Back to Three Forests Coalition Home

Connelly, John, Michael Schroeder, Alan Sands, and Clait Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.

RELEVANT TO:	GRASSLANDS/SHRUBLANDS
	WILDLIFE
	LIVESTOCK GRAZING
	FIRE
	OIL, GAS AND MINING

DESCRIPTION

This article is a summary of the effort by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to assemble and update knowledge of the ecology of sage grouse and, based on this information provide guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats.

MAJOR FINDINGS

Ecology

• Sage grouse populations may migrate between distinct winter, breeding, and summer areas; may integrate breeding and summer areas; or may be nonmigratory, with winter, breeding, and summer areas integrated.
• Migratory sage populations may occupy areas that exceed 2,700 km 2.
• Up to 45% of yearling and 22% of adult female sage grouse do not nest each year, perhaps in relation to grassland/shrubland condition and consequent sage grouse nutritional status.
• Leks typically occur in open areas surrounded by sagebrush; and most nests (and those with greater nest success) are under sagebrush.
• Grass height and cover are important components of sage grouse nest sites, with grass >18 cm (7 inches) in height and sagebrush 40-80 cm (16-31 in) in height resulting in less predation.
• During summer, sage grouse move to more mesic sites with more forb cover than independent sites.
• During winter, sage grouse feed almost exclusively on sagebrush leaves.

Effects of habitat alteration

• Herbicide application to blocks of sagebrush rangeland results in major declines in sage grouse breeding populations. Strip partial kill, block partial kill, and total kill of sagebrush have been found to be increasingly detrimental to sage grouse.
• Burning of Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush can have long-term negative impacts on sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Fire in Wyoming big sagebrush may negatively affect sage grouse habitat rather than improve it.
• Mechanical methods of sagebrush conversion to cropland have been documented to have adverse effects on breeding populations. Sage grouse use of agricultural land may result in pesticide-related mortality.
• Sage grouse may repopulate an area following energy development but may not attain population levels that occurred prior to development.
• "Historic and scientific evidence indicates that livestock grazing did not increase the distribution of sagebrush but reduced the herbaceous understory over relatively large areas and increased sagebrush density in some areas" (p. 974). Grazing by wild ungulates may reduce sagebrush cover and livestock grazing may result in high trampling mortality of sagebrush seedlings. "...[I]ndirect evidence suggests grazing by livestock or wild herbivores that significantly reduces the herbaceous understory in breeding habitat may have negative impacts on sage grouse populations" (p. 974).
• Prolonged drought (e.g., during the 1930s and mid 1980s to early 1990s) coincided with declining sage grouse populations throughout much of the species' range.

Recommended guidelines

• Management efforts need to be coordinated over "at least an entire seasonal range" to implement the recommended guidelines (p. 975)
• In the case of migratory populations, migration routes and seasonal habitats must be identified to allow for meaningful and correct management decisions.
• Breeding populations should be assessed by lek counts (best) or lek surveys each year.
• Routine population monitoring should be used to assess trends and identify problems for all hunted and nonhunted populations.
• Fire should not be used in breeding habitats dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush and fire should not be used in habitats dominated b y xeric mountain big sagebrush.
• Mining and energy development should be discouraged in breeding habitats.
• Maintain breeding habitats to support 15%-25% canopy cover of sagebrush, perennial herbaceous cover averaging ≥18 cm in height with ≥15% canopy cover for grasses and ≥10% for a diversity of forbs. If average sagebrush height is >75 cm, herbaceous cover may need to be substantially greater than 18 cm to provide protection.
• For nonmigratory grouse, protect (i.e., do not manipulate) sagebrush and herbaceous understory within 3.2 km of occupied leks; for nonmigratory populations where sagebrush is not distributed uniformly, protect suitable habitats for ≥ [the text apparently mistakenly suggests ≤, which wouldn't make sense)] 5 km of leks; and for migratory populations, identify and protect breeding habitats within 18 km of leks.
• Suppress wildfires in all breeding habitats. "Land management agencies should have all breeding habitats identified and prioritized for suppression giving the greatest priority to those that have become fragmented or reduced by ≥40% in the last 30 years" (p. 978).
• "Restore degraded rangelands to a condition that again provides suitable breeding habitat for sage grouse by including sagebrush, native forbs (especially legumes), and native grasses in reseeding efforts" (pp. 978-979).
• "Where the sagebrush overstory is intact but the understory has been degraded severely....retain some sagebrush but open shrub canopy to encourage forb and grass growth" (p. 979)
• When restoring habitats dominated by mountain big sagebrush, regardless of the techniques used, treat ≤20% of the breeding habitat within a 20-year period.
• "Avoid developing springs for livestock water, but if water from a spring will be used in a pipeline or trough, design the project to maintain free water and wet meadows at the spring." (p. 980).
• "Whenever possible, modify developed springs and other water sources to restore natural free-flowing water and wet meadow habitats." (p. 980)
• "Maintain sagebrush communities on a landscape scale...These areas should be high priority for wildlife suppression and sagebrush control should be avoided" (p. 980).
• "In areas of large-scale habitat loss (>40% of original winter habitat) protect all remaining sagebrush habitats." (p. 981) [Note: The Fishlake National Forest indicates in its less than 40% of
• Agencies should cooperate to document the amount and condition of sagebrush rangeland remaining
• "Protection and restoration of sage grouse habitats also will likely benefit many other sagebrush obligate species" (p. 981)
• Concluding sentences (p. 981):

The overall quality of existing sage grouse habitat will become increasingly important as quantity of these habitats decrease. Sage grouse populations appear relatively secure in some portions of their range and at risk in other portions. However, populations that have thus far survived extensive habitat loss may still face extinction because of a timelag between habitat loss and ultimate population collapse.

QUESTIONS RAISED FOR THE THREE FORESTS

• What sage grouse habitat restoration and sage grouse recovery efforts are being undertaken by the Forests?
• Which populations of sage grouse on each of the three Forests are nonmigratory, two-season migratory, and three-season migratory?
• Are the occupied and potential ranges of resident sage grouse mapped on the Forests?
• What integration and prioritization are being given to management of livestock and sage grouse on the Forests? (For instance, the 2004 Draft EIS for permit reissuance on eight cattle allotments in the Beaver Ranger District of Fishlake NF calls for continued conversion of sage brush to cattle grass/forb forage (see, e.g., page 1-5), while simply noting that this "may" contribute to effects on sage grouse suitable habitat, but is "not likely to cause...a loss of viability" (E-15).
• What documentation exists regarding sage grouse breeding, brood-rearing, fall and winter habitat conditions and population trends of sage grouse on the Three Forests?
• What account is being taken of lek areas in fire suppression/prescriptions?

RELEVANCE TO FOREST MANAGEMENT

• Because greater sage grouse is a Region 4 sensitive species, forage utilization standards (e.g., 40%-60% utilization of upland grasses/forbs) need to be re-examined in light of landscape-scale declining sage grouse populations and condition of sagebrush understory. For instance, grasses do not provide 18 cm (7 inches) height, as recommended for breeding habitat, when grazed 40%-60%.
• Conversion of sagebrush to grass/forbs (not necessarily native) for widespread livestock species needs to be re-examined in the light of declining sage grouse populations and condition of native sagebrush understory.
• Decisions on fire suppression, livestock grazing, and energy development need to explicitly discuss site-specific and landscape-scale sage grouse and sagebrush implications.