Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Completion Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Topic, 2015–20
Open-File Report 2023–1010
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Completion Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Topic, 2015–20 By Matthew J. Holloran, Christopher R. Anthony, Mark A. Ricca, Steven E. Hanser, Sue L. Phillips, Paul F. Steblein, and Lief A. Wiechman
Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Open-File Report 2023–1010
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Suggested citation: Holloran, M.J., Anthony, C.R., 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—Sagebrush and sage-grouse topic, 2015–20: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2023–1010, 49 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ ofr20231010. ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii
Contents Abstract�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������2 Methods����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������7 Results and Summary�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9 Acknowledgments���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16 References Cited�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16 Glossary���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������19 Appendix 1. Literature included in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse topic in the Actionable Science Plan�����������������������������������������������������������������20
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 3. Map showing current and potential pre-settlement distribution of greater sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse in North America�������������������������������������������������6
Tables 1.
Search results for the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse 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���������������������������������������������������������������������������������7 2. Criteria used to score Next Steps established for the Needs included in the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan��������������������������������������������������������������������8 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse 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������������������10
iv
Conversion Factors U.S. customary units to International System of Units Multiply
By
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
By
To obtain
Length kilometer (km)
0.6214
mile (mi)
Area square meter (m2)
0.0002471
acre
hectare (ha)
2.471
acre
square hectometer (hm2)
2.471
acre
Datum Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
Abbreviations BLM
Bureau of Land Management
DOI
U.S. Department of the Interior
GIS
Geographic Information System
IRFMS
Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy
LiDAR
Light Detection and Ranging (remote sensing method)
MZ
WAFWA Sage-grouse Management Zone
NDVI
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WAFWA
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
v
Species Names Big sagebrush
A. tridentata spp.
Brewer's sparrow
Spizella breweri
Cheatgrass
Bromus tectorum
Common raven
Corvus corax
Crested wheatgrass
Agropyron cristatum
Ferruginous hawk
Buteo regalis
Golden eagles
Aquila chrysaetos
Greater sage-grouse
Centrocercus urophasianus
Greater short-horned lizard
Phrynosoma hernandesi
Gunnison sage-grouse
Centrocercus minimus
Harvester ant
Pogonomyrmex spp.
Jackrabbit
Lepus spp.
Juniper
Juniperus spp.
Monarch butterfly
Danaus plexippus
Northern sagebrush lizard
Sceloporus graciosus
Pinyon
Pinus spp.
Plateau fence lizard
Sceloporus undulatus
Pronghorn
Antilocapra americana
Pygmy rabbit
Brachylagus idahoensis
Sage thrasher
Oreoscoptes montanus
Sagebrush sparrow
Artemisiospiza nevadensis
Sagebrush
Artemisia spp.
Short-eared owl
Asio flammeus
Vesper sparrow
Pooecetes gramineus
Wyoming big sagebrush
A. t. wyomingensis
Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Completion Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Topic, 2015–20 By Matthew J. Holloran, Christopher R. Anthony, Mark A. Ricca, Steven E. Hanser, Sue L. Phillips, Paul F. Steblein, and Lief A. Wiechman
Abstract Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are significant 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 nine needs (hereinafter, “Needs”) identified under the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse
topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs broadly focused on understanding sagebrush rangelands and population dynamics important for the conservation and management of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-reliant wildlife species. 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 (in other words, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 333 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: (1) development of biome-wide mapping techniques that provide regularly updated grassland and shrubland vegetation layers (Need 4); (2) generation of spatially explicit greater sage-grouse habitat suitability and population models (Need 5); (3) identification of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats (Need 6); (4) identification of thresholds for the extent of threats, especially conifer expansion, above which greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species cannot persist (Need 8); and (5) studies of sagebrush community dynamics as those relate to management and restoration of sagebrush rangelands (Need 9). Needs addressed poorly included: (1) investigations of factors conducive and restrictive to greater sage-grouse movement patterns and population connectivity (Need 1); (2) investigations of livestock and other large ungulate (for example, feral horse) grazing effects on greater sagegrouse populations and habitats (Need 2);
2 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 (3) identification of thresholds of disturbance (especially renewable energy developments) below which greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush reliant species are not impacted (Need 3); and (4) studies of habitat relationships for sagebrush-reliant species other than greater sage-grouse, songbirds, and small mammals (Need 7). 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 surface disturbing 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, 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 rangeland 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, 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
WA
MZ-VI MT ID
MZ-I
OR
ND
MZ-IV MZ-V
MZ-II
SD
NE
WY
CA
CO
MZ-III
NV
UT
MZ-VII
AZ
EXPLANATION
0
Percent Sagebrush-Dominated Ecological Systems 0 to 10
51 to 60
11 to 20
61 to 70
21 to 30
71 to 80
30 to 40
81 to 90
41 to 50
91 to 100
0
50
300 KILOMETERS 50
N 300 MILES
Management Zones (MZs)
Figure 1. Map showing the landscape cover of sagebrush-dominated ecological systems in the western United States (fig. 28 from Chambers and others, 2017).
4 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20
WA MT
MZ-VI ID
ND
OR
MZ-I
MZ-IV
MZ-V
SD
MZ-II
NE WY
CA
MZ-III CO
MZ-VII NV
UT AZ
Probability of Wildfire per 100 Years 0
3.01 to 4
0.01 to 0.5
4.01 to 5
0.51 to 1
5.01 to 6
1.01 to 2
6.01 to 7
2.01 to 3
Management Zones (MZs)
0 0
50
300 KILOMETERS 50
N 300 MILES
Figure 2. Map showing large fire probability for the sagebrush biome in the western United States (fig. 34 from Chambers and others, 2017).
Introduction 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 on-going 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 and literature reviews have made strides towards making results from research efforts in the sagebrush biome available and tractable for management audiences (for example, Hanser and others, 2018; Carter and others, 2020; Poor and others, 2021). However, many knowledge gaps likely remain, and an assessment of the 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 Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic in the Plan identified nine Needs focused on understanding components of the sagebrush biome and population dynamics related to the conservation and management of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, hereinafter sage-grouse) and other sagebrush-obligate and sagebrush-reliant wildlife species (fig. 3). The priorities identified across the nine Needs broadly encompassed:
(1) investigations of factors affecting sage-grouse movement patterns and population connectivity; (2) studies of the effects of ungulate grazing on sagebrush vegetation and sage-grouse populations; (3) assessments of the response of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species to surface disturbing activities (for example, energy development, conifer cover, wild fire); (4) development of enhanced approaches to mapping shrubland vegetation; (5) development of spatially explicit population models and seasonal habitat suitability models for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-associated species across the sagebrush biome; and (6) investigations of long-term dynamics of the sagebrush ecosystem as they relate to meeting specific management goals. 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 nine Needs identified under the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse 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.
6 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 125° 50°
120°
115°
110°
105°
ALBERTA
BRITISH COLUMBIA
SASKATCHEWAN
EXPLANATION ND
MONTANA WASHINGTON
Sage-grouse distribution Current Greater Gunnison
45°
Presettlement
IDAHO
SD
Greater Gunnison
OREGON
WYOMING NE
40°
CANADA COLORADO
Map area
UTAH NEVADA 35°
CALIFORNIA ARIZONA
0 0
250
NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES
MEXICO
500 KILOMETERS 250
500 MILES
Figure 3. Map showing current and potential pre-settlement distribution of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) in North America adapted from Schroeder and others (2004; fig. 1 from Aldridge and others, 2008).
Methods 7
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 Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic, we initially reviewed the sage-grouse literature that was included in broad searches and summarized by Carter and others (2020). We then used the USGS BiblioSearch (Kleist and Enns, 2022) to search the reference databases Web of Science and Scopus using the same search terms as Carter and others (2020) (that is, “greater sagegrouse” and “sage-grouse”) for products published between October 2, 2019, and December 31, 2020, to capture the bulk of the relevant literature, that was published after Carter and others (2020). Using the same search tool (Kleist and Enns, 2022), we then conducted a series of literature searches using search terms specific to the Next Steps (for example, sagebrush AND insect species) 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 Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse 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
Table 1. Search results for the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse 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, “greater” and “sage-grouse” searched, not “greater sage-grouse”). This resulted in broader and more inclusive lists of literature. Unique Results: 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 “greater sage-grouse” and “sagegrouse” searches).Comments: Need 4, development of biome-wide mapping techniques that provide regularly updated grassland and shrubland vegetation layers; Need 7, studies of habitat relationships for sagebrush-reliant species other than greater sage-grouse, songbirds, and small mammals; Need 8, identification of thresholds for the extent of threats, especially conifer expansion, above which greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species cannot persist; Need 9, studies of sagebrush community dynamics as those relate to management and restoration of sagebrush rangelands]
Search terms
Unique results
Comment
greater sage-grouse
238
2015–October 2019; broad search term captured in Carter and others (2020)
greater sage-grouse
125
October 2019–20; broad search term to capture papers in our timeframe not captured by Carter and others (2020)
sage-grouse
154
October 2019–20; broad search term to capture papers in our timeframe not captured by Carter and others (2020)
sagebrush AND remote sensing AND time series
8
2015–20; Need 4; targeted search term
sagebrush AND remote sensing AND land cover
20
2015–20; Need 4; targeted search term
sagebrush AND remote sensing AND mapping
23
2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term
juniper AND wildlife
73
2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term
pinyon juniper AND wildlife
33
2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term
sagebrush AND ungulate species
17
2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term
sagebrush AND insect species
15
2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term
sagebrush AND small mammal species
18
2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term
sagebrush AND reptile species
7
2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term
sagebrush obligate AND habitat suitability
5
2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term
sagebrush obligate AND mapping
6
2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term
sagebrush habitats AND monitoring
63
2015–20; Need 9; targeted search term
8 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 is, science objectives required to address a Need) associated with the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic. Papers that were relevant to a Next Step were considered when scoring that Next Step. Our review approach initially focused on summaries provided in Carter and others (2020) or a paper’s abstract. If this information suggested that the research was related to a Next Step, 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 (in other words, no papers were reviewed that considered the objective[s] detailed in the Next Step) and 1.0 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) and included in the scoring of the Need. Each Need was
scored as the proportion of the Next 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 (in other words, ‘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 ongoing research programs using the search and scoring methods described in this report when updating the Plan.
Table 2. Criteria used to score Next Steps established for the Needs included in the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan. [Sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata; Greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus; NA, not applicable because Next Step not included in scoring of Need]
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
0.75
Next Step addressed at the local or regional level
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)
NA
Results and Summary 9
Results and Summary We reviewed 805 products that were identified by the literature searches conducted for the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic (table 1). Of those, 333 unique products were directly related to at least one of the nine Needs. Most (76 percent) of the 68 Next Steps included in the topic had greater than or equal to one published product that at least partially addressed the science objective(s) of 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 seven Next Steps that could be effectively assessed but had no related products (that is, were scored as 0.00 not as NA) included: (1) broad-scale studies of fine-resolution sage-grouse movements to understand how barriers may affect population performance and genetic structure (Need 1); (2) standardization of data collection protocols associated with studies of the impacts of livestock grazing on sagegrouse vital rates to allow synthetic analyses (Need 2); (3) investigations of the impacts of anthropogenic noise and the removal of infrastructure on sage-grouse individuals and populations (Need 3); and (4) development of management applications useful across seasons and the biome from products identifying sagegrouse seasonal habitats (Need 6). 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 biome-wide mapping techniques that can provide regularly updated grassland and shrubland vegetation layers (Need 4); the generation of spatially-explicit sage-grouse population models for use informing local scale management (primarily from lek count data) (Need 5); and studies of sagebrush community dynamics as those relate to management and restoration of sagebrush rangelands (Need 9). Estimates of percent change in biotic attributes of sagebrush rangelands (for example, sagebrush cover, invasive annual grass prevalence), fire perimeters and severity, and variability in mesic area productivity (NDVI) from the 1980s to present have been mapped range wide and techniques for regularly updating these range wide estimates have been established. A substantial number of studies conducted throughout the sagebrush biome have investigated the influence of multiple biotic and abiotic factors, at various spatial scales, on sage-grouse populations, habitat selection and habitat quality (see also Needs 3 and 6). These efforts included spatiallyexplicit integrated population models and individual-based simulation models that were used to investigate scenarios of
locally-relevant management opportunities. Studies investigating relationships between different biotic and abiotic factors and changes in sagebrush vegetation communities have been conducted, and generalized restoration prioritization tools and approaches that are relevant range wide have been developed. The Needs that were partially addressed (scores 0.50–0.66) included the identification of sage-grouse seasonal habitats (Need 6); and the identification of thresholds for the extent of threats, especially conifer expansion, above which sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species cannot persist (Need 8). A substantial number of studies conducted throughout the sagebrush biome have investigated sage-grouse seasonal habitat selection primarily at local and regional scales (see also Need 5). Numerous studies have investigated the response of sagebrush obligate and associated species, primarily sage-grouse, songbirds, and small mammals, to anthropogenic and natural disturbance factors across the sagebrush biome (see also Need 7). A number of Needs were addressed poorly (scores <0.49) including investigations of factors conducive and restrictive to sage-grouse movement patterns and population connectivity (Need 1); large-scale investigations of livestock and other large ungulate (for example, feral horse) grazing effects on sage-grouse populations and habitats (Need 2); identification of thresholds of disturbance, especially for renewable energy developments, below which sage-grouse and other sagebrush reliant species are not impacted (Need 3); and studies of habitat suitability for sagebrush-reliant species other than sage-grouse, songbirds and small mammals (Need 7). Likely connectivity corridors among sage-grouse population strongholds have been identified, however not in such a way that functional movements among leks and populations can be deduced range wide. Barriers to movement (connectivity constraints) have not been linked to sage-grouse vital rates, population viability, or genetics. Studies investigating the effects of livestock grazing intensity and timing on sage-grouse habitat selection, demographics or population trends have been conducted in eastern portions of the sagebrush biome. However, large-scale, replicated grazing studies that address the effects to sage-grouse habitats and populations of different livestock species, grazing systems, disturbance histories, and other environmental conditions are lacking across most of the sagebrush biome. Studies of sage-grouse response to renewable energy development, industrial noise, compensatory mitigation, and cumulative effects of anthropogenic disturbances have not been done or need to be replicated spatially, and multi-scaled infrastructure siting tools for informing onsite mitigation are limited. Habitat suitability has been modeled for some sagebrush songbird species, golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus), and pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis), but habitat relationships and information gaps for most wildlife species reliant on sagebrush rangelands remain unknown.
10 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (Score), and a summary of science objectives addressed (Addressed) and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20. [Sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata; Greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus]
Need
Score
Summary of 2015–20 literature
Need 1: Investigate sage-grouse movement patterns, the habitat characteristics that are conducive, restrictive, or preventive to those movements, and the genetic structure of populations to help inform management practices to improve or maintain connections.
0.38
Addressed: Connectivity corridors among population strongholds have been identified indirectly across the sage-grouse range, and several local-scale studies have been conducted documenting sage-grouse movement patterns or habitat selection during movements among seasonal ranges. Broad-scale and fine-grained genetic structuring of sage-grouse populations across the sagebrush biome have been investigated. Potential barriers to movement have been investigated using genetic data, and broad-scale barriers to movement have been identified using these techniques. Fine-scale biotic barriers to movement (for example, areas influenced by conifer expansion) have been investigated at local scales. Outstanding: Population connectivity, assessed in such a way that functional movements (in other words, population genetic structuring) among leks are deduced, has not been investigated range wide. Studies investigating fine-scale sage-grouse movements either directly (for example, telemetry) or indirectly (for example, genetics) have been conducted in eastern and southwestern portions of the sage-grouse range; studies at these scales in other portions of the sagebrush biome are lacking. Studies linking habitat connectivity or anthropogenic barriers to movement to sage-grouse population metrics (in other words, vital rates), long-term population viability (for example, extirpation risks), or potential genetic consequences have not been conducted. New technologies for documenting sage-grouse movements that reduce impacts to survival have not been described in the literature.
Need 2: Conduct a series of large-scale, replicated grazing studies that address how different livestock species, grazing systems, disturbance histories, and other environmental conditions affect sagegrouse habitat.
0.14
Addressed: Studies investigating the effects of grazing intensity, timing, or both on sage-grouse habitat selection, demographics or population trends at local and regional scales have been conducted in eastern portions of the sagebrush biome (MZs 1 and 2). The effects of livestock grazing on sage-grouse habitats have been synthesized and the coordination of geospatial grazing data at the allotment level on BLM land has been addressed. Outstanding: Large-scale, replicated grazing studies that address the effects to sage-grouse habitats and populations of different livestock species, grazing systems, disturbance histories, and other environmental conditions are lacking. Studies linking the timing and intensity of livestock grazing to sage-grouse vital rates, demographics, and population trends have not been replicated outside of MZs 1 and 2. Outside of local-scale studies in western portions of the sagebrush biome examining impacts of herbivory on the performance of Wyoming big sagebrush seedlings and native and non-native perennial bunchgrasses, further studies are needed to determine at what point seedlings or native plants can tolerate grazing by large herbivores. Standardized monitoring and data collection protocols for assessing livestock, feral horse and wildlife grazing effects on sagebrush rangelands and sage-grouse have not been developed.
