Home :: Outreach :: Workshops :: Greater Yellowstone Area Science Agenda Workshop -- November 4-5, 2009 :: GYA Science Agenda Workshop -- Managerial Issues

GYA Science Agenda Workshop -- Managerial Issues

The workshop focuses on creating a GYA Science Agenda for the next 10-20 years, but recognizes that agenda must be realistic from a manager’s perspective, plus address critical information needs of managers. Thus in a pre-workshop exercise managers were asked to provide the top three issues they foresee with the three GYA drivers that are the focus of the workshop: climate change, invasive species, and land use change.

Following are the responses received, which will serve as a starting point for breakout group facilitators during the workshop, plus help assure that the workshop retains a desired partial focus on management aspects of the GYA Science Agenda.

Climate Change

Mgr A

  1. Maintaining long term viability of at risk species, particularly cold water species.
  2. Water users adapting to surface flow changes.
  3. Potential increase in storage reservoirs and their associated ecological impacts.

Mgr B

  1. Linkage to other areas to increase resilience.
  2. Changes in distribution of key plant foods in response to temperature and precipitation change.
  3. Changes in snowpack and resulting changes on species and water flow.

Mgr C

  1. Urban/wildland interface will change; more conflict.
  2. Snow/rain, or lack thereof, or changing seasons will drive recreation changes, which also impact the ecosystem.

Mgr D

  1. Need for improved, easily accessible ecological forecasting of climate change impacts
  2. Need for improved understanding of climate change impact on fundamental ecological processes (e.g., predator prey relations, wildlife migration, wildfire, drought impacts, species movement across elevation gradients)

Mgr E

  1. Effect on precipitation, streamflow, and stream temperature; to guide decisions on how to manage water with infrastructure in place
  2. Define resilience for each species of concern; to guide decisions on habitat management that helps species adapt to climate change
  3. Arctic Grayling are at southern end of their range; need guide for decisions on enhancements to improve species ability to survive/thrive

Mgr F

  1. Loss of natural and cultural resources that define the parks of the Rocky Mountains
  2. Exacerbation of other stresses on those resources, e.g. pest, invasive species and wildlife disease
  3. Extreme weather events that damage NR and CR, and affect visitor experience

Mgr G

  1. The need for local models of predicted changes in temp and precip, and subsequent community changes, at a local scale. Most current models are based on continental projections.
  2. Baseline monitoring of vegetation communities (e.g., sagebrush distribution and abundance) to determine model predictions about changes to these communities, and subsequent predicted changes to wildlife distribution and abundance
  3. Need to focus conservation efforts where models predict the greatest conservation benefit/needs
  4. Inappropriate use of Endangered Species Act to influence climate change drivers and land uses.
  5. Funding needs to be allocated and then focused on real solutions - rather than building agency infrstructure.

Mgr H

  1. Small-scale, validated model predictions for changes in precipitation and temperature (both average and variability) are lacking.
  2. We need small-scale predictions (and then associated monitoring programs) for wildlife habitat and vegetation community response to possible changes in precipitation and temperature.
  3. We then need predictions for wildlife population responses (and then associated monitoring programs) to either changes in temp/ precip if there are direct ties (e.g. fish or moose), or to changes in habitat, indirectly linked to climate change (e.g. elk).
  4. We need to evaluate changes in wildlife habitat and populations resulting from climate change relative to our social and biological management objectives. Can our current management programs deal with the scope of change, or will some of our programs need to adapt?

Mgr I

  1. Need to reduce our level of water consumption.
  2. Need for more localized information about the ability of aquatic and terrestrial and plant communities to adapt.
  3. Need to place greater emphasis on adapting to climate change.

Mgr J

  1. If climate change and resulting changes in biotic communities are inevitable, there needs to be proactive vegetation management to establish competitive native or competitive non-native yet non-invasive plant species that are favorable and won’t have the negative impacts associated with invasive exotic species. A change in mindset to accept non-native plant communities might be necessary to effectively ward off full invasion of non-desirable invasive species.
  2. Wise use of all water sources is paramount. For example, the benefits of CBNG production via groundwater extraction are short-term benefits at the cost of the loss of a potentially critical future water source. In a warming climatic environment, untapped water sources could be the difference between survival and not.

