaternary bench or pediment gravels associated with the Green River with Wyoming big sagebrush/needle-and-thread grass as the dominant community type.

Features of the landtype include the following:

• Elevation varies from 5440 (Taylor Flat) to 6200 ft on the Flaming Gorge National Recreation area and probably up to 6700 ft on BLM lands.
• Soils are Aridisols which indicate lower production and less ground cover than are indicated by Mollisols. Several studies on the landtype indicate potential for ground cover is between 55 and 65%. Thus 35-45% bare ground is an inherent condition.
• Annual precipitation is about 9-10 inches/year which also indicates lower production and ground cover than in areas where mollisols are common.
• Plant communities over much of the area including areas away from water and in exclosures are dominated by 1 shrub species, 1-3 graminoids. Forbs are few and mostly infrequent. What should be expected with only 9-10 inches of precipitation? These are some inherent conditions that must be considered in a realistic approach to management.
• Mule deer and antelope make extensive use of this landtype. A tagging study of the 1980s (data on file at Utah Division of Wildlife Resources North Eastern Region, Vernal Utah) indicates large numbers of mule deer migrate to this landtype for winter range. Deer with radio collars were found to travel over 50 miles to the west in the Uinta Mountains and return again to the Talyor flat unit of this landtype for winter.
• Wyoming big sagebrush is closely hedged over most of the landtype. It is the only plant of abundance that is easily available when snow covers the ground. One may argue that bitterbrush or something else would be better. However, bitterbrush has not adapted to this landtype. Many more deer and antelope in Daggett County winter here than where bitterbrush is abundant. A wish for browse other than sagebrush on this landtype would seem to ignore the value of sagebrush. The nearly universal close hedging of sagebrush on this landtype is evidence of its value. The wintergreen (or wintergray) sagebrush provides winter forage that is comparatively high in protein, phosphorus and other nutrients important to winter diets of deer and antelope (Welch 1989). High percent of sagebrush in diets of deer and antelope have been documented in other areas (Ngugi et al. 1993, Hansen and Reid (1975); Welch and Wagstaff 1992).
• Sage grouse are also known on some units of this landtype. Sagebrush is an important part of sage grouse habitat both as forage and as cover (Call and Maser 1985). Sagebrush contributes to structural diversity of plant communities which is important to small birds and mammals.
• Exclosures and variations of ungulate use also tell something about features of the landtype. With 30 years of protection of all ungulate use at the Lucerne Exclosure, Wyoming big sagebrush was about 2 ft tall with crown cover at about 22%. Outside this exclosure, sagebrush was about 1 ft tall with crown cover at 11%. With 10 years of protection from all ungulates at the BLM Omni Exclosure at Taylor Flat, canopy cover of sagebrush was 15%. Where cattle were excluded but where deer had access canopy cover of sagebrush was 12%. After 20 years of exclusion of cattle and close hedging by mule deer, live canopy cover of sagebrush was less than 5% at Taylor flat and about 10% where cattle had been grazed in spring and early summer. Studies and observations indicate ground cover and dispersion of ground cover has less watershed value with high cover of sagebrush than with high cover of grass. Studies on the landtype indicate ground cover near potential with sagebrush between 5-10% canopy cover and high cover of perennial grasses have all been maintained with wild ungulate and moderate cattle use for many years.

It is important to consider management implications associated with high or low cover of sagebrush. No or little sagebrush indicates low values for antelope, mule deer, sage grouse, and other sagebrush associated fauna and high values for cattle forage. Very high cover of sagebrush might indicate high values for sage grouse, but this will not be achieved without greatly reducing antelope and mule deer populations that winter here. High sagebrush cover also indicates reduced ground cover or at least dispersion of ground cover that will be of lower watershed value than when grass cover is high. High watershed values are favored by deer and antelope. Studies on the landtype indicate high values for watershed, deer and antelope can be maintained with some cattle grazing. Recreation values for this landtype are highly related to wildlife values. Cattle grazing can be used to increase sagebrush cover and thus sustain higher populations of mule deer and antelope. Enhancement of sagebrush by cattle grazing can also improve values for sage grouse and other sagebrush associated species. Watershed values are higher with low to moderate canopy cover of sagebrush and a vigorous understory. The landtype is probably highly suitable for housing development, shopping malls, and more roads. However, it is mostly on public land where administrative mandates currently limit the need to consider these values. Desired condition for this landtype could be simply stated in canopy cover of sagebrush, dominate species in the understory, and percent ground cover. These parameters address many watershed, wildlife, recreation, domestic livestock grazing, and other values. No matter what is decided for desired condition some values will be favored over others.