Results and Summary 11 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (Score), and a summary of science objectives addressed (Addressed) and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20.—Continued [Sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata; Greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus]
Need
Score
Summary of 2015–20 literature
Need 3: Identify thresholds beyond which effects on sage-grouse behavior, population response(s), or habitat use are minimized relative to different types of disturbances and related activities, for example, effects of wildfire, energy development, and other surface-disturbing activities.
0.25
Addressed: A large number of local and regional-scale studies distributed across the range included anthropogenic infrastructure, energy infrastructure, conifer cover, habitat treatment, or other disturbance-related covariates in studies of sage-grouse population trends, seasonal habitat selection (including migratory habitats), demographics, and/or functional (in other words, genetic) connectivity. Sage-grouse response to conifer removal treatments has been well studied throughout the range of this issue. A limited number of local-scale studies have investigated sage-grouse population response to the removal of anthropogenic infrastructure or reductions in components of that infrastructure (for example, human activity) impacting the species. Relationships between infrastructure and predator communities have been assessed for ravens. Outstanding: The impacts of renewable energy development on sage-grouse have not been addressed except for a local-scale study of the response of sagegrouse to a wind energy development in MZ 2. Spatially replicated studies of sage-grouse population-level response to industrial noise are lacking, and the impacts of noise on sage-grouse seasonal habitat selection and demographics are unknown. Studies of sage-grouse response to energy development mitigation efforts, including infrastructure removal and reduced human activity, and mine reclamation efforts outside of Wyoming are lacking. Studies assessing development scenarios to improve siting and density of future infrastructure associated with energy developments to decrease impacts to sage-grouse populations at differing spatial scales (for example, informing onsite mitigation) are needed. The spatial arrangements (for example, clustered versus diffuse) of energy infrastructure and the related impacts on sage-grouse seasonal habitat selection and survival and population trends have not been assessed. Cumulative effects of the suite of anthropogenic and natural disturbances on sage-grouse remain largely unknown.
12 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (Score), and a summary of science objectives addressed (Addressed) and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20.—Continued [Sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata; Greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus]
Need
Score
Summary of 2015–20 literature
Need 4: Develop next-generation mapping techniques to provide regular interval updates and continue to enhance grassland and shrubland vegetation mapping (for example, every 2–5 years).
0.83
Addressed: Baseline estimates of biotic attributes of sagebrush rangelands (in other words, fractional percent cover of sagebrush, herbaceous cover, bare ground, etc.) have been quantified and mapped across the biome. Estimates of percent change in biotic attributes of sagebrush systems (for example, sagebrush cover, invasive annual grass cover), fire perimeters and severity, and variability in mesic area productivity (NDVI) from the 1980s to present have been mapped range wide. Techniques for regularly updating these range wide estimates have been established. Several local and regional scale studies throughout the biome have integrated biotic and abiotic changes established from long-term field observation datasets into spatial products, and different approaches to advance monitoring applications of mapping products (for example, invasive annual grass cover estimates, vegetation phenology changes through time, vegetation state changes) have been conducted. Future estimates of climate envelopes, ecosystem dynamics, vegetation distribution (including invasive and conifer species), and resistance and resilience have been modeled for the sagebrush biome at local, regional, and range wide scales. Several studies have investigated the potential response to climate change of different factors (for example, soil water attributes) that could influence biotic attributes of sagebrush rangelands. Regional scale rulesets (thresholds) for estimating the condition of sagebrush rangelands have been developed to assist in predicting future transitions in the sagebrush biome. Several projects have used high resolution imagery and different software packages to map landcover attributes at high spatial resolutions at local and regional scales. Multiple local scale studies have used machine learning extraction techniques, extreme high resolution (for example, sub-centimeter) imagery obtained by Unmanned Aerial Systems (drones), and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data to classify attributes of sagebrush rangelands. Many sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate wildlife habitat selection studies include geographic information system based (GIS) modeling of habitat suitability and often quality (for example, resource selection functions, electrical circuit theory); each of these efforts generates new spatial information specific to the sagebrush biome. Energy infrastructure build out has been simulated at local scales in MZ 2. Outstanding: Spatial products integrating temporally-dynamic field data into monitoring tools generated from remotely-sensed data, and higher resolution mapping have not been developed at biome wide scales. Potential changes within sagebrush habitats because of climate change, and changes in fire likelihood or other change agents (for example, anthropogenic development) have not been modeled or projected contiguously across the biome. The mapping of sagebrush to subspecies has not been accomplished, but multiple new technologies and mapping techniques have been explored that may be useful for these efforts.
Results and Summary 13 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (Score), and a summary of science objectives addressed (Addressed) and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20.—Continued [Sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata; Greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus]
Need
Score
Summary of 2015–20 literature
Need 5: Develop spatially explicit sagegrouse population models that incorporate biological processes and habitat dynamics and investigate scenarios that reflect local management possibilities (options, opportunities, and obstacles).
0.75
Addressed: Integrated sage-grouse population models have been developed from lek count data at local and regional scales. Several spatially explicit individualbased simulation models have been developed at local scales. A range wide database for lek counts has been created. Substantial numbers of local and regional scale studies have investigated in a spatially explicit manner the influence of multiple biotic and abiotic factors, at various spatial scales, on sage-grouse populations, habitat selection and demographics (see also Sagebrush and Sagegrouse topic Needs 3 and 6 summaries). Outstanding: Biome wide integrated population models, individual-based simulation models, and management-related simulations are lacking. A range wide, coordinated assessment of sage-grouse seasonal habitat selection and demographic data has not been accomplished. Sage-grouse seasonal habitat selection and demographic data are not standardized across the numerous studies conducted throughout the sagebrush biome
Need 6: Identify seasonal habitats for sagegrouse across their entire range
0.57
Addressed: Substantial numbers of local and regional scale studies have investigated the influence of multiple biotic and abiotic factors, at various spatial scales, on sage-grouse populations, habitat selection and habitat quality (in other words, demographics; see also Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic Needs 3 and 5 summaries). Habitat objectives established in either the sage-grouse habitat guidelines or the Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) have been compared to vegetation measures collected at sage-grouse nests or within sagebrushdominated rangelands considered suitable for sage-grouse at local and regional scales. The utility of broadly applied habitat objectives given variability in sagegrouse selected habitats across the sagebrush biome has been assessed. Outstanding: Models of sage-grouse seasonal habitat suitability or quality from fine-grained habitat selection and demographic information employing consistent analytical techniques and covariate groupings have not been developed range wide. Studies linking data-driven estimates of sage-grouse seasonal habitat suitability and quality to population viability have not been conducted across the biome. Sage-grouse seasonal habitat thresholds relative to habitat objectives and linked to geospatial layers have not been identified.
Need 7: Develop sagebrush ecosystemwide models identifying conditions necessary to support sagebrush-associated species, other than sage-grouse, using an individual species approach or species groups when necessary.
0.25
Addressed: Range wide habitat suitability has been modeled for some sagebrush obligate and associated songbird species (primarily Brewer's sparrow, sagebrush sparrow, sage thrasher, and vesper sparrow), golden eagles, Gunnison sagegrouse, and pygmy rabbits. Several local and regional scale studies have modeled habitat suitability for common ravens. Habitat relationships of sagebrush associated raptor species (ferruginous hawk, short eared owl), small mammals, reptiles (northern sagebrush lizard, plateau fence lizard, greater short-horned lizard), pronghorn, bats, and insects (harvester ants, gall insect communities) have been investigated locally. General literature has been summarized for bird species (relative to response to renewable energy projects), pinyon/juniper associated species, reptiles, monarch butterflies and pollinator insects (relative to food requirements), and jackrabbits. Outstanding: Spatially explicit habitat suitability estimates (either empirically or deductively derived), and the identification of modeling data needs and information gaps for most wildlife species reliant on sagebrush habitats are lacking. Standardized monitoring strategies, literature summaries, and the identification of information necessary to inform management actions for the bulk of sagebrush associated priority species have not been developed.
14 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (Score), and a summary of science objectives addressed (Addressed) and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20.—Continued [Sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata; Greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus]
Need
Score
Summary of 2015–20 literature
Need 8: Develop thresholds for the extent and magnitude of a threat (for example, cover of pinyon and juniper, density of oil and gas wells, road density, etc.) above which the habitat can no longer support sagebrush-obligate species.
0.50
Addressed: Numerous local and regional scale studies have investigated the response of sagebrush obligate and associated wildlife species, primarily songbirds and small mammals, to anthropogenic and natural disturbance factors across the sagebrush biome (see also Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic Need 7 summary). The overlap between sage-grouse habitat protections and several other sagebrush obligate or associated species or groups of species has been investigated at local, regional and range wide scales. The umbrella effectiveness of sage-grouse for sagebrush obligate and associated songbirds has been more formally assessed (population trend or fine-scale habitat selection consistency among species) in several local scale studies. Responses of songbirds, small mammals, bats, and general wildlife to conifer treatments have been assessed by multiple local and regional scale studies in western and southern portions of the sagebrush biome. An extensive pinyon-juniper wildlife and management literature review has been completed. Outstanding: Thresholds for the extent and magnitude of threats or disturbances to habitats above which habitat suitability is eliminated for sagebrush obligate wildlife have not been identified. Thresholds of conifer treatments (for example, identification of treatment levels resulting in irreversible impacts) and effects on pinyon-juniper associated species have not been identified. Efficacy of speciesspecific management strategies for sagebrush obligate or associated species other than in relation to strategies implemented for sage-grouse have not been assessed. Underlying causal mechanisms for sagebrush obligate species response to anthropogenic disturbance have not been thoroughly investigated across the sagebrush biome. Standardized monitoring strategies and literature summaries for most sagebrush associated priority species have not been developed.
Results and Summary 15 Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score (Score), and a summary of science objectives addressed (Addressed) and not addressed (Outstanding) in the scientific literature published 2015–20.—Continued [Sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata; Greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus]
Need
Score
Summary of 2015–20 literature
Need 9: Conduct long-term monitoring to assess development of community structure, community function, dynamics in native seedings, as well as suitability of resulting communities in meeting specific management goals, such as sagegrouse habitat restoration.
0.75
Addressed: Multiple local and regional scale studies have been conducted investigating relationships between different biotic and abiotic factors and changes in sagebrush cover, invasive annual grass cover, and mesic area productivity from 1984 (see also Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic Need 4 summary). Generalized regional and local scale restoration prioritization tools and approaches that are relevant range wide have been developed. Several regional scale decision support tools for prioritizing proactive management of sagebrush systems (conifer treatments and conservation easements) including economic and ecological potential considerations have been developed. Numerous studies investigating sage-grouse lek count protocols and data to establish approaches and covariates to estimating population trends locally, regionally and range wide have been conducted. Soil climate conditions (for example, temperature and moisture) and conifer cover have been mapped across the biome; and several aspects of invasive annual grass and fire attributes have been mapped range wide (see also Invasives topic Need 1 and Fire topic Need 3 summaries). Multiple approaches to collecting data important for monitoring sagebrush rangelands and wildlife have been investigated across the sagebrush biome (see also Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic Needs 7 and 8 summaries). Range wide studies have been completed that estimate resistance and resilience of sagebrush rangelands based on soils data. Outstanding: Unified metrics linked to sage-grouse population or demographic trends that can be used to quantify sagebrush habitat suitability and quality for sage-grouse have not been developed, limiting the ability to evaluate habitat conservation and restoration success. Fine grained geospatial estimates of human disturbance, most specifically infrastructure, have not been mapped consistently across the sagebrush biome. Simulation models of sage-grouse gains and losses in response to alternative sagebrush restoration efforts are geographically limited. Decision-support tools explicitly integrating ecosystem response to different proactive sagebrush management options have not been developed. Fine-grained soils information has not consistently been incorporated into assessments of the response of rangelands to different sagebrush restoration activities across treatment options.
There were several Next Steps identified under the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic that were addressed poorly, even when the overall Need was well or partially addressed. Underlying causal mechanisms explaining population-level response of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species to anthropogenic infrastructure remain largely unknown (Needs 3 and 8). A range wide, coordinated assessment of sage-grouse seasonal habitat selection and demographic data with links to population viability has not been accomplished (Needs 5 and 6). Unified metrics suitable for quantifying sagebrush habitat suitability and quality for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species have not been developed, limiting the ability to evaluate the success of habitat conservation and restoration activities (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 fragmentation 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 continues to move forward quickly, Needs and Next Steps likely to be addressed by science released after 2020 will require consideration in Plan updates.
16 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20
Acknowledgments We extend particular thanks to Zachary Bowen and Anne Kinsinger, U.S. Geological Survey. Report drafts were thoughtfully reviewed by Dave R. Edmunds and Seth J. Dettenmaier, U.S. Geological Survey.
References Cited Aldridge, C.L., Nielsen, S.E., Beyer, H.L., Boyce, M.S., Connelly, J.W., Knick, S.T., and Schroeder, M.A., 2008, Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse persistence: Diversity & Distributions, v. 14, no. 6, p. 983–994. 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. Brooks, M.L., Matchett, J.R., Shinneman, D.J., and Coates, P.S., 2015, Fire patterns in the range of greater sagegrouse, 1984–2013—Implications for conservation and management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1167, 66 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.3133/ ofr20151167.] Bureau of Land Management [BLM], 2020, Final programmatic EIS for fuels reduction and rangeland restoration in the Great Basin: Boise, Idaho, BLM Idaho State Office, 153 p. [Also available at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ project/122968/570.] Carter, S.K., Arkle, R.S., Bencin, H.L., Harms, B.R., Manier, D.J., Johnston, A.N., Phillips, S.L., Hanser, S.E., and Bowen, Z.H., 2020, Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from 2015 to 2019: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020–1103, 264 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/ 10.3133/ofr20201103.]
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, New York, Ecosystems, v. 17, no. 2, p. 360–375. 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. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-389, 237 p. Germino, M.J., Belnap, J., Stark, J.M., Allen, E.B., and Rau, B.M., 2016, Ecosystem impacts of exotic annual invaders in the Genus Bromus, 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.: Springer Series on Environmental Management, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, p. 61–95. [Also available at 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 17 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.]
Schroeder, M.A., Aldridge, C.L., Apa, A.D., Bohne, J.R., Braun, C.E., Bunnell, S.D., Connelly, J.W., Deibert, P.A., Gardner, S.C., Hilliard, M.A., Kobriger, G.D., McAdam, S.C., McCarthy, C.W., McCarthy, J.J., Mitchell, D.L., Rickerson, E.V., and Stiver, S.J., 2004, Distribution of sage-grouse in North America: The Condor, v. 106, no. 2, p. 363–376. 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, Wyoming, 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, at https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/ documents/rangeland/IntegratedRangelandFireManagemen tStrategy_FinalReportMay2015.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.]
Glossary 19
Glossary Addressed Objective detailed in a Next Step that was 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 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 (in other words, new research, syntheses, and tools) required to address a Need
Objective Science or research goals detailed as Next Steps in the Plan Outstanding Objective detailed in a Next Step that was not addressed in the literature published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020 Plan IRFMS Actionable Science Plan (Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team, 2016) 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
20 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20
Appendix 1. Literature included in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse 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.”
Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 1 Investigate sage-grouse movement patterns, the habitat characteristics that are conducive, restrictive, or preventive to those movements, and the genetic structure of populations to help inform management practices to improve or maintain connections.
Next Step 1a Compile and integrate disparate GPS tracking datasets to relate fine-scale movement patterns of sage-grouse relative to landscape characteristics, and identify variation in environmental resistance and barriers between seasonal habitats and between populations across the sage-grouse range. Crist, M.R., Knick, S.T., and Hanser, S.E., 2017, Range-wide connectivity of priority areas for greater sage-grouse— Implications for long-term conservation from graph theory: The Condor, v. 119, no. 1, p. 44–57.
Next Step 1b Initiate studies using high-frequency, fine-resolution GPS data to link sage-grouse movement processes to habitat conditions and anthropogenic features across the landscape. Dzialak, M.R., Olson, C.V., Webb, S.L., Harju, S.M., and Winstead, J.B., 2015, Incorporating within- and betweenpatch resource selection in identification of critical habitat for brood- rearing greater sage-grouse: Ecological Processes, v. 4, article 5, 15 p. Newton, R.E., Tack, J.D., Carlson, J.C., Matchett, M.R., Fargey, P.J., and Naugle, D.E., 2017, Longest sage-grouse migratory behavior sustained by intact pathways: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 6, p. 962–972.
Pratt, A.C., Smith, K.T., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Prioritizing seasonal habitats for comprehensive conservation of a partially migratory species: Global Ecology and Conservation, v. 17, p. 1–11. Prochazka, B.G., Coates, P.S., Ricca, M.A., Casazza, M.L., Gustafson, K.B., and Hull, J.M., 2017, Encounters with pinyon-juniper influence riskier movements in greater sage-grouse across the Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 39–49. Tack, J.D., Jakes, A.F., Jones, P.F., Smith, J.T., Newton, R.E., Martin, B.H., Hebblewhite, M., and Naugle, D.E., 2019, Beyond protected areas—Private lands and public policy anchor intact pathways for multi-species wildlife migration: Biological Conservation, v. 234, p. 18–27.