Mgr K

  1. Models need to be developed or modified to address anticipated changes at a regional or local level.
  2. Changes in ecosystem function, snow, water, nutrient, and carbon cycles are likely - impacts across all biotic communities need to be examined.
  3. Vegetation change may be rapid and will accelerate changes in ecosystem function.

Mgr L

  1. Monitoring and managing for change in glacial and snowpack inputs into surface and groundwater, competition for water rights
  2. Changes in habitat and associated wildlife ranges, migration corridors, and other ecosystem services e.g., soil-moisture retention
  3. Adapting to changing human use patterns (e.g., winter use, hunting seasons, road and facility opening dates)

Invasive Species

Mgr A

  1. The maintenance of native species populations over time.
  2. The expense of maintaining industrial, agricultural, and recreational water use over time.
  3. Sustaining physical habitat that fish and wildlife species depend upon.

Mgr B

  1. Increase in distribution of invasive plants.
  2. New native North American species in the area as they expand their range in response to climate change.

Mgr D

  1. Need to increase our understanding of biodiversity impacts of invasive species
  2. Need to increase our understanding of methods of invasive spread
  3. Need for better understanding of aquatic and terrestrial pathogens (e.g., whirling disease, blister rust)
  4. Need for improved functional cover type maps to help assess invasive species impact.

Mgr E

  1. Effect of brook trout on Arctic grayling; to guide decisions on how to reduce impacts related to competition
  2. Terrestrial invasive plants in native landscape; need a remote detection method to identify new invaders so management can address
  3. Aquatic invasive plants; need comprehensive surveys of the GYA to know where they are so we can address

Mgr F

  1. Loss of native habitats, and the species associated with them
  2. Increased risk of fire as a result of invasions by non-native plants
  3. Loss of native aquatic species, such as native trout and mollusks

Mgr G

  1. Feral Pigs
  2. Cheat grass - outcompetes native grasses, has greatly reduced forage value, alters fire regime
  3. Recognition that native species ranges will change as climate change impacts occur - and need to differentiate between changes in native species distribution vs. invasion by non-native species.

Mgr H

  1. Several invasive plant species have the ability to change ecosystem processes. For example, cheat grass can change fire regimes. How will this affect the ecosystem as a whole?
  2. There are several non-native pathogens and diseases carried by domestic livestock that can infect native ungulates or vice-versa. If these diseases become established in wildlife populations (or vice-versa), how will those populations, as well as local economies and government programs, be affected?

Mgr I

  1. Spread of new and broader spectrum of invasive species into GYE (e.g., aquatic, terrestrial, plants, viruses).
  2. Little monitoring of environmental impacts of aggressive chemical control of invasive species.
  3. Cost of invasive species control.

Mgr J

  1. If climate change and resulting changes in biotic communities are inevitable, there needs to be proactive vegetation management to establish competitive native or competitive non-native yet non-invasive plant species that are favorable and won’t have the negative impacts associated with invasive exotic species. A change in mindset to accept non-native plant communities might be necessary to effectively ward off full invasion of non-desirable invasive species.
  2. Work towards “naturalization” of established invasive species where the natural functions of the ecosystem (i.e. biological control insects, pathogens, predators, etc.) operate in such a manner that the established invasive species are unable to reach and maintain undesirable densities. If achieved, this would reduce the economic and environmental burdens of widespread chemical (herbicide) application and other environmentally damaging management methods. To achieve this, a mixed native and non-native biotic community would have to be accepted.
  3. Non-traditional funding sources for invasive species management. It is for the benefit of all state and US citizens to prevent and manage the spread of invasive species. Funding must be more widely supported through state and national legislation and citizen taxes/fees (or other funding mechanism). Vector fees (Shipping companies, pet stores, airlines, ATV users, horseback riders, pet owners, hikers, hunters, anglers, bird watchers, passenger vehicle owners, and on and on.)

Mgr K

  1. The effects of invasive plants on wildlife habitat require further study as they are not fully understood or recognized.
  2. Effects of invasive species are underestimated, response is not adequate to protect native species, communities, and biodiversity which would add to ecosystem resiliency in the case of climate change.
  3. Funding for invasive species treatment, detection and response needs to move more efficiently to get work done on the ground.