A view of the values of this land unit and management implications strongly support the prescription of Winward (1991) for productive and diverse Wyoming big sagebrush communities. His prescription is for Wyoming big sagebrush canopy cover of less than 12%. Numerous studies on the Antelope Flat Landtype 1 indicated canopy cover of sagebrush between 5-11% is associated with a vigorous understory. With this short prescription by Winward (1991), desired condition based on wildlife, recreation, and livestock values is very well defined. A lower limit of 5% canopy cover of sagebrush might be added to the prescription of desired condition. This parameter is value driven. For below this limit, the presence of sagebrush appears to be threatened or at least its value for structural diversity for small birds and mammals and as forage for wild ungulates is greatly reduced.

Based on capabilities and values, desired condition might be defined as: sagebrush canopy cover of 5-12% with the understory dominated by perennial gramionids of moderate to high value for watershed protection and ungulate forage with ground cover at least 85% of potential. How does this relate to rapid assessments? Getting here was no rapid assessment. However, once this decision is made, rapid assessments are possible. It takes little time to validate sagebrush canopy cover, dominant understory species, and ground cover. These can be done by occular inspection. With some validation of satellite imagery, canopy cover of sagebrush could likely be monitored by a computerized geographic information system. Perhaps ground cover could be monitored the same way.

The above desired condition is based on capabilities and values. There is no reference to pre-settlement, climax, natural, or romantic fantasies. The challenge should be to coordinate values with capabilities. Where climax, pre-settement, and natural are known they can be used in the data base, for they can be helpful to understanding capabilities and values.

Only brief mention is made of small birds and mammals associated with sagebrush. Considerable mention is made of antelope, deer, and cattle. This might be disappointing to those who feel smaller species have been routinely left out of management decisions. However, it is deer, antelope, and cattle that are driving plant community dynamics. Status of shrub cover and structural diversity and related understory composition and vigor are functions of ungulates more so than of small mammals and birds. However, the needs of these species are addressed. What do these animals respond more to than vegetative cover and structure and forage provided there in? Habitat for these species is included in desired condition. It is the management of ungulates that is needed to achieve these conditions. Admittedly desired condition proposed here has been designed more on the values of deer and antelope than for sage grouse or other species associated with high cover of sagebrush. However, sagebrush of greater cover is common in nearby mountain big sagebrush communities above this important winter range of deer and antelope. These nearby areas support a greater abundance of succulent forbs which are important to sage grouse in the nesting and brooding seasons (Barnett and Crawford 1994; Drut et al. 1994). Considering a large scale assessment, it seems appropriate to favor deer and antelope on this land unit of critical winter range.

Indicated actions are cattle grazing in the spring and control of deer and antelope populations to maintain sagebrush cover. No burning, herbicide, or other treatment to reduce sagebrush is needed. It has not been uncommon for administrators and range conservations new to the area to propose such treatments without realizing the values of sagebrush on this landtype.

PINYON-JUNIPER EXAMPLE

Some of the inherent variability of this belt includes, sagebrush stands being replaced by the advance of pinyon-junper, recently burned stands that have been seeded with introduce species, older burns some of which were seeded and some that were not, mid seral stands where mountain mahogany/bluebunch wheatgass communities are being replaced by pinyon-juniper, mature stands of pinyon-juniper, and some old stands of pinyon-junper with large interspaces of bare ground.