Next Step 1c Expand studies done with genetic data collected from lek sites that provide broad-scale patterns of range-wide population connectivity, including use of single nucleotide polymorphisms and other advanced genetic and genomic techniques. Cross, T.B., Naugle, D.E., Carlson, J.C., and Schwartz, M.K., 2017, Genetic recapture identifies long-distance breeding dispersal in greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): The Condor, v. 119, no. 1, p. 155–166. Hanks, E.M., Hooten, M.B., Knick, S.T., Oyler-McCance, S.J., Fike, J.A., Cross, T.B., and Schwartz, M.K., 2016, Latent spatial models and sampling design for landscape genetics: The Annals of Applied Statistics, v. 10, no. 2, p. 1041–1062. Fike, J.A., Oyler-McCance, S.J., Zimmerman, S.J., and Castoe, T.A., 2015, Development of 13 microsatellites for Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) using nextgeneration shotgun sequencing and their utility in greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): Conservation Genetics Resources, v. 7, no. 1, p. 211–214. Oyler-McCance, S.J., Cornman, R.S., Jones, K.L., and Fike, J.A., 2015a, Genomic single-nucleotide polymorphisms confirm that Gunnison and greater sage-grouse are genetically well differentiated and that the Bi-State population is distinct: The Condor, v. 117, no. 2, p. 217–227. Oyler-McCance, S.J., Cornman, R.S., Jones, K.L., and Fike, J.A., 2015b, Z chromosome divergence, polymorphism and relative effective population size in a genus of lekking birds: Heredity, v. 115, no. 5, p. 452–459.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 21 Row, J.R., Knick, S.T., Oyler-McCance, S.J., Lougheed, S.C., and Fedy, B.C., 2017, Developing approaches for linear mixed modeling in landscape genetics through landscapedirected dispersal simulations: Ecology and Evolution, v. 7, no. 11, p. 3751–3761.
Cross, T.B., Schwartz, M.K., Naugle, D.E., Fedy, B.C., Row, J.R., and Oyler-McCance, S.J., 2018, The genetic network of greater sage-grouse—Range-wide identification of keystone hubs of connectivity: Ecology and Evolution, v. 8, no. 11, p. 5394–5412.
Shirk, A.J., Schroeder, M.A., Robb, L.A., and Cushman, S.A., 2015, Empirical validation of landscape resistance models—Insights from the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): Landscape Ecology, v. 30, no. 10, p. 1837–1850.
Oh, K.P., Aldridge, C.L., Forbey, J.S., Dadabay, C.Y., and Oyler-McCance, S.J., 2019, Conservation genomics in the sagebrush sea—Population divergence, demographic history, and local adaptation in sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.): Genome Biology and Evolution, v. 11, no. 7, p. 2023–2034.
Next Step 1d
Row, J.R., Doherty, K.E., Cross, T.B., Schwartz, M.K., Oyler-McCance, S.J., Naugle, D.E., Knick, S.T., and Fedy, B.C., 2018, Quantifying functional connectivity—The role of breeding habitat, abundance, and landscape features on range-wide gene flow in sage-grouse: Evolutionary Applications, v. 11, no. 8, p. 1305–1321.
Use fine-scale genetic data from individual sage-grouse to investigate how movement barriers impact population performance and genetic structure at local scales. Cross, T.B., Naugle, D.E., Carlson, J.C., and Schwartz, M.K., 2016, Hierarchical population structure in greater sagegrouse provides insight into management boundary delineation: Conservation Genetics, v. 17, no. 6, p. 1417–1433. Davis, D.M., Reese, K.P., Gardner, S.C., and Bird, K.L., 2015, Genetic structure of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in a declining, peripheral population: The Condor, v. 117, no. 4, p. 530–544. Jahner, J.P., Gibson, D., Weitzman, C.L., Blomberg, E.J., Sedinger, J.S., and Parchman, T.L., 2016, Fine-scale genetic structure among greater sage-grouse leks in central Nevada: BMC Evolutionary Biology, v. 16, article 127, 13 p. Fedy, B.C., Row, J.R., and Oyler-McCance, S.J., 2017, Integration of genetic and demographic data to assess population risk in a continuously distributed species: Conservation Genetics, v. 18, no. 1, p. 89–104. Row, J.R., Oyler-McCance, S.J., Fike, J.A., O’Donnell, M.S., Doherty, K.E., Aldridge, C.L., Bowen, Z.H., and Fedy, B.C., 2015, Landscape characteristics influencing the genetic structure of greater sage-grouse within the stronghold of their range—A holistic modeling approach: Ecology and Evolution, v. 5, no. 10, p. 1955–1969. Row, J.R., Oyler-McCance, S.J., and Fedy, B.C., 2016, Differential influences of local subpopulations on regional diversity and differentiation for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): Molecular Ecology, v. 25, no. 18, p. 4424–4437.
Next Step 1e Complete a range-wide genetic analysis to provide the first comprehensive assessment of sage-grouse genetic connectivity.
Next Step 1f Develop new technology that allows for acquisition of movement data with increased frequency and resolution and reduced sage-grouse mortality. Not addressed.
Next Step 1g Investigate landscape factors that explain regional variation in movement patterns across different spatial scales using genetic and telemetry data. Not addressed.
Next Step 1h Complete studies of sage-grouse movements relative to habitat conditions and human features across the landscape using high-frequency, fine-resolution GPS data to understand how movement barriers affect population performance and genetic structure. Not addressed.
Studies Related to Need 1, But Not Any of the Next Steps Burkhalter, C., Holloran, M.J., Fedy, B.C., Copeland, H.E., Crabtree, R.L., Michel, N.L., Jay, S.C., Rutledge, B.A., and Holloran, A.G., 2018, Landscape-scale habitat assessment for an imperiled avian species: Animal Conservation, v. 21, no. 3, p. 241–251.
22 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Cardinal, C.J., and Messmer, T.A., 2016, Ecology of greater sage-grouse populations inhabiting the northwestern Wyoming Basin: Human-Wildlife Interactions, v. 10, no. 2, p. 188–204. Forbey, J.S., Patricelli, G.L., Delparte, D.M., Krakauer, A.H., Olsoy, P.J., Fremgen, M.R., Nobler, J.D., Spaete, L.P., Shipley, L.A., Rachlow, J.L., Dirksen, A.K., Perry, A., Richardson, B.A., and Glenn, N.F., 2017, Emerging technology to measure habitat quality and behavior of grouse— Examples from studies of greater sage-grouse: Wildlife Biology, 10 p. Gibson, D., Blomberg, E.J., Atamian, M.T., Espinosa, S.P., and Sedinger, J.S., 2018, Effects of power lines on habitat use and demography of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): Wildlife Monographs, v. 200, no. 1, p. 1–41. Heinrichs, J.A., Aldridge, C.L., O’Donnell, M.S., and Schumaker, N.H., 2017, Using dynamic population simulations to extend resource selection analyses and prioritize habitats for conservation: Ecological Modelling, v. 359, p. 449–459. O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Aldridge, C.L., Heinrichs, J.A., Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., and Hanser, S.E., 2019, Designing multi-scale hierarchical monitoring frameworks for wildlife to support management—A sage-grouse case study: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 9, p. 1–34. 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, article e01888, 18 p.
Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 2 Conduct a series of large-scale, replicated grazing studies that address how different livestock species, grazing systems, disturbance histories, and other environmental conditions affect sage-grouse habitat.
Next Step 2a Identify numerous study sites and initiate monitoring within pastures and plots at those sites that have different and explicit grazing treatments, documenting the past grazing regime at those study pastures and plots to experimentally link the timing and intensity of livestock grazing to sage-grouse demographics and population trends.
Monroe, A.P., Aldridge, C.L., Assal, T.J., Veblen, K.E., Pyke, D.A., and Casazza, M.L., 2017, Patterns in greater sagegrouse population dynamics correspond with public grazing records at broad scales: Ecological Applications, v. 27, no. 4, p. 1096–1107. Smith, J.T., Tack, J.D., Berkeley, L.I., Szczypinski, M., and Naugle, D.E., 2018a, Effects of livestock grazing on nesting sage-grouse in central Montana: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 7, p. 1503–1515. Smith, J.T., Tack, J.D., Berkeley, L.I., Szczypinski, M., and Naugle, D.E., 2018b, Effects of rotational grazing management on nesting greater sage-grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 1, p. 103–112.
Next Step 2b Identify or refine detailed protocols for monitoring sagegrouse vital rates and estimating local grazing intensity that would be used at replicate study sites so that data from numerous sites and States can contribute to synthetic analyses. Not addressed.
Next Step 2c Conduct an assessment of feral horse and burro impacts on local vegetation and sage-grouse habitat selection, vital rates, and population trends. If done in conjunction with analysis of effects of livestock grazing, this would facilitate analyses of interactive effects. Baur, L.E., Schoenecker, K.A., and Smith, M.D., 2018, Effects of feral horse herds on rangeland plant communities across a precipitation gradient: Western North American Naturalist, v. 77, no. 4, p. 526–539. Boyd, C.S., Davies, K.W., and Collins, G.H., 2017, Impacts of feral horse use on herbaceous riparian vegetation within a sagebrush steppe ecosystem: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 4, p. 411–417. Davies, K.W., and Boyd, C.S., 2019, Ecological effects of free-roaming horses in North American Rangelands: Bioscience, v. 69, no. 7, p. 558–565.
Next Step 2d Develop a synthesis of grazing effects on sage-grouse habitat condition.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 23 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 longterm strategic conservation actions—Part 1. Science basis and applications: Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR360. p. 213.
Rowland, M.M., 2019, The effects of management practices on grassland birds—Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), chap. B in Johnson, D.H., Igl, L.D., Shaffer, J.A., and DeLong, J.P., eds., The effects of management practices on grassland birds: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1842, p. 50.
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. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-356, 143 p.
Next Step 2f
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. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-389, 237 p.
Smith, J.T., Tack, J.D., Berkeley, L.I., Szczypinski, M., and Naugle, D.E., 2018b, Effects of rotational grazing management on nesting greater sage-grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 1, p. 103–112.
Elwell, S.L., Griswold, T., and Elle, E., 2016, Habitat type plays a greater role than livestock grazing in structuring shrubsteppe plant-pollinator communities: Journal of Insect Conservation, v. 20, no. 3, p. 515–525. Hanser, S.E., Deibert, P.A., Tull, J.C., Carr, N.B., Aldridge, C.L., Bargsten, T.D., 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, p. 1–46. Hunter, H.E., Husby, P.O., Fidel, J., and Mosley, J.C., 2018, Ecological health of grasslands and sagebrush steppe on the Northern Yellowstone Range: Rangelands, v. 40, no. 6, p. 212–223.
Next Step 2e Coordinate the collection of consistent range-wide geospatial information documenting grazing timing and intensity at the allotment and pasture level to facilitate large-scale analyses of grazing information. NA.
Develop long-term replicated grazing studies across the sagebrush ecosystem and within different ecological sites across the range of sage-grouse to better understand the different effects of grazing on sage-grouse habitat selection, vital rates, and population trends. Smith, J.T., Tack, J.D., Berkeley, L.I., Szczypinski, M., and Naugle, D.E., 2018a, Effects of livestock grazing on nesting sage-grouse in central Montana: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 7, p. 1503–1515.
Next Step 2g Implement consistent sampling at many sites in multiple states to ensure that results are rigorous and applicable throughout the sage-grouse range. Not addressed.
Next Step 2h 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 plants 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.
24 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 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.
Goosey, H.B., Smith, J.T., O’Neill, K.M., and Naugle, D.E., 2019, Ground-dwelling arthropod community response to livestock grazing—Implications for avian conservation: Environmental Entomology, v. 48, no. 4, p. 856–866.
Studies Related to Need 2, But Not Any of the Next Steps
Gosselin, E.N., Holbrook, J.D., Huggler, K., Brown, E., Vierling, K.T., Arkle, R.S., and Pilliod, D.S., 2016, Ecosystem engineering of harvester ants—Effects on vegetation in a sagebrush-steppe ecosystem: Western North American Naturalist, v. 76, no. 1, p. 82–89.
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.
Mitchell, R.M., Bakker, J.D., Vincent, J.B., and Davies, G.M., 2017, Relative importance of abiotic, biotic, and disturbance drivers of plant community structure in the sagebrush steppe: Ecological Applications, v. 27, no. 3, p. 756–768.
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.
Veblen, K.E., Nehring, K.C., McGlone, C.M., and Ritchie, M.E., 2015, Contrasting effects of different mammalian herbivores on sagebrush plant communities: PLoS ONE, v. 10, no. 2, article e0118016, 19 p.
Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Howe, K.B., Gustafson, K.B., Casazza, M.L., and Delehanty, D.J., 2016, Landscape characteristics and livestock presence influence common ravens—Relevance to greater sage-grouse conservation: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 2, article e01203, 20 p.
Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 3
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, article e02390, 19 p. Conover, M.R., and Roberts, A.J., 2016, Declining populations of greater sage-grouse—Where and why: Human-Wildlife Interactions, v. 10, no. 2, p. 217–229. Cutting K.A., Rotella J.J., Schroff S.R., Frisina M.R., Waxe J.A., Nunlist E., and Sowell B.F., 2019, Maladaptive nestsite selection by a sagebrush dependent species in a grazingmodified landscape: Journal of Environmental Management, v. 236, no. epub 2019, p. 622–630. 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. Davies, K.W., Boyd, C.S., and Bates, J.D., 2018, Eighty years of grazing by cattle modifies sagebrush and bunchgrass structure: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 71, no. 3, p. 275–280. Dittel, J.W., Sanchez, D.M., 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.
Identify thresholds beyond which effects on sage-grouse behavior, population response(s), or habitat use are minimized relative to different types of disturbances and related activities, for example, effects of wildfire, energy development, and other surface-disturbing activities.
Next Step 3a Assess the relative influence of predators and infrastructure on sage-grouse behaviors and population dynamics, including distinction of altered sage-grouse behavior (avoidance) from direct impacts (mortality). Coates, P.S., O’Neil, S.T., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Jackson, P.J., Dinkins, J.B., Howe, K.B., Moser, A.M., Foster, L.J., and Delehanty, D.J., 2020, Broad-scale impacts of an invasive native predator on a sensitive native prey species within the shifting avian community of the North American Great Basin: Biological Conservation, v. 243, 10 p. Gibson, D., Blomberg, E.J., Atamian, M.T., Espinosa, S.P., and Sedinger, J.S., 2018, Effects of power lines on habitat use and demography of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): Wildlife Monographs, v. 200, no. 1, p. 1–41.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 25
Next Step 3b
Next Step 3e
Expand on the work of Blickley and others (2012) by building into study designs assessments of effects of different types of noise (industrial, recreational, and road noises in sagebrush landscapes) and by including variations in volume and distance across large geographic areas and over multiple sage-grouse populations. Not addressed.
Determine the effects of conifer removal relative to removal of anthropogenic tall structures, considering demonstrable effects on habitat use. Address in these studies how predators respond to treatments, including raptors, canids, corvids, and rodents.
Next Step 3c Investigate the impacts of noise on sage-grouse nesting females, nest success, and brood and chick survival. Not addressed.
Next Step 3d Evaluate impacts of wind turbines and associated infrastructure on sage-grouse habitat use, seasonal survival, nesting, and brood-rearing success rates. Cardinal, C.J., and Messmer, T.A., 2016, Ecology of greater sage-grouse populations inhabiting the northwestern Wyoming Basin: Human-Wildlife Interactions, v. 10, no. 2, p. 188–204.
Coates, P.S., Andrle, K.M., Ziegler, P.T., and Casazza, M.L., 2016, Monitoring and research on the Bi-State distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the Pine Nut Mountains, California and Nevada—Study progress report, 2011–15: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1222, 40 p. 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. Cook, A.A., Messmer, T.A., and Guttery, M.R., 2017, Greater sage-grouse use of mechanical conifer reduction treatments in northwest Utah: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 41, no. 1, p. 27–33.
Hansen, E.P., Stewart, A.C., and Frey, S.N., 2016, Influence of transmission line construction on winter sage-grouse habitat use in southern Utah: Human-Wildlife Interactions, v. 10, no. 2, p. 169–187.
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.
Kohl, M.T., Messmer, T.A., Crabb, B.A., Guttery, M.R., Dahlgren, D.K., Larsen, R.T., Frey, S.N., Liguori, S., and Baxter, R.J., 2019, The effects of electric power lines on the breeding ecology of greater sage-grouse: PloS ONE, v. 14, no. 1, article E0209968, 25 p.
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.
LeBeau, C.W., Beck, J.L., Johnson, G.D., Nielson, R.M., Holloran, M.J., Gerow, K.G., and McDonald, T.L., 2017a, Greater sage-grouse male lek counts relative to a wind energy development: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 41, no. 1, p. 17–26.
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.