Mgr L

  1. Habitat alteration and pathogens--associated effects on native fish, wildlife, and birds
  2. Monitoring and preventing or mitigating aquatic invasive threats on infrastructure (dams, marinas, culverts, etc.)
  3. Challenges with defining what is “native” vs. “exotic/non-native”

Land Use Change

Mgr A

  1. Maintaining open spaces.
  2. Sustaining economies of resource use dependent rural communities as society's perspectives of resource values change.
  3. Rural subdivisions and ranchettes blocking access to public lands and increasing challenge of wildland/urban interface fire fighting.

Mgr B

  1. Increase exurban sprawl into current open space.
  2. Increased conflicts with wildlife in sprawl areas.
  3. Reduction in open space with resulting increasing habitat fragmentation.

Mgr C

  1. See my ‘climate change’ #1; we will need to re-think land use regs/incentives and locations
  2. Population growth in surrounding areas will continue to apply more pressure on ecosystem, no matter how “clustered” or otherwise mitigated the development. We will need population growth management – an even harder concept to sell to conservative landowners than land use regulations. Global warming may or may not accelerate growth pressures in our area; I need more information.
  3. User conflicts will grow, not diminish, as more people move in. Everybody wants to play in the ecosystem and they all, to varying degrees, adversely affect it. A flower power girl walking her six unleashed black labs and golden retrievers up Bozeman creek can be just has harmful to the ecosystem as a crew screaming by in snow machines. Pick your poison.

Mgr D

  1. Need to increase our understanding of how land use change impacts water dynamics, aquatic ecology, and the terrestrial Interface (floodplains, wetland, and riparian habitat)
  2. Need to increase our understanding of how disturbance impacts invasives and biodiversity
  3. Need for better understanding of socio-ecological impacts from land use change

Mgr E

  1. Human developments displace some species and stress others yet they survive; what species specific information can we develop to mitigate land use change
  2. County governments guide development more than any other government; knowledge to decide how to help not hinder county government planning within GYCC
  3. Undeveloped private lands and key access points within the GYA; guide acquisition of GYA inholdings within authorized boundaries of USFS, NPS, and FWS

Mgr F

  1. Loss of connectivity for migrating species
  2. Loss of seasonal habitat for wildlife species native to the park
  3. Edge effects and increase in non-native species, especially plant species

Mgr G

  1. Warmer climate (or at least less severe cold) makes living in the GYA more attractive, resulting in more rural development
  2. One of the best tools for adapting to climate change is to protect large, resiliant landscapes. Habitat fragmentation as a result of rural development and other land use changes precludes protection of large, intact landscapes.

Mgr H

  1. The effects of subdivision, or even subdivision strategies/ BMP’s, on most wildlife species are largely unknown. We need some science to outline these effects, so that management recommendations or BMP’s can be developed with some degree of confidence.
  2. Subdivision and amenity development negatively affect the public opportunity to enjoy wildlife resources, which in the long term will likely negatively affect public engagement with wildlife resources in general. This situation is not good for wildlife conservation.
  3. Land use change to subdivision, agriculture, or amenity development can have serious effects on the ability for wildlife management to be effective at keeping wildlife populations close to locally-derived population objectives.

Mgr I

  1. Lack of effective tools for local growth management (e.g., local land use regulations are weak, covenants are unenforceable, and zoning is politically unpopular) and wildlife management (e.g., with loss of public access and land base for hunting).
  2. Taming of wildlife on the one hand, and increased human/wildlife conflicts (in urban, suburban, and rural areas) on the other.
  3. Need more information about the impacts of development and development regulations (type of human activity, location, density, and design) on fish and wildlife.

Mgr J

  1. Promotion and maintenance of traditional agriculture on the landscape. Promotion of market-based rewards (much like premium costs for organically grown foods) for stewardship of important fish and wildlife habitats.
  2. Zoning and stream set-back legislation directed at the county and city levels.
  3. Promotion of and generating rewards for central-urban development and associated benefits. Building and expanding within existing city limits (building up and within rather than out).

Mgr K

  1. Loss of habitat connectivity seems inevitable in the absence of a paradigm shift or strategy which favors wildlife.
  2. More inhabitants, less native habitat.
  3. Will climate change result in a more agricultural base in the GYE in the future?

vv Mgr L

  1. Managing increased demand for water capture, diversion, and storage
  2. Increased demands for locally produced power, water, food production and potential conflicts with natural and cultural resources
  3. Managing a sustained increase in wildland fire and the human interface