Bird surveys in this area show a relatively high number of birds and a high number of bird species nest in old pinyon-juniper stands. Those who like to do bird surveys are excited when they work in these stands. The lack of understory vegetation and the large interspaces of bare soil seem to be accepted within desired condition based on values of these stands for birds.

Big game biologists are excited when they see recently burned stands with vigorous sprouting mountain mahogany and with an abundance of alfalfa. Perhaps, hydrologist are not always excited with introduced species, but they are generally satisfied with the high percent of ground cover achieved by burning and seeding.

Ecologists and big game biologists are encouraged when they see fire applied to mid seral stands where with burning a rich native community of mountain mahogany and bluebunch wheatgrass is accompanied by some 50 native species. They recognize this might be a lost opportunity where old stands of pinyon-juniper have killed understory species and where cheatgrass and not a native community is almost certain to follow disturbance.

Capabilities and values of this landscape indicate a different approach to desired condition than used in the previous example of Antelope Flat. A variety of seral stages is indicated to accommodate a variety of values. Watershed values may have to take a back seat to bird values in some places. Bird values will likely have to be second to other values in other places. Let climax be desired condition under mandate for fire suppression, and the whole landscape could become old pinyon-juniper. Let "natural" be desired condition and watch the conservation go in circles for weeks without a decision. Capabilities and values provide a another approach that will not be easy but will likely provide better focus.

Based on a variety of values, different seral stages represented at any point in time is indicated as desired condition. How does standard criteria universally applied to all land fit here? Certainly not to define desired condition. Classification, inventory, capabilities, and values are needed. Once desired condition is defined, rapid assessment might be made. If desired condition was defined as 25% of the 20,000 acres at 4 different seral stages through time, then rapid assessments might be made by satellite imagery and geographic information systems.

BADLANDS AND DESERT EXAMPLES

Due to the vastly different capabilities of geologic badlands and deserts compared to montane sagebrush, aspen and other communities, the application of standard criteria is difficult.

The Duchesne River Formation of the Uinta Basin between Vernal and Roosevelt, Utah inherently weathers to semi-barrens or badlands. Based on standard criteria that is intended to be applied across many landscapes, these semi-barrens are likely to be classed as poor, unsatisfactory, non functional, naturally unhealthy, or something else that indicates things are wrong here. This classification or determination of condition or trend will indicate planning and management should fix it. However, 140 years of botanical work indicates something else. In 1844 John Charles Fremont collected Gilia stenothyrsa which is an northeastern Utah endemic which often grows on barrens (Welsh et al. 1993). The type locality given by Fremont indicates he collected it from the Duchesne River Formation. On the same trip, Fremont collected Penstemon fremontii which is a Uinta Basin Endemic that grows on the Duchesne River Formation. Fremont was followed by a series of botanists including Marcus E. Jones who in 1908 collected Cymopterus duchesnensis which does well on semi-barrens of the Duchesne River Formation. As late as 1995, Artemisia nova var. duchesnicola was named for its affinity for semi-barrens of this formation. There are at least 16 rather narrow endemic plants known from the Duchesne River Formation. Many of these plants not only endure the rigors of these barrens, but they are dependent upon them. For here they are insulated from the competition of vigorous species that tend to form closed stands. The evolutionary ecology of these endemic plants indicate these soils have been raw and eroding for thousands of years and not just since European settlement. Is the ecosystem of the Duchesne River Formation non functional, inherently unhealthy, or in bad or poor condition because there is a lot of bare, eroding soil and pedicled plants? If endemic plants have value and are part of desired condition, then raw, eroding slopes, and pedicled plants are good, desired, and indicate a functional ecosystem. In the case of the Duchesne River Formation, should management decisions be based on standard criteria which is hopefully to be applied to all lands, or should over 140 years of botanical work and the values of endemic plants be given consideration? In contrast, productive montane sagebrush and aspen communities provide little if any habitat for endemic plants. Should they be rated in the negative, for this reason?