LeBeau, C.W., Johnson, G.D., Holloran, M.J., Beck, J.L., Nielson, R.M., Kauffman, M.E., Rodemaker, E.J., and McDonald, T.L., 2017b, Greater sage-grouse habitat selection, survival, and wind energy infrastructure: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 4, p. 690–711.
Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017b, Effects of conifer expansion on greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 1, p. 86–95.
LeBeau, C.W., Smith, K.T., Holloran, M.J., Beck, J.L., Kauffman, M.E., and Johnson, G.D., 2019, Greater sagegrouse habitat function relative to 230-kV transmission lines: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 8, p. 1773–1786.
Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Tack, J.D., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017, Better living through conifer removal—A demographic analysis of sage-grouse vital rates: PLoS ONE, v. 12, no. 3, article e0174347, 17 p.
26 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20
Next Step 3f
Next Step 3h
Determine the response of sage-grouse to removal of infrastructure, including sage-grouse demography, population size of sage-grouse, and habitat characteristics.
Assess the indirect effects of land use activities (density and distribution) and potential covariates on sagebrush habitats.
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, article e0121603, 19 p.
Decker, K.L., Pocewicz, A., Harju, S., Holloran, M., Fink, M.M., Toombs, T.P., and Johnston, D.B., 2017, Landscape disturbance models consistently explain variation in ecological integrity across large landscapes: Ecosphere v. 8, no. 4, article e01775, 12 p.
Holloran, M.J., Fedy, B.C., and Dahlke, J., 2015, Habitat use of greater sage-grouse relative to activity levels at natural gas well pads: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 79, no. 4, p. 630–640. 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. Pratt, A.C., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Greater sage-grouse response to bentonite mining: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 84, no. 4, p. 866–879. Van Lanen, N.J., Green, A.W., Gorman, T.R., Quattrini, L.A., and Pavlacky, D.C., Jr., 2017, Evaluating efficacy of fence markers in reducing greater sage-grouse collisions with fencing: Biological Conservation, v. 213, p. 70–83.
Next Step 3g Assess development scenarios to improve siting and density of future project development to decrease impacts of sagegrouse populations (for example, concentrated and clustered development versus diffuse development). Garman, S.L., 2017, A simulation framework for assessing physical and wildlife impacts of oil and gas development scenarios in southwestern Wyoming: Environmental Modeling and Assessment, v. 23, no. 1, p. 39–56. Heinrichs, J.A., O'Donnell, M.S., Aldridge, C.L., Garman, S.L., and Homer C.G., 2019, Influences of potential oil and gas development and future climate on sage-grouse declines and redistribution: Ecological Applications, v. 29, no. 6, article e01912, p. 1–16. Juliusson, L.M., and Doherty, K.E., 2017, Oil and gas development exposure and conservation scenarios for greater sage-grouse—Combining spatially explicit modeling with GIS visualization provides critical information for management decisions: Sevenoaks, England, Applied Geography, v. 80, p. 98–111.
Gamo, R.S., and Beck, J.L., 2017, Effectiveness of Wyoming’s sage-grouse core areas—Influences on energy development and male lek attendance: Environmental Management, v. 59, no. 2, p. 189–203. Green, A.W., Aldridge, C.L., and O’Donnell, M.S., 2017, Investigating impacts of oil and gas development on greater sage-grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 1, p. 46–57. Harju, S.M., Olson, C.V., Hess, J.E., and Bedrosian, B., 2018, Common raven movement and space use—Influence of anthropogenic subsidies within greater sage-grouse nesting habitat: Ecosphere v. 9, no, 7, article e02348, 12 p. Kirol, C.P., Beck, J.L., Huzurbazar, S.V., Holloran, M.J., and Miller, S.N., 2015, Identifying greater sage-grouse source and sink habitats for conservation planning in an energy development landscape: Ecological Applications, v. 25, no. 4, p. 968–990. Mitchell, R.M., Bakker, J.D., Vincent, J.B., and Davies, G.M., 2017, Relative importance of abiotic, biotic, and disturbance drivers of plant community structure in the sagebrush steppe: Ecological Applications, v. 27, no. 3, p. 756–768. O’Neil, S.T., Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Jackson, P.J., Howe, K.B., Moser, A.M., Foster, L.J., and Delehanty, D.J., 2018, Broad-scale occurrence of a subsidized avian predator— Reducing impacts of ravens on sage-grouse and other sensitive prey: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 55, no. 6, p. 2641–2652. Spence, E.S., Beck, J.L., and Gregory, A.J., 2017, Probability of lek collapse is lower inside sage-grouse core areas— Effectiveness of conservation policy for a landscape species: PLoS ONE, v. 12, no. 11, article e0185885, 15 p.
Studies Related to Need 3, But Not Any of the Next Steps 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.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 27 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. 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. Burkhalter, C., Holloran, M.J., Fedy, B.C., Copeland, H.E., Crabtree, R.L., Michel, N.L., Jay, S.C., Rutledge, B.A., and Holloran, A.G., 2018, Landscape-scale habitat assessment for an imperiled avian species: Animal Conservation, v. 21, no. 3, p. 241–251. Chelak, M.S., Cook, A.A., Frame, D.D., and Messmer, T.A., 2020, Aspergillosis in an augmented greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population in central Utah—A case report: Western North American Naturalist, v. 80, no. 4, p. 547–550. Cisneros-Pineda, A., Aadland, D., and Tschirhart, J., 2020, Impacts of cattle, hunting, and natural gas development in a rangeland ecosystem: Ecological Modeling, v. 431, 13 p. Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Gustafson, K.B., Sanchez-Chopitea, E., Mauch, K., Niell, L., Gardner, S., Espinosa, S., and Delehanty, D.J., 2016, Spatially explicit modeling of annual and seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Nevada and northeastern California—An updated decisionsupport tool for management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1080, 160 p. 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. 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, 27 p. Dzialak, M.R., Olson, C.V., Webb, S.L., Harju, S.M., and Winstead, J.B., 2015, Incorporating within- and betweenpatch resource selection in identification of critical habitat for brood rearing greater sage-grouse: Ecological Processes, v. 4, article 5, 15 p. Foster, L.J., Dugger, K.M., Hagen, C.A., and Budeau, D.A., 2018, Potential effects of GPS transmitters on greater sagegrouse survival in a post-fire landscape: Wildlife Biology, v. 2018, no. 1, p. 1–5.
Foster, L.J., Dugger, K.M., Hagen, C.A., and Budeau, D.A., 2019, Greater sage-grouse vital rates after wildfire: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 1, p. 121–134. Gosselin, E.N., Holbrook, J.D., Huggler, K., Brown, E., Vierling, K.T., Arkle, R.S., and Pilliod, D.S., 2016, Ecosystem engineering of harvester ants—Effects on vegetation in a sagebrush-steppe ecosystem: Western North American Naturalist, v. 76, no. 1, p. 82–89. Kircher, A.A., Apa, A.D., Walker, B.L., and Lutz, R.S., 2020, A rump-mount harness design improvement for greater sage-grouse: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 44, no. 3, p. 623–630. Kirol, C.P., Kesler, D.C., Walker, B.L., and Fedy, B.C., 2020, Coupling tracking technologies to maximize efficiency in avian research: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 44, no. 2, p. 406–415. Kirol, C.P., Smith, K.T., Graf, N.E., Dinkins, J.B., Lebeau, C.W., Maechtle, T.L., Sutphin, A.L., and Beck, J.L., 2020, Greater sage-grouse response to the physical footprint of energy development: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 84, no. 5, p. 989–1001. 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. McIntire, S.E., Rabon, J.C., Coates, P.S., Ricca, M.A., and Johnson, T.N., 2020, Greater sage-grouse chick killed by Great Basin gopher snake: Western North American Naturalist, v. 80, no. 1, p. 70–73. Morris, C., Badik, K.J., Morris, L.R., and Weltz, M.A., 2016, Integrating precipitation, grazing, past effects and interactions in long-term vegetation change: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 124, p. 111–117. Newton, R.E., Tack, J.D., Carlson, J.C., Matchett, M.R., Fargey, P.J., and Naugle, D.E., 2017, Longest sage-grouse migratory behavior sustained by intact pathways: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 6, p. 962–972. 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. Orning, E.K., and Young, J.K., 2016, Impacts of coyote removal on space use by greater sage-grouse: HumanWildlife Interactions, v. 10, no. 2, p. 144–156.
28 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Orning, E.K., and Young, J.K., 2017, Coyote removal—Can the short-term application of a controversial management tool improve female greater sage-grouse survival or nest success? Wildlife Biology, v.17, 8 p.
Shirk, A.J., Schroeder, M.A., Robb, L.A., and Cushman, S.A., 2017, Persistence of greater sage-grouse in agricultural landscapes: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 5, p. 905–918.
Peebles, L.W., Conover, M.R., and Dinkins, J.B., 2017, Adult sage-grouse numbers rise following raven removal or an increase in precipitation: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 41, no. 3, p. 471–478.
Smith, K.T., and Beck, J.L., 2018, Sagebrush treatments influence annual population change for greater sage-grouse: Restoration Ecology, v. 26, no. 3, p. 497–505.
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. Prochazka, B.G., Coates, P.S., Ricca, M.A., Casazza, M.L., Gustafson, K.B., and Hull, J.M., 2017, Encounters with pinyon-juniper influence riskier movements in greater sage-grouse across the Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 39–49. Rabon, J.C., McIntire, S.E., Coates, P.S., Ricca, M.A., and Johnson, T.N., 2020, Brood parasitism of greater sagegrouse by California Quail in Idaho: Western North American Naturalist, v. 80, no. 4, p. 569–572. Ramey, R.R., Thorley, J.L., and Ivey, A.S., 2018, Local and population-level responses of greater sage-grouse to oil and gas development and climatic variation in Wyoming: PEERJ, v. 2018, no. 6, p. e5417. Rice, M.B., Rossi, L.G., and Apa, A.D., 2016, Seasonal habitat use by greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on a landscape with low density oil and gas development: PLoS ONE, v. 11, no. 10, article e0165399, 20 p. Row, J.R., Oyler-McCance, S.J., Fike, J.A., O’Donnell, M.S., Doherty, K.E., Aldridge, C.L., Bowen, Z.H., and Fedy, B.C., 2015, Landscape characteristics influencing the genetic structure of greater sage-grouse within the stronghold of their range—A holistic modeling approach: Ecology and Evolution, v. 5, no. 10, p. 1955–1969. Severson, J.P., Coats, P.S., Porchazka, B.G., Ricca, M.A., Casazza, M.L., and Delehanty, D.J., 2019, Global positioning system tracking devices can decrease Greater Sagegrouse survival: The Condor, v. 121, no. 3, p. 1–15. 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. Shirk, A.J., Schroeder, M.A., Robb, L.A., and Cushman, S.A., 2015, Empirical validation of landscape resistance models—Insights from the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): Landscape Ecology, v. 30, no. 10, p. 1837–1850.
Smith, K.T., Beck, J.L., and Pratt, A.C., 2016, Does Wyoming’s core area policy protect winter habitats for greater sage-grouse?: Environmental Management, v. 58, no. 4, p. 585–596. Smith, K.T., Dinkins, J.B., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Approaches to delineate Greater Sage-grouse winter concentration areas: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 7, p. 1495–1507. 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. 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. Steenvoorden, J., Meddens, A.J.H., Martinez, A.J., Foster, L.J., and Kissling, W.D., 2019, The potential importance of unburned islands as refugia for the persistence of wildlife species in fire-prone ecosystems: Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, no. 15, p. 8800–8812. Stonehouse, K.F., Shipley, L.A., Lowe, J., Atamian, M.T., Swanson, M.E., and Schroeder, M.A., 2015, Habitat selection and use by sympatric, translocated greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 79, no. 8, p. 1308–1326. Swanson, S.R., Swanson, J.C., Murphy, P.J., McAdoo, J.K., and Schultz, B., 2016, Mowing Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) cover effects across northern and central Nevada: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 5, p. 360–372. Taylor, J.D., Holt, R.D., Orning, E.K., and Young, J.K., 2017, Greater sage-grouse nest survival in Northwestern Wyoming: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 7, p. 1219–1227. Walker, B.L., Neubaum, M.A., Goforth, S.R., and Flenner, M.M., 2020, Quantifying habitat loss and modification from recent expansion of energy infrastructure in an isolated, peripheral greater sage-grouse population: Journal of Environmental Management, v. 255, article 109819, 15 p.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 29 Westover, M., Baxter, J., Baxter, R., Day, C., Jensen, R., Petersen, S., and Larsen, R., 2016, Assessing greater sagegrouse selection of brood-rearing habitat using remotelysensed imagery—Can readily available high-resolution imagery be used to identify brood-rearing habitat across a broad landscape?: PLoS ONE, v. 11, no. 5, article e0156290, 19 p. Zabihi, K., Paige, G.B., Hild, A.L., Miller, S.N., Wuenschel, A., and Holloran, M.J., 2017, A fuzzy logic approach to analyze the suitability of nesting habitat for greater sagegrouse in western Wyoming: Journal of Spatial Science, v. 62, no. 2, p. 215–234.
Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 4 Develop next-generation mapping techniques to provide regular interval updates and continue to enhance grassland and shrubland vegetation mapping (for example, every 2–5 years).
Next Step 4a Complete a baseline sagebrush ecosystem-wide characterization of shrub and grass components for the entire sagebrush ecosystem. Rigge, M., Homer, C., Cleeves, L., Meyer, D.K., Bunde, B., Shi, H., Xian, G., Schell, S., and Bobo, M., 2020, Quantifying western U.S. rangelands as fractional components with multi-resolution remote sensing and in situ data: Remote Sensing v. 12, no. 3, article 412, 26 p. Parsons, L.A., Jenks, J.A., and Gregory, A.J., 2020, Accuracy assessment of National Land Cover Database shrubland products on the sagebrush steppe fringe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 2, p. 309–312.
Next Step 4b Conduct an ecosystem-wide analysis of sagebrush change back in time to 1983 from the baseline using the Landsat archive and ancillary data (for example, fire data). Brooks, M.L., Matchett, J.R., Shinneman, D.J., and Coates, P.S., 2015, Fire patterns in the range of the greater sagegrouse, 1984–2013—Implications for conservation and management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1167, 66 p.
Donnelly, J.P., Allred, B.W., Perret, D., Silverman, N.L., Tack, J.D., Dreitz, V.J., Maestas, J.D., and Naugle, D.E., 2018, Seasonal drought in North America’s sagebrush biome structures dynamic mesic resources for Sage-grouse: Ecology and Evolution, v. 8, no. 24, p. 12492–12505. Donnelly, J.P., Naugle, D.E., Hagen, C.A., and Maestas, J.D., 2016, Public lands and private waters—Scarce mesic resources structure land tenure and sage-grouse distributions: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 1, article e01208, 15 p. Finzel, J.A., Seyfried, M.S., Weltz, M.A., and Launchbaugh, K.L., 2016, Simulation of long-term soil water dynamics at Reynolds Creek, Idaho—Implications for rangeland productivity: Ecohydrology, v. 9, no. 4, p. 673–687. Hawbaker, T.J., Vanderhoof, M.K., Beal, Y.J., Takacs, J.D., Schmidt, G.L., Falgout, J.T., Williams, B., Fairaux, N.M., Caldwell, M.K., Picott, J.J., Howard, S.M., Stitt, S., and Dwyer, J.L., 2018, Mapping burned areas using dense timeseries of Landsat data: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 198, no. 1, p. 504–522. 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. 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, article 105872, 11 p. Rigge, M., Shi, H., Homer, C., Danielson, P., and Granneman, B., 2019, Long-term trajectories of fractional component change in the Northern Great Basin, USA: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 6, article e02762, 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: Ecosystems (New York, N.Y.), v. 21, no. 5, p. 913–929. Soulard, C.E., and Rigge, M., 2020, Application of empirical land-cover changes to construct climate change scenarios in federally managed lands: Remote Sensing, v. 12, no. 15, article 2360, 22 p. 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.
30 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20
Next Step 4c Further explore how to integrate ground sampling and monitoring using remote sensing to synergistically advance monitoring applications (for example, machine learning and approaches using big data). 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. Boyte, S.P., and Wylie, B.K., 2016, Near-real-time cheatgrass percent cover in the northern Great Basin, USA, 2015: Rangelands, v. 38, no. 5, p. 278–284. Howell, R.G., Jensen, R.R., Petersen, S.L., and Larsen, R.T., 2020, Measuring height characteristics of sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) using imagery derived from small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS): Drones, v. 4, no. 1, 15 p. Olsoy, P.J., Forbey, J.S., Shipley, L.A., Rachlow, J.L., Robb, B.C., Nobler, J.D., and Thornton, D.H., 2020, Mapping foodscapes and sagebrush morphotypes with unmanned aerial systems for multiple herbivores: Landscape Ecology, v. 35, no. 4, p. 921–936. Pastick, N.J., Wylie, B.K., and Wu, Z.T., 2018, Spatiotemporal analysis of Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 data to support monitoring of dryland ecosystems: Remote Sensing, v. 10, no. 5, 15 p. Pastick, N.J., Dahal, D., Wylie, B.K., Parajuli, S., Boyte, S.P., and Wu, Z., 2020, Characterizing land surface phenology and exotic annual grasses in dryland ecosystems using Landsat and Sentinel-2 data in harmony: Remote Sensing, v. 12, no. 725, 17 p. 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. Shi, H., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Postma, K., and Xian, G., 2020, Analyzing vegetation change in a sagebrush ecosystem using long-term field observations and Landsat imagery in Wyoming: Ecosphere, v. 11, no. 12, article e03311, 20 p. Stoner, D.C., Messmer, T.A., Larsen, R.T., Frey, S.N., Kohl, M.T., Thacker, E.T., and Dahlgren, D.K., 2020, Using satellite-derived estimates of plant phenological rhythms to predict sage-grouse nesting chronology: Ecology and Evolution, v. 10, no. 20, p. 11169–11182.