Standard rangeland evaluation criteria will be difficult to apply to ephemeral species of warm deserts where seeds of different species are ecologically programed to sprout and grow in response to different timing and amounts of precipitation in association with varied temperatures. A kaleidoscope and not stability is seen among years and seasons depending on weather. Standard criteria based on more stable vegetation of short or tall grass plains and mountain meadows will likely infer this magnificent feature of warm deserts is badly in need of repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessments based on standard criteria might detract from learning about capabilities, and values. If so, they are not only doomed to fail, but will stifle the ecological approach to management. Where management is based on desired condition, rapid assessments might be a useful tool to validate management decisions and practices. However, such assessments can only be made after desired condition is defined, and this is not a quick, easy, cheap, nor rapid process. The requirements of NEPA indicate the need for such a process. This process parallels the concepts set forth by the Task Group (1995). Such a process could facilitate following the multiple-use Sustained Yield Act. We feel the time has come to apply an ecological approach to management with a focus on desired condition based on site capabilities and values.

Critics can well point out this process could be used to justify local conditions that have been caused by poor management. However, this criticism is addressed in the NEPA process where decisions of desired condition for public lands are subject to public review, input, and appeal.

Proponents of standard criteria for monitoring might feel that standard criteria for monitoring does not imply standard criteria for planning and management. However, monitoring should be the basis for planning and management. Thus criteria for monitoring becomes criteria for planning and management.

The desired condition approach does not provide standard criteria to be universally applied. However it can provide a general adaptable approach to land use planning, management, and monitoring. Perhaps there is an element of fantasy to this approach. It will require great commitment to gather site specific information for numerous land units. Synthesis of this information into data bases that will support landscape scale assessments as well as project level work will also require commitment. Impatiences and budget constraints do indicate an element of fantasy. However, options of the past indicate confusion and frustration. Standard criteria universally applied to all lands may sound appealing when considering budgets. However, advice from a good broker might be applicable. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't.

LITERATURE CITED

Borman, M. M., and D. A. Pyke. 1994. Successional theory and the desired plant community approach. Rangelands 16: 82-84.

Call, M. W., and C. Maser. Sage grouse. In: Wildlife habitats in managed range- lands--the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-120. USDA Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Portland, Oregon.

Drut, M. S., W. H. Pyle, and Crawford, J. A. 1994. Technical Note: Diets and food selection of sage grouse chicks in Oregon. J. Range Manage. 47:90-93.

ECOMAP. 1993. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. Unpublished administrative paper. USDA Forest Serv., Washington, DC.

Godfrey, A. E. 1977. A physiographic approach to land use planning. Environmental Geology. 2:43-50.

Godfrey, A. E., and Cleaves, E. T. 1991. Landscape analysis: theoretical considerations and practical needs. Environ. geol. Water Sci. 17: 141-155.

Hironaka, M., and M. A. Fosberg, and A. H. Winward. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types of southern Idaho. Bulletin no. 35. Univ. of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Sta., Moscow, Idaho.

Hironaka, M. 1987. Classification of the pinyon-juniper vegetation type. In: proceedings-pinyon-juniper conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. USDA Forest Serv., Intermountain Research Sta., Ogden, Utah.

Hansen, R. M., and L. D. Ried. 1975. Diet overlap of deer, elk, and cattle in southern Colorado. J. Range Manage. 28:43-47

Johnson, H. B., and H. S. Mayeux. 1992. Viewpoint: a view on species additions and deletions and the balance of nature. J. Range Manage. 45: 322-333.

McNab, W. H., and P. E. Avers. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: section descriptions. WO-WSA-5. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Mauk, R. L.; Henderson, J. A. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah. Research Paper. INT-170. USDA For. Serv., Intermountain Res. Sta. Ogden Utah.

Mueggler, W. F.; Campbell, R. B. Jr. 1986. Aspen community types of Utah. Res. Paper INT-362. USDA For. Serv., Intermountain Res. Sta.. Ogden, Utah.

Nelson, D. L.; Harper, K. T.; Boyer, K. C.; et al. 1989. Wildland shrub dieoffs in Utah: an approach to understanding the cause. p. 119-135. In: Proc., Symp. on shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology. USDA Forest Serv. Ten. Tech. Rep. INT-256, Ogden, Utah.

Ngugi, K. R., and J. Powell, F. C. Hinds, et al. 1993. Range animal diet composition in southcentral Wyoming. J. of Range Management. 45: 542-545.

Olsen, N. C., and J. W. Burkhardt. 1992. Land management planning: an assessment. Rangelands 14: 150-152.

Padgett, W. G.; Youngblood, A. P.; Winward, A. H. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. USDA Forest Serv. R4-Ecol-89-01. Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.

Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchic, S. F. Arnow, and R. C. Presby. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-34. USDA Forest Serv., Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah.

Range Inventory Standardization Committee, Society for Range Management. 1983. Guidelines and terminology for range inventories and monitoring. Report presented to the Board of Directors of SRM, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.

Scarnecchia, D. L. 1995. Viewpoint: the rangeland condition concept and range science's search for identity: a systems viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 48:181-186.

Sharp, L. A., K. Sanders, and N. Rimbley. 1990. Forty years of change in a shadscale stand in Idaho. Rangelands 12: 313-328.

Steele, R., S. V. Cooper, D. M. Ondov, D. W. Roberts, and R. D. Pfister. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-144. USDA Forest Serv., Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah.

Unity in Concepts and Terminology Task Group. 1995. New concepts for assessment of rangeland condition. J. Range Manage. 48:271-282.

Welch, B. 1989 Nutritive value of shrubs. P 405-424.In: McKell (ed). The biology and utilization of shrubs. Academic Press Inc. New York.

Welch, B. L., and F. J. Wagstaff. 1992. 'Hobble Creek' big sagebrush vs. antelope bitterbrush as a winter forage. J. Range Manage. 45: 140-142.

Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 1993. A Utah Flora. Brigham Young University Print Services. Provo, UT. 986 p.

Winward, A. H. 1991. A renewed commitment to management of sagebrush grasslands. In: Management of sagebrush steppe. Special Report 880. Oregon State Univ., Agriculture Exp. Sta., Corvalis, Oregon.

OTHER EXAMPLES

BLACK SAGEBRUSH

Welch et al. (1994) evaluated mule deer use of black sagebrush from 7 acquisition sites from Colorado, Nevada, and Utah which were grown in a uniform garden near Helper, Utah. They found use of black sagebrush varied from 0-83% depending on the origin of the plants. Variation in use might also be expected among different deer herds.

Again the need for local information for specific land units is indicated by this example. Attempts at standardizing rangeland evaluation criteria are found wanting when examined in terms of a literature base which indicates complexity and variability of rangeland features including plant and herbivore interactions.

Clary W. P. 1986. Black sagebrush response to grazing in the east-central Great Basin. In: Proceedings--symposium on the biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-200. USDA, Forest Serv. Intermountain Research Sta., Ogden, Utah.

Cook, C. W., and L. A. Stoddart, L. E. Harris. 1954. The nutritive value of winter range plants in the Great Basin. Bulletin 372. Utah State Agricultural College, Agricultural Experiment Sta., Logan, Utah.

Nagy and Reglin 1977

Personius T. L., C. L. Wambolt, J. R. Stephens, and R. G. Kelsey. 1987. Crude terpenoid influence on mule deer preference fo sagebrush. J. Range Manage. 40: 84-88.

Sheehy, D. P., and A. H. Winward. 1981. Relative palatability of seven Artemisia taxa to mule deer and sheep. J. Range Manage. 34: 397-399.

Smith 1950

Welch, B. L., S. F. Briggs, and S. A. Young. 1994. Pine Valley Ridge source -- a superior selected germplasm of black sagebrush. Res. Pap. INT-RP-474. USDA, Forest Serv. Intermountain Reserach Sta., Ogden, Utah.