Zabihi, K., Driese, K.L., Paige, G.B., and Hild, A.K., 2019, Application of ground-based lidar and gap intercept measurements to quantify a shrub configuration metric within greater sage-grouse nesting habitat: Western North American Naturalist, v. 79, no. 4, p. 500–514.
Next Step 4d Using Landsat change trends, develop scenario maps of the future showing how sagebrush ecosystem could change based on expected climate, fire, and other change agents. Balzotti, C.S., Kitchen, S.G., and McCarthy, C., 2016, Beyond the single species climate envelope—A multifaceted approach to mapping climate change vulnerability: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 9, article e01444, 23 p. Boyte, S.P., Wylie, B.K., Gu, Y.X., 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. Boyte, S.P., Wylie, B.K., and Major, D.J., 2016, Cheatgrass percent cover change—Comparing recent estimates to climate change–driven predictions in the northern Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 4, p. 265–279. 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.F., 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: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-360, 213 p. Garman, S.L., 2017, A simulation framework for assessing physical and wildlife impacts of oil and gas development scenarios in southwestern Wyoming: Environmental Modeling and Assessment, v. 23, no. 1, p. 39–56. Homer, C.G., Xian, G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., Loveland, T.R., and O’Donnell, M.S., 2015, Forecasting sagebrush ecosystem components and greater sage-grouse habitat for 2050—Learning from past climate patterns and Landsat imagery to predict the future: Ecological Indicators, v. 55, p. 131–145.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 31 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. 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, article e01590, 20 p. Piekielek, N.B., Hansen, A.J., and Chang, T., 2015, Using custom scientific workflow software and GIS to inform protected area climate adaptation planning in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem: Ecological Informatics, v. 30, p. 40–48. 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. Requena-Mullor, J.M., Maguire, K.C., Shinneman, D.J., and Caughlin, T.T., 2019, Integrating anthropogenic factors into regional-scale species distribution models—A novel application in the imperiled sagebrush biome: Global Change Biology, v. 25, no. 11, p. 3844–3858. Tredennick, A.T., Hooten, M.B., Aldridge, C.L., Homer, C.G., Kleinhesselink, A.R., and Adler, P.B., 2016, Forecasting climate change impacts on plant populations over large spatial extents: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 10, article e01525, 16 p.
Next Step 4e Explore new mapping technologies that synergistically merge multiple new technologies and data to provide higher spatial, structural, and thematic resolution maps than now possible and that cover larger areas. Anderson, K.E., Glenn, N.F., Spaete, L.P., Shinneman, D.J., Pilliod, D.S., Arkle, R.S., McIlroy, S.K., and Derryberry, D.R., 2018, Estimating vegetation biomass and cover across large plots in shrub and grass dominated drylands using terrestrial lidar and machine learning: Ecological Indicators, v. 84, p. 793–802. Boyte, S.P., Wylie, B.K., Rigge, M.B., and Dahal, D., 2018, Fusing MODIS with Landsat 8 data to downscale weekly normalized difference vegetation index estimates for central Great Basin rangelands, USA: GIScience & Remote Sensing, v. 55, no. 3, p. 376–399.
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. Freese, M.T., Petersen, S.L., and Miller, R.F., 2016, Spatial analysis of greater sage-grouse habitat use in relation to landscape level habitat structure: Journal of Ecosystem and Ecography, v. 6, no. 3, article 1000205, 10 p. Glenn, N.F., Neuenschwander, A., Vierling, L.A., Spaete, L., Li, A., Shinneman, D.J., Pilliod, D.S., Arkle, R.S., and McIlroy, S.K., 2016, Landsat 8 and ICESat-2—Performance and potential synergies for quantifying dryland ecosystem vegetation cover and biomass: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 185, p. 233–242. 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. Havrilla, C.A., Villarreal, M.L., DiBiase, J.L., Duniway, M.C., and Barger, N.N., 2020, Ultra-high-resolution mapping of biocrusts with Unmanned Aerial Systems: Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, v. 6, no. 4, p. 441–456. Horning, N., Fleishman, E., Ersts, P.J., Fogarty, F.A., and Zillig, M.W., 2020, Mapping of land cover with opensource software and ultra-high-resolution imagery acquired with unmanned aerial vehicles: Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, v. 6, no. 4, p. 487–497. LeBeau, C.W., Johnson, G.D., Holloran, M.J., Beck, J.L., Nielson, R.M., Kauffman, M.E., Rodemaker, E.J., and McDonald, T.L., 2017, Greater sage-grouse habitat selection, survival, and wind energy infrastructure: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 4, p. 690–711. Li, A., Dhakal, S., Glenn, N.F., Spaete, L.P., Shinneman, D.J., Pilliod, D.S., Arkle, R.S., and McIlory, S.K., 2017, Lidar aboveground vegetation biomass estimates in shrublands: prediction, uncertainties and application to coarser scales: Remote Sensing, v. 9, no. 903, 17 p. Milling, C.R., Rachlow, J.L., Olsoy, P.J., Chappell, M.A., Johnson, T.R., Forbey, J.S., Shipley, L.A., and Thornton, D.H., 2018, Habitat structure modifies microclimate—An approach for mapping fine-scale thermal refuge: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, no. 6, p. 1648–1657.
32 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Mitchell, J.J., Shrestha, R., Spaete, L.P., and Glenn, N.F., 2015, Combining airborne hyperspectral and LiDAR data across local sites for upscaling shrubland structural information—Lessons for HypspIRI: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 167, p. 98–110. Olsoy, P.J., Mitchell, J., Glenn, N.F., and Flores, A.N., 2017, Assessing a multi-platform data fusion technique in capturing spatiotemporal dynamics of heterogeneous dryland ecosystems in topographically complex terrain: Remote Sensing, v. 9, no. 981, 19 p. Olsoy, P.J., Shipley, L.A., Rachlow, J.L., Forbey, J.S., Glenn, N.F., Burgess, M.A., and Thornton, D.H., 2018, Unmanned aerial systems measure structural habitat features for wildlife across multiple scales: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, no. 3, p. 594–604. Prochazka, B.G., Coates, P.S., Ricca, M.A., Casazza, M.L., Gustafson, K.B., and Hull, J.M., 2017, Encounters with pinyon-juniper influence riskier movements in greater sage-grouse across the Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 39–49. 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. Westover, M., Baxter, J., Baxter, R., Day, C., Jensen, R., Petersen, S., and Larsen, R., 2016, Assessing greater sagegrouse selection of brood-rearing habitat using remotelysensed imagery—Can readily available high-resolution imagery be used to identify brood-rearing habitat across a broad landscape?: PLoS ONE, v. 11, no. 5, article e0156290, 19 p. Yi, Q., Ustin, S.L., and Glenn, N.F., 2018, Imaging spectroscopic analysis of biochemical traits for shrub species in Great Basin, USA: Remote Sensing, v. 10, no. 1621, 12 p.
Next Step 4f Explore new technologies to map the location of sagebrush subspecies in more detail. Olsoy, P.J., Griggs, T.C., Ulappa, A.C., Gehlken, K., Shipley, L.A., Shewmaker, G.E., and Forbey, J.S., 2016, Nutritional analysis of sagebrush by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 134, p. 125–131.
Studies Related to Need 4, But Not Any of the Next Steps Irvine, K.M., Wright, W.J., Shanahan, E.K., and Rodhouse, T.J., 2019, Cohesive framework for modelling plant cover class data: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 10, no. 10, p. 1749–1760. Jarnevich, C.S., Talbert, M., Morisette, J., Aldridge, C., Brown, C.S., Kumar, S., Manier, D., Talbert, C., and Holcombe, T., 2017, Minimizing effects of methodological decisions on interpretation and prediction in species distribution studies—An example with background selection: Ecological Modelling, v. 363, p. 48–56. Pandit, K., Dashti, H., Glenn, N.F., Flores, A.N., Maguire, K.C., Shinneman, D.J., Flerchinger, G.N., and Fellows, A.W., 2019, Developing and optimizing shrub parameters representing sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems in the northern Great Basin using the Ecosystem Demography (EDv2.2) model: Geoscientific Model Development, v. 12, no. 11, p. 4585–4601. Shirk, A.J., Schroeder, M.A., Robb, L.A., and Cushman, S.A., 2015, Empirical validation of landscape resistance models—Insights from the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): Landscape Ecology, v. 30, no. 10, p. 1837–1850.
Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 5 Develop spatially explicit sage-grouse population models that incorporate biological processes and habitat dynamics and investigate scenarios that reflect local management possibilities (options, opportunities, and obstacles).
Next Step 5a Coordinate and establish sage-grouse telemetry study sites across the species’ range to collect consistent sage-grouse demographic rate information for use in development of a range-wide integrated population model and scenario modeling. This information will also help establish links between sage-grouse population change, protective measures, conservation efforts, restoration actions, and effectiveness of metrics for habitat monitoring. Not addressed. See Needs 3 and 6 for local and regional habitat selection and demographic studies.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 33
Next Step 5b Synthesize existing data and literature about population ecology of sage-grouse, as well as habitat associations related to demographic rates. This synthesis should include information about specific sage-grouse life stages (for example, nesting, brood-rearing, wintering) while assessing vital rates and specific habitat needs across different ecoregions that sagegrouse inhabit. Carter, S.K., Arkle, R.S., Bencin, H.L., Harms, B.R., Manier, D.J., Johnston, A.N., Phillips, S.L., Hanser, S.E., and Bowen, Z.H., 2020, Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from 2015 to 2019: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020–1103, 264 p. Conover, M.R., and Roberts, A.J., 2016, Declining population of greater sage-grouse—Where and why: Human-Wildlife Interactions, v. 10, no. 2, p. 217–229. Hanser, S.E., Deibert, P.A., Tull, J.C., Carr, N.B., Aldridge, C.L., Bargsten, T.D., 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, p. 1–46. Wann, G.T., Braun, C.E., Aldridge, C.L., and Schroeder, M.A., 2020, Rates of ovulation and reproductive success estimated from hunter-harvested greater sage-grouse in Colorado: Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, v. 11, no. 1, p. 151–163.
Next Step 5c Convene a multi-agency working group to develop the metrics and process for completing a range-wide framework for an integrated population model that can predict or explain sage-grouse population performance relative to management decisions. NA.
Next Step 5d Develop a range-wide integrated population model that incorporates landscape-scale environmental, disturbance, and climate information to provide reliable estimates of sagegrouse population size, population performance, and models that can explain variation in population size and performance across multiple spatial scales.
Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Ricca, M.A., Halstead, B.J., Casazza, M.L., Blomberg, E.J., Brussee, B.E., Wiechman, L., Tebbenkamp, J., Gardner, S.C., and Reese, K.P., 2018, The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic drivers to population growth vary among local populations of greater sage-grouse—An integrated population modeling approach: The Auk, v. 135, no. 2, p. 240–261. Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Ricca, M.A., Brussee, B.E., Blomberg, E.J., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Davis, D.M., Niell, L.E., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C., and Delehanty, D.J., 2016, Integrating spatially explicit indices of abundance and habitat quality—An applied example for greater sage-grouse management: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 53, no. 1, p. 83–95. McCaffery, R., and Lukacs, P.M., 2016, A generalized integrated population model to estimate greater sage-grouse population dynamics: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 11, article e01585, 14 p.
Next Step 5e Use a spatially explicit simulation modeling environment to link data and models with vital rate and movement information. These models will allow for the evaluation of how multiple interacting management actions and changes in land use and resource condition affect local and regional populations. This biologically realistic and mechanistic approach to evaluating the population responses across life stages will aid in identifying effective alternative management actions impacting sage-grouse distribution, abundance, and persistence. 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. Heinrichs, J.A., Lawler, J.J., Schumaker, N.H., Wilsey, C.B., Newcomb, K., and Aldridge, C.L., 2017, A multispecies test of source-sink indicators to prioritize habitat for declining populations: Conservation Biology, v. 32, no. 3, p. 648–659. Heinrichs, J.A., O'Donnell, M.S., Aldridge, C.L., Garman, S.L., and Homer C.G., 2019, Influences of potential oil and gas development and future climate on sage-grouse declines and redistribution: Ecological Applications, v. 0, no. 0, article e01912, p. 1–16. 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.
34 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20
Next Step 5f Develop an online interface to facilitate access by State and Federal agencies to the range-wide integrated population model to inform sage-grouse management actions. NA.
Studies Related to Need 5, But Not Any of the Next Steps Burkhalter, C., Holloran, M.J., Fedy, B.C., Copeland, H.E., Crabtree, R.L., Michel, N.L., Jay, S.C., Rutledge, B.A., and Holloran, A.G., 2018, Landscape-scale habitat assessment for an imperiled avian species: Animal Conservation, v. 21, no. 3, p. 241–251. Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Ricca, M.A., Wann, G.T., Aldridge, C.L., Hanser, S.E., Doherty, K.E., O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., and Espinosa, S.P., 2017, Hierarchical population monitoring of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Nevada and California— Identifying populations for management at the appropriate spatial scale: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017–1089, 49 p. Coates, P.S., Ricca, M.A., Prochazka, B.G., Brooks, M.L., Doherty, K.E., Kroger, T., Blomberg, E.J., Hagen, C.A., and Casazza, M.L., 2016, Wildfire, climate, and invasive grass interactions negatively impact an indicator species by reshaping sagebrush ecosystems: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 113, no. 45, p. 12745–12750. Donnelly, J.P., Naugle, D.E., Hagen, C.A., and Maestas, J.D., 2016, Public lands and private waters—Scarce mesic resources structure land tenure and sage-grouse distributions: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 1, article e01208, 15 p. Edmunds, D.R., Aldridge, C.L., O’Donnell, M.S., and Monroe, A.P., 2017, Greater sage-grouse population trends across Wyoming: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 2, p. 397–412. Green, A.W., Aldridge, C.L., and O’Donnell, M.S., 2017, Investigating impacts of oil and gas development on greater sage-grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 1, p. 46–57. 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.
O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Aldridge, C.L., Heinrichs, J.A., Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., and Hanser, S.E., 2019, Designing multi-scale hierarchical monitoring frameworks for wildlife to support management—A sage-grouse case study: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 9, p. 1–34. Row, J.R., Oyler-McCance, S.J., and Fedy, B.C., 2016, Differential influences of local subpopulations on regional diversity and differentiation for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): Molecular Ecology, v. 25, no. 18, p. 4424–4437.
Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 6 Identify seasonal habitats for sage-grouse across their entire range.
Next Step 6a Compile and summarize habitat objectives from land use plans across the range of sage-grouse, and summarize literature to develop regional functional responses that link site-scale habitat objectives to fine- or mid-scale shrub map products, which will be used for seasonal habitat models range-wide. Bates, J.D., and Davies, K.W., 2019, Characteristics of intact Wyoming big sagebrush associations in southeastern Oregon: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 1, p. 36–46. Dahlgren, D.K., Messmer, T.A., Crabb, B.A., Kohl, M.T., Frey, S.N., Thacker, E.T., Larsen, R.T., and Baxter, R.J., 2019, Sage-grouse breeding and late brood-rearing habitat guidelines in Utah: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 43, no. 4, p. 576–589. Dinkins, J.B., Smith, K.T., Beck, J.L., Kirol, C.P., Pratt, A.C., and Conover, M.R., 2016, Microhabitat conditions in Wyoming's sage-grouse core areas—Effects on nest site selection and success: PLoS ONE, v. 11, no. 3, article e0150798, 17 p. Di Stefano, S., Karl, J.W., McCord, S.E., Stauffer, N.G., Makela, P.D., and Manning, M., 2018, Comparison of 2 vegetation height methods for assessing greater sage-grouse seasonal habitat: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 42, no. 2, p. 213–224. 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.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 35 Smith, J.T., Allred, B.W., Boyd, C.S., Carlson, J.C., Davies, K.W., Hagen, C.A., Naugle, D.E., Olsen, A.C., and Tack, J.D., 2020, Are sage-grouse fine-scale specialists or shrubsteppe generalists?: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 84, no. 4, p. 759–774.
Next Step 6b Collect existing telemetry data throughout the sagegrouse range and evaluate threshold-based seasonal habitat maps to evaluate sage-grouse resource selection models. Duchardt, C.J., Augustine, D.J., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Threshold responses of grassland and sagebrush birds to patterns of disturbance created by an ecosystem engineer: Landscape Ecology, v. 34, no. 4, p. 895–909.
Next Step 6c Develop empirically based seasonal habitat models for sage-grouse range-wide using existing telemetry data and new data collected as part of a multi-partner population and habitat monitoring framework. 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. Coates, P.S., Casazza, M.L., Ricca, M.A., Brussee, B.E., Blomberg, E.J., Gustafson, K.B., Overton, C.T., Davis, D.M., Niell, L.E., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C., and Delehanty, D.J., 2016, Integrating spatially explicit indices of abundance and habitat quality—An applied example for greater sage-grouse management: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 53, no. 1, p. 83–95. Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Severson, J.P., Casazza, M.L., Gustafson, K.B., Espinosa, S.P., Gardner, S.C., and Delehanty, D.J., 2020, Spatially explicit models of seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse at broad spatial scales—Informing areas for management in Nevada and northeastern California: Ecology and Evolution, v. 10, no. 1, p. 104–118. Dzialak, M.R., Olson, C.V., Webb, S.L., Harju, S.M., and Winstead, J.B., 2015, Incorporating within- and betweenpatch resource selection in identification of critical habitat for brood- rearing greater sage-grouse: Ecological Processes, v. 4, article 5, 15 p. 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, article e0121603, 19 p.
Freese, M.T., Petersen, S.L., and Miller, R.F., 2016, Spatial analysis of greater sage-grouse habitat use in relation to landscape level habitat structure: Journal of Ecosystem and Ecography, v. 6, no. 3, article 1000205, 10 p. Gibson, D., Blomberg, E.J., Atamian, M.T., and Sedinger, J.S., 2016, Nesting habitat selection influences nest and early offspring survival in greater sage-grouse: The Condor, v. 118, no. 4, p. 689–702. Hansen, E.P., Stewart, A.C., and Frey, S.N., 2016, Influence of transmission line construction on winter sage-grouse habitat use in southern Utah: Human-Wildlife Interactions, v. 10, no. 2, p. 169–187. Kane, K., Sedinger, J.S., Gibson, D., Blomberg, E., and Atamian, M., 2017, Fitness landscapes and life-table response experiments predict the importance of local areas to population dynamics: Ecosphere, v. 8, no. 7, article e01869, 19 p. Kirol, C.P., Beck, J.L., Huzurbazar, S.V., Holloran, M.J., and Miller, S.N., 2015, Identifying greater sage-grouse source and sink habitats for conservation planning in an energy development landscape: Ecological Applications, v. 25, no. 4, p. 968–990. 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. LeBeau, C.W., Johnson, G.D., Holloran, M.J., Beck, J.L., Nielson, R.M., Kauffman, M.E., Rodemaker, E.J., and McDonald, T.L., 2017, Greater sage-grouse habitat selection, survival, and wind energy infrastructure: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 4, p. 690–711. LeBeau, C.W., Smith, K.T., Holloran, M.J., Beck, J.L., Kauffman, M.E., and Johnson, G.D., 2019, Greater sagegrouse habitat function relative to 230-kV transmission lines: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 8, p. 1773–1786. 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. Newton, R.E., Tack, J.D., Carlson, J.C., Matchett, M.R., Fargey, P.J., and Naugle, D.E., 2017, Longest sage-grouse migratory behavior sustained by intact pathways: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 6, p. 962–972.
36 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Picardi, S., Messmer, T., Crabb, B., Kohl, M., Dahlgren, D., Frey, N., Larsen, R., and Baxter, R., 2020, Predicting greater sage-grouse habitat selection at the southern periphery of their range: Ecology and Evolution, v. 10, no. 23, p. 13451–13463.
Next Step 6d
Pratt, A.C., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Greater sage-grouse response to bentonite mining: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 4, p. 866–878.
Henderson, E.B., Bell, D.M., and Gregory, M.J., 2019, Vegetation mapping to support greater sage-grouse habitat monitoring and management—Multi- or univariate approach?: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 8, p. 1–22.
Pratt, A.C., Smith, K.T., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Prioritizing seasonal habitats for comprehensive conservation of a partially migratory species: Global Ecology and Conservation, v. 17, article e00594, p. 1–11. Rice, M.B., Rossi, L.G., and Apa, A.D., 2016, Seasonal habitat use by greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) on a landscape with low density oil and gas development: PLoS ONE, v. 11, no. 10, article e0165399, 20 p. Shirk, A.J., Schroeder, M.A., Robb, L.A., and Cushman, S.A., 2017, Persistence of greater sage-grouse in agricultural landscapes: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 5, p. 905–918. Smith, K.T., Dinkins, J.B., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Approaches to delineate Greater Sage-grouse winter concentration areas: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 7, p. 1495–1507. Stonehouse, K.F., Shipley, L.A., Lowe, J., Atamian, M.T., Swanson, M.E., and Schroeder, M.A., 2015, Habitat selection and use by sympatric, translocated greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 79, no. 8, p. 1308–1326. Walker, B.L., Apa, A.D., and Eichhoff, K., 2016, Mapping and prioritizing seasonal habitats for greater sage-grouse in Northwestern Colorado: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 80, no. 1, p. 63–77. Westover, M., Baxter, J., Baxter, R., Day, C., Jensen, R., Petersen, S., and Larsen, R., 2016, Assessing greater sagegrouse selection of brood-rearing habitat using remotelysensed imagery—Can readily available high-resolution imagery be used to identify brood-rearing habitat across a broad landscape?: PLoS ONE, v. 11, no. 5, article e0156290, 19 p. Zabihi, K., Paige, G.B., Hild, A.L., Miller, S.N., Wuenschel, A., and Holloran, M.J., 2017, A fuzzy logic approach to analyze the suitability of nesting habitat for greater sagegrouse in western Wyoming: Journal of Spatial Science, v. 62, no. 2, p. 215–234.
Develop approaches to apply habitat objectives to shrub map products that allow the development of thresholded seasonal habitat models (several methods being pursued).
Next Step 6e Integrate seasonal habitat models into a large spatially explicit population-viability modeling approach that encompasses the range of sage-grouse. 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, article e01462, 27 p.
Next Step 6f Develop spatially explicit simulations to evaluate the effects of land use change (energy development, climateinduced habitat changes, fires, restoration, etc.) on sage-grouse seasonal habitat, and thus population viability. 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. Heinrichs, J.A., Lawler, J.J., Schumaker, N.H., Wilsey, C.B., Newcomb, K., Monroe, K.C., and Aldridge, C.L., 2018, A multispecies test of source-sink indicators to prioritize habitat for declining populations: Conservation Biology, v. 32, no. 3, p. 648–659. Heinrichs, J.A., O'Donnell, M.S., Aldridge, C.L., Garman, S.L., and Homer C.G., 2019, Influences of potential oil and gas development and future climate on sage-grouse declines and redistribution: Ecological Applications, v. 29, no. 6, article e01912, p. 1–16. Homer, C.G., Xian, G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., Loveland, T.R., and O’Donnell, M.S., 2015, Forecasting sagebrush ecosystem components and greater sage-grouse habitat for 2050—Learning from past climate patterns and Landsat imagery to predict the future: Ecological Indicators, v. 55, p. 131–145.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 37 Palmquist, K.A., Schlaepfer, D.R., Bradford, J.B., and Lauenroth, W.K., 2016, Spatial and ecological variation in dryland ecohydrological responses to climate change— Implications for management: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 11, article e01590, 20 p.
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.
Next Step 6g
Mabray, S.T., and Conover, M.R., 2015, Microhabitat selection by greater sage-grouse hens during brood rearing: Human-Wildlife Interactions, v. 9, no. 2, p. 219–228.
Use results from studies in Next Step 6f to support multiple management applications across spatial and management hierarchies. NA.
Next Step 6h Develop a modeling process to enable frequent updates of seasonal models to account for habitat lost due to fire and other disturbance, and gained through conservation and restoration actions. NA.
Studies Related to Need 6, But Not Any of the Next Steps Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Ricca, M.A., Dudko, J.E., Prochazka, B.G., Espinosa, S.P., Casazza, M.L., and Delehanty, D.J., 2017, Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nesting and brood-rearing microhabitat in Nevada and California—Spatial variation in selection and survival patterns: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017–1087, 79 p. Cutting, K.A., Rotella, J.J., Schroff, S.R., Frisina, M.R., Waxe, J.A., Nunlist, E., and Sowell, B.F., 2019, Maladaptive nestsite selection by a sagebrush dependent species in a grazingmodified landscape: Journal of Environmental Management, v. 236, no. epub 2019, p. 622–630. Dudko, J.E., Coates, P.S., and Delehanty, D.J., 2019, Movements of female sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus during incubation recess: The Ibis, v. 161, no. 1, p. 222–229.
O'Donnell, M.S., Aldridge, C.L., Doherty, K.E., and Fedy, B.C., 2015, Wyoming greater sage-grouse habitat prioritization—A collection of multi-scale seasonal models and geographic information systems land management tools: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 891, 28 p. 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 US: Plant Ecology, v. 218, no. 8, p. 957–970. 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. Reeves, M.C., Manning, M.E., DiBenedetto, J.P., Palmquist, K.A., Lauenroth, W.K., Bradford, J.B., and Schlaepfer, D.R., 2018, Effects of climate change on rangeland vegetation in the Northern Rockies region [chapter 7], in Halofsky, J.E., Peterson, D.L., Dante-Wood, S.K., Hoang, L, Ho, J.J., Joyce, L.A., eds., Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Northern Rocky Mountains [Part 2]: Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-374, p. 275–316. Schreiber, L.A., Hansen, C.P., Rumble, M.A., Millspaugh, J.J., Gamo, R.S., Kehmeier, J.W., and Wojcik, N., 2015, Microhabitat selection of brood-rearing sites by greater sage-grouse in Carbon County, Wyoming: Western North American Naturalist, v. 75, no. 3, p. 348–363.
Ebenhoch, K., Thornton, D., Shipley, L., Manning, J.A., and White, K., 2019, Effects of post-release movements on survival of translocated sage-grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 6, p. 1314–1325.
Schroff, S.R., Cutting, K.A., Carr, C.A., Frisina, M.R., McNew, L.B., and Sowell, B.F., 2018, Characteristics of shrub morphology on nest site selection of greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in high-elevation sagebrush habitat: The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, v. 130, no. 3, p. 730–738.
Gibson, D., Blomberg, E.J., Atamian, M.T., and Sedinger, J.S., 2017, Weather, habitat composition, and female behavior interact to modify offspring survival in greater sage-grouse: Ecological Applications, v. 27, no. 1, p. 168–181.
Severson, J.P., Hagen, C.A., Maestas, J.D., Naugle, D.E., Forbes, J.T., and Reese, K.P., 2017, Effects of conifer expansion on greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 1, p. 86–95.
38 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Smith, K.T., Beck, J.L., and Kirol, C.P., 2018a, Reproductive state leads to intraspecific habitat partitioning and survival differences in greater sage-grouse—Implications for conservation: Wildlife Research, v. 45, no. 2, p. 119–131. Smith, J.T., Tack, J.D., Berkeley, L.I., Szczypinski, M., and Naugle, D.E., 2018b, Effects of livestock grazing on nesting sage-grouse in central Montana: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 7, p. 1503–1515. Smith, J.T., Tack, J.D., Berkeley, L.I., Szczypinski, M., and Naugle, D.E., 2018c, Effects of rotational grazing management on nesting greater sage-grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 1, p. 103–112. Smith, K.T., Pratt, A.C., LeVan, J.R., Rhea, A.M., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Reconstructing greater sage-grouse chick diets: diet selection, body condition, and food availability at brood-rearing sites: The Condor: The Condor, v. 121, no. 1, p. 1–12. Timmer, J.M., Aldridge, C.L., and Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., 2019, Managing for multiple species—Greater sagegrouse and sagebrush songbirds: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 5, p. 1043–1057.
Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 7 Develop sagebrush ecosystem-wide models identifying conditions necessary to support sagebrush-associated species, other than sage-grouse, using an individual species approach or species groups when necessary.
Next Step 7a Update existing expert opinion and habitat suitability models using current land-cover and human-disturbance mapping products. Millikin, R.L., Joy, R., Komaromi, J., Harrison, M., Mahony, N., and Vander Haegen, W.M., 2020, Critical habitat identification of peripheral sage thrashers under climate change: Conservation Science and Practice, v. 2, no. 12, article e290, 14 p. Rice, M.B., Apa, A.D., and Wiechman, L.A., 2017, The importance of seasonal resource selection when managing a threatened species—Targeting conservation actions within critical habitat designations for the Gunnison sage-grouse: Wildlife Research, v. 44, no. 5, p. 407–417.
Squires, J.R., Olson, L.E., Wallace, Z.P., Oakleaf, R.J., and Kennedy, P.L., 2020, Resource selection of apex raptors— Implications for siting energy development in sagebrush and prairie ecosystems: Ecosphere, v. 11, no. 8, article e03204, 27 p.
Next Step 7b Develop empirically based models for those species where suitable and sufficient data exist. Carlisle, J.D., Stewart, D.R., and Chalfoun, A.D., 2017, An invertebrate ecosystem engineer under the umbrella of sagegrouse conservation: Western North American Naturalist, v. 77, no. 4, p. 450–463. Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Howe, K.B., Gustafson, K.B., Casazza, M.L., and Delehanty, D.J., 2016, Landscape characteristics and livestock presence influence common ravens—Relevance to greater sage-grouse conservation: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 2, article e01203, 20 p. Coe, P.K., Clark, D.A., Nielson, R.M., Gregory, S.C., Cupples, J.B., Hedrick, M.J., Johnson, B.K., and Jackson, D.H., 2018, Multiscale models of habitat use by mule deer in winter: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 6, p. 1285–1299. Dibner, R.R., Doak, D.F., and Lombardi, E.M., 2015, An ecological engineer maintains consistent spatial patterning, with implications for community-wide effects: Ecosphere, v. 6, no. 9, article 151, 17 p. 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. Dunk, J.R., Woodbridge, B., Lickfett, T.M., Bedrosian, G., Noon, B.R., LaPlante, D.W., Brown, J.L., and Tack, J.D., 2019, Modeling spatial variation in density of golden eagle nest sites in the western United States: PLoS One, v. 14, no. 9, p. e0223143. Holbrook, J.D., Pilliod, D.S., Arkle, R.S., Rachlow, J.L., Vierling, K.T., and Wiest, M.M., 2016, Transition of vegetation states positively affects harvester ants in the Great Basin, United States: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 6, p. 449–456. Jones, P.F., Jakes, A.F., Telander, A.C., Sawyer, H., Martin, B.H., and Hebblewhite, M., 2019, Fences reduce habitat for a partially migratory ungulate in the northern sagebrush steppe: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 7, article e02782, 25 p.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 39 Miller, R.A., Paprocki, N., Stuber, M.J., Moulton, C.E., and Carlisle, J.D., 2016, Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) surveys in the North American Intermountain West—Utilizing citizen scientists to conduct monitoring across a broad geographic scale: Avian Conservation and Ecology, v. 11, no. 1, article 3, 9 p. Miller, R.A., Bond, L., Migas, P.N., Carlisle, J.D., and Kaltenecker, G.S., 2017, Contrasting habitat associations of sagebrush-steppe songbirds in the Intermountain West: California Birds, v. 48, no. 1, p. 35–55. Olson, L.E., Squires, J.R., Oakleaf, R.J., Wallace, Z.P., and Kennedy, P.L., 2017, Predicting above-ground density and distribution of small mammal prey species at large spatial scales: PLoS ONE, v. 12, no. 5, article e0177165, 21 p. O’Neil, S.T., Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Jackson, P.J., Howe, K.B., Moser, A.M., Foster, L.J., and Delehanty, D.J., 2018, Broad-scale occurrence of a subsidized avian predator— Reducing impacts of ravens on sage-grouse and other sensitive prey: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 55, no. 6, p. 2641–2652. Smith, I.T., Rachlow, J.L., Svancara, L.K., McMahon, L.A., and Knetter, S.J., 2019, Habitat specialists as conservation umbrellas—Do areas managed for greater sage-grouse also protect pygmy rabbits?: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 8, article e02827, 23 p.
Hubbard, K.A., Chalfoun, A.D., and Gerow, K.G., 2016, The relative influence of road characteristics and habitat on adjacent lizard populations in arid shrublands: Journal of Herpetology, v. 50, no. 29–36. Knight, E.C., Mahony, N.A., and Green, D.J., 2016, Effects of agricultural fragmentation on the bird community in sagebrush shrubsteppe: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 223, p. 278–288. McMahon, L.A., Rachlow, J.L., Shipley, L.A., Forbey, J.S., and Johnson, T.R., 2017, Habitat selection differs across hierarchical behaviors—Selection of patches and intensity of patch use: Ecosphere, v, 8, no. 11, article e01993, 14 p. Melaschenko, N.C., and Hodges, K.E., 2020, Density and habitat selection of mice on cheatgrass-invaded sites in British Columbia, Canada: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 181, article 104242, 8 p. Robertson, I.C., and Robertson, W.G., 2020, Colony dynamics and plant community associations of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex salinus (Hymenoptera—Formicidae), in sagebrush-steppe habitat: Environmental Entomology, v. 49, no. 4, p. 983–992. Spawton, K.A., and Wetzel, W.C., 2015, Gall-insect community on big sagebrush varies with plant size but not plant age: Environmental Entomology, v. 44, no. 4, p. 1095–1100.
Stonehouse, K.F., Shipley, L.A., Lowe, J., Atamian, M.T., Swanson, M.E., and Schroeder, M.A., 2015, Habitat selection and use by sympatric, translocated greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 79, no. 8, p. 1308–1326.
Van Gunst, K.J., Klinger, C., Hamilton, B., Slocum, K., and Rhea-Fournier, D.J., 2020, Rapid biodiversity sampling for bat assemblages in northwestern Nevada: Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, v. 11, no. 1, p. 300–310.
Timmer, J.M., Aldridge, C.L., and Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., 2019, Managing for multiple species—Greater sagegrouse and sagebrush songbirds: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 5, p. 1043–1057.
Next Step 7d
Next Step 7c Initiate data collection to develop the information necessary to model those sagebrush-associated species that lack sufficient existing data to develop models. Collins, G.H., 2016, Seasonal distribution and routes of pronghorn in the northern Great Basin: Western North American Naturalist, v. 76, no. 1, p. 101–112. Hamilton, B.T., Roeder, B.L., Hatch, K.A., Eggett, D.L., and Tingey, D., 2015, Why is small mammal diversity higher in riparian areas than in uplands?: Journal of Arid Environments, v. 119, p. 41–50.
Conduct a comprehensive review and synthesis of available information for sagebrush-obligate and associated species to identify information that can inform modeling efforts. 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. Dumroese, R.K., Luna, T., Pinto, J.R., and Landis, T.D., 2016, Forbs—Foundation for restoration of monarch butterflies, other pollinators, and greater sage-grouse in the western United States: Natural Areas Journal, v. 36, no. 4, p. 499–511. Pilliod, D.S., Jeffries, M.J., Arkle, R.S., and Olson, D.H., 2020, Reptiles under the conservation umbrella of the greater sage-grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 84, no. 3, p. 478–491.
40 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Simes, M.T., Longshore, K.M., Nussear, K.E., Beatty, G.L., Brown, D.E., and Esque, T.C., 2015, Black-tailed and white-tailed jackrabbits in the American west—History, ecology, ecological significance, and survey methods: Western North American Naturalist, v. 75, no. 4, p. 491–519. Smith, J.A., and Dwyer, J.F., 2016, Avian interactions with renewable energy infrastructure—An update: The Condor, v. 118, no. 2, p. 411–423.
Next Step 7e Develop standard monitoring strategies and protocols for priority species lacking current baseline habitat information.
Next Step 7f Identify and resolve information gaps for sagebrushobligates and ecosystem management. Camp, M.J., Shipley, L.A., Milling, C.R., Rachlow, J.L., and Forbey, J.S., 2018, Interacting effects of ambient temperature and food quality on the foraging ecology of small mammalian herbivores: Journal of Thermal Biology, v. 71, p. 83–90. Cutting, K.A., Anderson, M.L., Beever, E.A., Schroff, S.R., Klaphake, E., Korb, N., and McWilliams, S., 2016, Niche shifts and energetic condition of songbirds in response to phenology of food-resource availability in a high-elevation sagebrush ecosystem: The Auk, v. 133, no. 4, p. 685–697.
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.
Gerber, B.D., Hooten, M.B., Peck, C.P., Rice, M.B., Gammonley, J.H., Apa, A.D., and Davis, A.J., 2019, Extreme site fidelity as an optimal strategy in an unpredictable and homogeneous environment: Functional Ecology, v. 33, no. 9, p. 1695–1707.
Crowell, M.M., Shoemaker, K.T., and Matocq, M.D., 2020, Ideal conditions for increased trapping success of pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) across the Great Basin: Journal of Mammalogy, v. 101, no. 6, p. 1736–1749.
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.
Ellis, K.S., Larsen, R.T., Whiting, J.C., Wilson, T.L., and McMillan, B.R., 2017, Assessing indirect measures of abundance and distribution with remote cameras—Simplifying indices of activity at pygmy rabbit burrows: Ecological Indicators, v. 77, p. 23–30.
Parsons, S.B., Peterson, C.R., Jenkins, C.L., and Matocq, M.D., 2019, Gene flow and habitat connectivity in a native rattlesnake population on the Snake River Plain: Western North American Naturalist, v. 79, no. 3, p. 378–393.
Golding, J.D., and Dreitz, V.J., 2016, Comparison of removalbased methods for estimating abundance of five species of prairie songbirds: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 87, no. 4, p. 417–426. Olson, L.E., Oakleaf, R.J., Squires, J.R., Wallace, Z.P., and Kennedy, P.L., 2015, Nesting pair density and abundance of ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) from aerial surveys in Wyoming: The Journal of Raptor Research, v. 49, no. 4, p. 400–412. Olsoy, P.J., Shipley, L.A., Rachlow, J.L., Forbey, J.S., Glenn, N.F., Burgess, M.A., and Thornton, D.H., 2018, Unmanned aerial systems measure structural habitat features for wildlife across multiple scales: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, no. 3, p. 594–604. Schoenecker, K.A., Doherty, P.F., Jr., Hourt, J.S., and Romero, J.P., 2018, Testing infrared camera surveys and distance analyses to estimate feral horse abundance in a known population: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 42, no. 3, p. 452–459.
Rohde, A.T., Pilliod, D.S., and Novak, S.J., 2019, 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.
Next Step 7g Develop empirical models for sagebrush-associated species as data become available. Blake, L.W., and Gese, E.M., 2016, Resource selection by cougars—Influence of behavioral state and season: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 80, no. 7, p. 1205–1217.
Next Step 7h Develop decision-support tools to inform management actions for individual or groups of sagebrushassociated species. 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.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 41 Dumroese, R.K., Luna, T., Pinto, J.R., and Landis, T.D., 2016, Forbs—Foundation for restoration of monarch butterflies, other pollinators, and greater sage-grouse in the western United States: Natural Areas Journal, v. 36, no. 4, p. 499–511. Golding, J.D., and Dreitz, V.J., 2017, Songbird response to rest-rotation and season-long cattle grazing in a grassland sagebrush ecosystem: Journal of Environmental Management, v. 204, no. part 1, p. 605–612. Jones, P.F., Jakes, A.F., Eacker, D.R., Seward, B.C., Hebblewhite, M., and Martin, B.H., 2018, Evaluating responses by pronghorn to fence modifications across the northern Great Plains: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 42, no. 2, p. 225–236.
Studies Related to Need 7, But Not Any of the Next Steps Harju, S.M., Olson, C.V., Hess, J.E., Bedrosian, B., 2018, Common raven movement and space use: influence of anthropogenic subsidies within greater sage-grouse nesting habitat: Ecosphere, v. 9, no. 7, article e02348, p. 1–16.
Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 8 Develop thresholds for the extent and magnitude of a threat (for example, cover of pinyon and juniper, density of oil and gas wells, road density, etc.) above which the habitat can no longer support sagebrush-obligate species.
Next Step 8a Assess efficacy of current management strategies for conservation of sagebrush-obligates, and identify recommended changes using this information. Barlow, N.L., Kirol, C.P., Doherty, K.E., and Fedy, B.C., 2020, Evaluation of the umbrella species concept at fine spatial scales: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 84, no. 2, p. 237–248. Bergman, E.J., Doherty, P.F., Jr., White, G.C., and Freddy, D.J., 2015, Habitat and herbivore density—Response of mule deer to habitat management: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 79, no. 1, p. 60–68.
Love, B.G., and Cane, J.H., 2016, Limited direct effects of a massive wildfire on its sagebrush steppe bee community: Ecological Entomology, v. 41, no. 3, p. 317–326.
Carlisle, J.D., and Chalfoun, A.D., 2020, The abundance of greater sage-grouse as a proxy for the abundance of sagebrush-associated songbirds in Wyoming, USA: Avian Conservation and Ecology, v. 15, no. 2, article 16, 27 p.
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 and Ecology, v. 10, no. 2, article 7, 13 p.
Carlisle, J.D., Stewart, D.R., and Chalfoun, A.D., 2017, An invertebrate ecosystem engineer under the umbrella of sagegrouse conservation: Western North American Naturalist, v. 77, no. 4, p. 450–463.
Runge, C.A., Withey, J.C., Naugle, D.E., Fargione, J.E., Helmstedt, K.J., Larsen, A.E., Martinuzzi, S., and Tack, J.D., 2019, Single species conservation as an umbrella for management of landscape threats: PloS ONE, v. 14, no. 1, article e0209619, 17 p.
Coe, P.K., Clark, D.A., Nielson, R.M., Gregory, S.C., Cupples, J.B., Hedrick, M.J., Johnson, B.K., and Jackson, D.H., 2018, Multiscale models of habitat use by mule deer in winter: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 6, p. 1285–1299.
Zimmerman, S.J., Aldridge, C.L., Oh, K.P., Cornman, R.S., and Oyler-McCance, S.J., 2019, Signatures of adaptive divergence among populations of an avian species of conservation concern: Evolutionary Applications, v. 12, article 12825, p. 1661–1677.
Dinkins, J.B., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Comparison of conservation policy benefits for an umbrella and related sagebrushobligate species: Human–Wildlife Interactions, v. 13, no. 3, article 13, p. 447–458.
Zimmerman, S.J., Aldridge, C.L., and Oyler-McCance, S.J., 2020, An empirical comparison of population genetic analyses using microsatellite and SNP data for a species of conservation concern: BMC Genomics, v. 21, article 382, 16 p.
Dumroese, R.K., Luna, T., Pinto, J.R., and Landis, T.D., 2016, Forbs—Foundation for restoration of monarch butterflies, other pollinators, and greater sage-grouse in the western United States: Natural Areas Journal, v. 36, no. 4, p. 499–511. Dwyer, J.F., Taylor, R.C., and French, G.A., 2020, Failure of utility pole perch deterrents modified during installation: The Journal of Raptor Research, v. 54, no. 2, p. 172–176.
42 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Hethcoat, M.G., and Chalfoun, A.D., 2015, Energy development and avian nest survival in Wyoming, USA—A test of a common disturbance index: Biological Conservation, v. 184, p. 327–334. Maestas, J.D., Hagen, C.A., Smith, J.T., Tack, J.D., Allred, B.W., Griffiths, T., Bishop, C.J., Stewart, K.M., and Naugle, D.E., 2019, Mule deer juniper use is an unreliable indicator of habitat quality—Comments on Coe and others, 2018: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 4, p. 755–762.
Tack, J.D., Jakes, A.F., Jones, P.F., Smith, J.T., Newton, R.E., Martin, B.H., Hebblewhite, M., and Naugle, D.E., 2019, Beyond protected areas—Private lands and public policy anchor intact pathways for multi-species wildlife migration: Biological Conservation, v. 234, p. 18–27. Timmer, J.M., Aldridge, C.L., and Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., 2019, Managing for multiple species—Greater sagegrouse and sagebrush songbirds: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 5, p. 1043–1057.
Ouren, D.S., Cade, B.S., Holsinger, K.W., and Siders, M.S., 2019, Are lek disturbance buffers equitable for all Gunnison sage-grouse populations?: Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, v. 10, no. 1, p. 51–61.
Zimmerman, S.J., Aldridge, C.L., Apa, A.D., and OylerMcCance, S.J., 2019, Evaluation of genetic change from translocation among Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) populations: The Condor, v. 121, no. 1, p. 1–14.
Pilliod, D.S., Jeffries, M.J., Arkle, R.S., and Olson, D.H., 2020, Reptiles under the conservation umbrella of the greater sage-grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 84, no. 3, p. 478–491.
Next Step 8b
Poessel, S.A., Hagar, J.C., Haggerty, P.K., and Katzner, T.E., 2020, Removal of cattle grazing correlates with increases in vegetation productivity and in abundance of imperiled breeding birds: Biological Conservation, v. 241, article 108378, 9 p.
Initiate additional research on the effects of habitat management and modification on pinyon-juniper associated species, such as the juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi) and the pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), to identify potential irreversible impacts to these species resulting from habitat management geared towards the restoration of sagebrush-steppe and sagebrush-obligates.
Rohde, A.T., Pilliod, D.S., and Novak, S.J., 2019, 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.
Anthony, C.R., and Sanchez, D.M., 2018, Roost site selection of western long-eared myotis in a western juniper woodland: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 3, p. 618–628.
Runge, C.A., Withey, J.C., Naugle, D.E., Fargione, J.E., Helmstedt, K.J., Larsen, A.E., Martinuzzi, S., and Tack, J.D., 2019, Single species conservation as an umbrella for management of landscape threats: PloS ONE, v. 14, no. 1, article e0209619, 17 p.
Anthony, C.R., and Sanchez, D.M., 2019, Resource selection and space use of Myotis evotis in a western juniper woodland in Oregon: Journal of Mammalogy, v. 100, no. 1, p. 239–248.
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, I.T., Rachlow, J.L., Svancara, L.K., McMahon, L.A., and Knetter, S.J., 2019, Habitat specialists as conservation umbrellas—Do areas managed for greater sage-grouse also protect pygmy rabbits?: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 8, article e02827, 23 p. Stonehouse, K.F., Shipley, L.A., Lowe, J., Atamian, M.T., Swanson, M.E., and Schroeder, M.A., 2015, Habitat selection and use by sympatric, translocated greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 79, no. 8, p. 1308–1326.
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. 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. 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. Gallo, T., and Pejchar, L., 2017, Woodland reduction and longterm change in breeding bird communities: 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, part A, p. 39–47.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 43 Hamilton, B.T., Roeder, B.L., and Horner, M.A., 2019, Effects of sagebrush restoration and conifer encroachment on small mammal diversity in sagebrush ecosystems: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 1, p. 13–22.
Golding, J.D., and Dreitz, V.J., 2016, Comparison of removalbased methods for estimating abundance of five species of prairie songbirds: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 87, no. 4, p. 417–426.
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, article 117628, 23 p.
Olson, L.E., Oakleaf, R.J., Squires, J.R., Wallace, Z.P., and Kennedy, P.L., 2015, Nesting pair density and abundance of ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) from aerial surveys in Wyoming: The Journal of Raptor Research, v. 49, no. 4, p. 400–412.
Holmes, A.L., Maestas, J.D., and Naugle, D.E., 2017, Bird responses to removal of western juniper in sagebrushsteppe: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 87–94. 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 pinon-juniper woodland-sagebrush ecotones: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 400, p. 256–268. Magee, P.A., Coop, J.D., and Ivan, J.S., 2019, Thinning alters avian occupancy in pinon-juniper woodlands: The Condor, v. 121, no. 1, p. 1–17. Peterson, M.E., Rebar, C.E., Eisenhart, K.S., 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.
Next Step 8c Develop or refine monitoring protocols and initiate systematic monitoring for sagebrush-obligates and other sagebrush-associated species to develop data necessary for evaluation of thresholds established for sage-grouse conservation. 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. Crowell, M.M., Shoemaker, K.T., and Matocq, M.D., 2020, Ideal conditions for increased trapping success of pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) across the Great Basin: Journal of Mammalogy, v. 101, no. 6, p. 1736–1749. Ellis, K.S., Larsen, R.T., Whiting, J.C., Wilson, T.L., and McMillan, B.R., 2017, Assessing indirect measures of abundance and distribution with remote cameras—Simplifying indices of activity at pygmy rabbit burrows: Ecological Indicators, v. 77, p. 23–30.
Olsoy, P.J., Shipley, L.A., Rachlow, J.L., Forbey, J.S., Glenn, N.F., Burgess, M.A., and Thornton, D.H., 2018, Unmanned aerial systems measure structural habitat features for wildlife across multiple scales: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, no. 3, p. 594–604. Schoenecker, K.A., Doherty, P.F., Jr., Hourt, J.S., and Romero, J.P., 2018, Testing infrared camera surveys and distance analyses to estimate feral horse abundance in a known population: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 42, no. 3, p. 452–459.
Next Step 8d Conduct a comprehensive review of data and literature for sagebrush-obligate species to identify types of responses to various disturbance factors and habitat change, the magnitude of those responses, and the underlying mechanisms. McKelvey, K.S., and Buotte, P.C., 2018, Effects of climate change on wildlife in the northern Rockies, in chap. 8 of Halofsky, J., and Peterson, D., eds, Climate change and Rocky Mountain ecosystems—Advances in global change research, Springer, v. 63, p. 143–167. Rottler, C.M., Noseworthy, C.E., Fowers, B., and Beck, J.L., 2015, Effects of conversion from sagebrush to non-native grasslands on sagebrush-associated species: Rangelands, v. 37, no. 1, p. 1–6. Simes, M.T., Longshore, K.M., Nussear, K.E., Beatty, G.L., Brown, D.E., and Esque, T.C., 2015, Black-tailed and white-tailed jackrabbits in the American west—History, ecology, ecological significance, and survey methods: Western North American Naturalist, v. 75, no. 4, p. 491–519. Smith, J.A., and Dwyer, J.F., 2016, Avian interactions with renewable energy infrastructure—An update: The Condor, v. 118, no. 2, p. 411–423.
Next Step 8e Evaluate the responses of sagebrush-obligate species relative to various disturbance factors and habitat change and the magnitude of those responses, and determine the underlying causal mechanisms for those responses.
44 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Bachen, D.A., Litt, A.R., and Gower, C.N., 2018, Simulating cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invasion decreases access to food resources for small mammals in sagebrush steppe: Biological Invasions, v. 20, no. 9, p. 2301–2311. Barlow, N.L., Kirol, C.P., and Fedy, B.C., 2020, Avian community response to landscape-scale habitat reclamation: Biological Conservation, v. 252, article 108850, 13 p. Carlisle, J.D., Chalfoun, A.D., Smith, K.T., and Beck, J.L., 2018, Nontarget effects on songbirds from habitat manipulations for greater sage-grouse—Implications for the umbrella species concept: The Condor, v. 120, no. 2, p. 439–455. Christie, K.S., Jensen, W.F., Schmidt, J.H., and Boyce, M.S., 2015, Long-term changes in pronghorn abundance index linked to climate and oil development in North Dakota: Biological Conservation, v. 192, p. 445–453. 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, article 02390, 19 p. 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, article 02144, 18 p. 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. Duchardt, C.J., Augustine, D.J., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Threshold responses of grassland and sagebrush birds to patterns of disturbance created by an ecosystem engineer: Landscape Ecology, v. 34, no. 4, p. 895–909. Duchardt, C.J., Augustine, D.J., and Beck, J.L., 2020, Anthropogenic and natural disturbance differentially affect sagebrush bird habitat use: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 84, no. 7, p. 1361–1372. Duchardt, C.J., Porensky, L.M., Augustine, D.J., and Beck, J.L., 2018, Disturbance shapes avian communities on a grassland–sagebrush ecotone: Ecosphere, v. 9, no. 10, article 02483, 19 p. Edgel, R.J., Larsen, R.T., Whiting, J.C., and McMillan, B.R., 2018, Space use, movements, and survival of pygmy rabbits in response to construction of a large pipeline: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 42, no. 3, p. 488–497. Hamilton, B.T., Roeder, B.L., and Horner, M.A., 2019, Effects of sagebrush restoration and conifer encroachment on small mammal diversity in sagebrush ecosystems: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 72, no. 1, p. 13–22.
Hethcoat, M.G., and Chalfoun, A.D., 2015, Towards a mechanistic understanding of human-induced rapid environmental change—A case study linking energy development, nest predation and predators: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 52, article 12513, p. 1492–1499. Hightower, J.N., Carlisle, J.D., and Chalfoun, A.D., 2018, Nest mortality of sagebrush songbirds due to a severe hailstorm: The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, v. 130, no. 2, p. 561–567. Holbrook, J.D., Arkle, R.S., Rachlow, J.L., Vierling, K.T., Pilliod, D.S., and Wiest, M.M., 2016, Occupancy and abundance of predator and prey—Implications of the firecheatgrass cycle in sagebrush ecosystems: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 6, article e01307, 21 p. Holmes, A.L., and Robinson, W.D., 2016, Small mammal abundance in mountain big sagebrush communities after fire and vegetation recovery: Western North American Naturalist, v. 76, no. 3, p. 326–338. 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 pinon-juniper woodland-sagebrush ecotones: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 400, p. 256–268. 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 and Ecology, v. 10, no. 2, article 7, 13 p. Mutter, M., Pavlacky, D.C., Jr., Van Lanen, N.J., and Grenyer, R., 2015, Evaluating the impact of gas extraction infrastructure on the occupancy of sagebrush-obligate songbirds: Ecological Applications, v. 25, no. 5, p. 1175–1186. Peterson, M.E., Anderson, C.R., Jr., Northrup, J.M., and Doherty, P.F., Jr., 2017, Reproductive success of mule deer in a natural gas development area: Wildlife Biology, v. 2017, no. 4, article wlb.00341, 5 p. Proett, M., Roberts, S.B., Horne, J.S., Koons, D.N., and Messmer, T.A., 2019, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse nesting ecology—Wind energy and habitat: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 5, p. 1214–1225. Reinking, A.K., Smith, K.T., Monteith, K.L., Mong, T.W., Read, R.J., and Beck, J.L., 2018, Intrinsic, environmental, and anthropogenic factors related to pronghorn summer mortality: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 82, no. 3, p. 608–617. Sanders, L.E., and Chalfoun, A.D., 2018, Novel landscape elements within natural gas fields increase densities but not fitness of an important songbird nest predator: Biological Conservation, v. 228, p. 132–141.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 45 Wallace, Z.P., Kennedy, P.L., Squires, J.R., Oakleaf, R.J., Olson, L.E., and Dugger, K.M., 2016, Re-occupancy of breeding territories by ferruginous hawks in Wyoming— Relationships to environmental and anthropogenic factors: PLoS ONE, v. 11, no. 4, article e0152977, 16 p.
Next Step 8f Continue research to identify habitat needs, connectivity, vital rates, etc. of sagebrush-obligate and sagebrush associated species. Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Howe, K.B., Gustafson, K.B., Casazza, M.L., and Delehanty, D.J., 2016, Landscape characteristics and livestock presence influence common ravens—Relevance to greater sage-grouse conservation: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 2, article e01203, 20 p. Gibson, D., Blomberg, E.J., Atamian, M.T., Espinosa, S.P., and Sedinger, J.S., 2018, Effects of power lines on habitat use and demography of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): Wildlife Monographs, v. 200, no. 1, p. 1–41. Harju, S.M., Olson, C.V., Hess, J.E., Bedrosian, B., 2018, Common raven movement and space use: influence of anthropogenic subsidies within greater sage-grouse nesting habitat: Ecosphere, v. 9, no. 7, article e02348, p. 1–16. Mathews, S.R., Coates, P.S., Fike, J.A., Schneider, H., Fischer, D., Oyler-McCance, S.J., Lierz, M., and Delehanty, D.J., 2018, Post-release breeding of translocated sharp-tailed grouse and an absence of artificial insemination effects: Wildlife Research, v. 46, no. 1, p. 12–24. O’Neil, S.T., Coates, P.S., Brussee, B.E., Jackson, P.J., Howe, K.B., Moser, A.M., Foster, L.J., and Delehanty, D.J., 2018, Broad-scale occurrence of a subsidized avian predator— Reducing impacts of ravens on sage-grouse and other sensitive prey: Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 55, no. 6, p. 2641–2652. Rice, M.B., Apa, A.D., and Wiechman, L.A., 2017, The importance of seasonal resource selection when managing a threatened species—Targeting conservation actions within critical habitat designations for the Gunnison sage-grouse: Wildlife Research, v. 44, no. 5, p. 407–417.
Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 9 Conduct long-term monitoring to assess development of community structure, community function, dynamics in native seedings, as well as suitability of resulting communities in meeting specific management goals, such as sage-grouse habitat restoration.
Next Step 9a Identify and assess a standardized set of monitoring indicators and protocols, and evaluate their success for measuring efforts to meet habitat conservation and restoration goals. 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. Blomberg, E.J., and Hagen, C.A., 2020, How many leks does it take? Minimum samples sizes for measuring local-scale conservation outcomes in greater sage-grouse: Avian Conservation and Ecology, v. 15, no. 1, article 150109, 16 p. Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Ricca, M.A., Wann, G.T., Aldridge, C.L., Hanser, S.E., Doherty, K.E., O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., and Espinosa, S.P., 2017, Hierarchical population monitoring of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Nevada and California— Identifying populations for management at the appropriate spatial scale: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017–1089, 49 p. Filippelli, S.K., Falkowski, M.J., Hudak, A.T., Fekety, P.A., Vogeler, J.C., Khalyani, A.H., Rau, B.M., and Strand, E.K., 2020, Monitoring pinyon-juniper cover and aboveground biomass across the Great Basin: Environmental Research Letters, v. 15, article 025004, 11 p. Fremgen, A.L., Hansen, C.P., Rumble, M.A., Gamo, R.S., and Millspaugh, J.J., 2019, Weather conditions and date influence male sage grouse attendance rates at leks: The Ibis, v. 161, no. 1, p. 35–49.
Whiting, J.C., Doering, B., Wright, G., Englestead, D.K., Frye, J.A., Stefanic, T., and Sewall, B.J., 2018, Long-term bat abundance in sagebrush steppe: Nature Scientific Reports, v. 8, article 12288, 8 p.
McCaffery, R., and Lukacs, P.M., 2016, A generalized integrated population model to estimate greater sage-grouse population dynamics: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 11, article e01585, 14 p.
Studies Related to Need 8, But Not Any of the Next Steps
Monroe, A.P., Wann, G.T., Aldridge, C.L., and Coates, P.S., 2019, The importance of simulation assumptions when evaluating detectability in population models: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 7, p. 1–17.
NA.
46 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Aldridge, C.L., Heinrichs, J.A., Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., and Hanser, S.E., 2019, Designing multi-scale hierarchical monitoring frameworks for wildlife to support management—A sage-grouse case study: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 9, p. 1–34. Riley, I.P., and Conway, C.J., 2020, Methods for estimating vital rates of greater sage-grouse broods—A review: Wildlife Biology, v. 2020, no. 4, article wlb.00700, 12 p. Shyvers, J.E., Walker, B.L., Oyler-McCance, S.J., Fike, J.A., and Noon, B.R., 2019, Genetic mark-recapture analysis of winter faecal pellets allows estimation of population size in sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus: The Ibis, v. 162, no. 3, p. 749–765. Wann, G.T., Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Severson, J.P., Monroe, A.P., and Aldridge, C.L., 2019, Assessing lek attendance of male greater sage-grouse using fine-resolution GPS data—Implications for population monitoring of lek mating grouse: Population Ecology, v. 61, no. 2, p. 183–197.
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. Juliusson, L.M., and Doherty, K.E., 2017, Oil and gas development exposure and conservation scenarios for greater sage-grouse—Combining spatially explicit modeling with GIS visualization provides critical information for management decisions: Sevenoaks, England, Applied Geography, v. 80, p. 98–111. 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, article e02417, 27 p.
Next Step 9c Next Step 9b Develop high-quality geospatial information for environmental and human disturbance metrics including soil characteristics, temperature, precipitation, and infrastructure. 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.F., 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: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-360, 213 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.
Develop and assess new monitoring methods to improve monitoring efficiency (for example, use of tablets and other devices, photo points, remote sensing, and LiDAR). Coates, P.S., Wann, G.T., Gillette, G.L., Ricca, M.R., Prochazka, B.G., Severson, J.P., Andrle, K.M., Espinosa, S.P., Casazza, M.L., and Delehanty, D.J., 2019, Estimating sightability of greater sage-grouse at leks using an aerial infrared system and N-mixture models: Wildlife Biology, v. 2019, no. 1, article wlb.00552, 11 p. Ellis, K.S., Larsen, R.T., Whiting, J.C., Wilson, T.L., and McMillan, B.R., 2017, Assessing indirect measures of abundance and distribution with remote cameras—Simplifying indices of activity at pygmy rabbit burrows: Ecological Indicators, v. 77, p. 23–30. Forbey, J.S., Patricelli, G.L., Delparte, D.M., Krakauer, A.H., Olsoy, P.J., Fremgen, M.R., Nobler, J.D., Spaete, L.P., Shipley, L.A., Rachlow, J.L., Dirksen, A.K., Perry, A., Richardson, B.A., and Glenn, N.F., 2017, Emerging technology to measure habitat quality and behavior of grouse— Examples from studies of greater sage-grouse: Wildlife Biology, v. 2017, no. 1, article wlb.00238, 10 p. Gillan, J.K., Karl, J.W., and van Leeuwen, W.J.D., 2020, Integrating drone imagery with existing rangeland monitoring programs: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 192, no. 269, article s10661-020-8216-3, 20 p. Havrilla, C.A., Villarreal, M.L., DiBiase, J.L., Duniway, M.C., and Barger, N.N., 2020, Ultra-high-resolution mapping of biocrusts with Unmanned Aerial Systems: Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, v. 6, no. 4, p. 441–456.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 47 Howell, R.G., Jensen, R.R., Petersen, S.L., and Larsen, R.T., 2020, Measuring height characteristics of sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) using imagery derived from small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS): Drones, v. 4, no. 6, article drones4010006, 15 p.
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.
LeBeau, C.W., Johnson, G.D., Holloran, M.J., Beck, J.L., Nielson, R.M., Kauffman, M.E., Rodemaker, E.J., and McDonald, T.L., 2017, Greater sage-grouse habitat selection, survival, and wind energy infrastructure: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 81, no. 4, p. 690–711.
Heinrichs, J.A., Lawler, J.J., Schumaker, N.H., Wilsey, C.B., Monroe, K.C., and Aldridge, C.L., 2017, A multispecies test of source-sink indicators to prioritize habitat for declining populations: Conservation Biology, v. 32, no. 3, p. 648–659.
Olsoy, P.J., Shipley, L.A., Rachlow, J.L., Forbey, J.S., Glenn, N.F., Burgess, M.A., and Thornton, D.H., 2018, Unmanned aerial systems measure structural habitat features for wildlife across multiple scales: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 2018, no. 9, p. 594–604.
Next Step 9e
Prochazka, B.G., Coates, P.S., Ricca, M.A., Casazza, M.L., Gustafson, K.B., and Hull, J.M., 2017, Encounters with pinyon-juniper influence riskier movements in greater sage-grouse across the Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 70, no. 1, p. 39–49. Reinhardt, J.R., Filippelli, S., Falkowski, M., Allred, B., Maestas, J.D., Carlson, J.C., and Naugle, D.E., 2020, Quantifying pinon-juniper reduction within North America’s sagebrush ecosystem: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 73, no. 3, p. 420–432. Smith, K.T., Dinkins, J.B., and Beck, J.L., 2019, Approaches to delineate greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas: The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 83, no. 7, p. 1495–1507. Schoenecker, K.A., Doherty, P.F., Jr., Hourt, J.S., and Romero, J.P., 2018, Testing infrared camera surveys and distance analyses to estimate feral horse abundance in a known population: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 42, no. 3, p. 452–459. Snyder, K.A., Wehan, B.L., Filippa, G., Huntington, J.L., Stringham, T.K., and Snyder, D.K., Extracting plant phenology metrics in a Great Basin watershed: methods and considerations for quantifying phenophases in a cold desert: Sensors, v. 16, article s16111948, 20 p.
Next Step 9d Use radio-telemetry and spatially explicit simulation (population) modeling to evaluate the potential gains and losses of sage-grouse associated with alternative sagebrush restoration approaches. 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.
Use long-term temporally stamped sagebrush mapping products currently being developed (See Sagebrush and SageGrouse Science Need 4) to construct temporal data series of changes in sagebrush vegetation components (1984–2016) for evaluation of the time to recovery of sagebrush vegetation given the various treatments, disturbances, and restoration practices. Barker, B.S., Pilliod, D.S., Rigge, M., and Homer, C.G., 2019, Pre-fire vegetation drives post-fire outcomes in sagebrush ecosystems—Evidence from field and remote sensing data: Ecosphere v. 10, no. 11, article e02929, 29 p. Donnelly, J.P., Allred, B.W., Perret, D., Silverman, N.L., Tack, J.D., Dreitz, V.J., Maestas, J.D., and Naugle, D.E., 2018, Seasonal drought in North America’s sagebrush biome structures dynamic mesic resources for sage-grouse: Ecology and Evolution, v. 8, no. 24, p. 12492–12505. Donnelly, J.P., Naugle, D.E., Hagen, C.A., and Maestas, J.D., 2016, Public lands and private waters—Scarce mesic resources structure land tenure and sage-grouse distributions: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 1, article e01208, 15 p. Fremgen-Tarantino, M.R., Pena, J.J., Connelly, J.W., and Forbey, J.S., 2020, Winter foraging ecology of greater sage-grouse in a post-fire landscape: Journal of Arid Environments v. 178, article 104154, 10 p. Homer, C.G., Xian, G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., Loveland, T.R., and O’Donnell, M.S., 2015, Forecasting sagebrush ecosystem components and greater sage-grouse habitat for 2050—Learning from past climate patterns and Landsat imagery to predict the future: Ecological Indicators, v. 55, p. 131–145. Pastick, N.J., Dahal, D., Wylie, B.K., Parajuli, S., Boyte, S.P., and Wu, Z., 2020, Characterizing land surface phenology and exotic annual grasses in dryland ecosystems using Landsat and Sentinel-2 data in harmony: Remote Sensing v. 12, article 12040725, 17 p.
48 Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20 Rigge, M., Shi, H., Homer, C., Danielson, P., and Granneman, B., 2019, Long-term trajectories of fractional component change in the northern Great Basin, USA: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 6, article e02762, 24 p. Rigge, M., Homer, C., Wylie, B., Gu, Y., Shi, H., Xian, G., Meyer, D.K., and Bunde, B., 2019, Using remote sensing to quantify ecosystem site potential community structure and deviation in the Great Basin, United States: Ecological Indicators, v. 96, no. 1, p. 516–531. Shi, H., Homer, C., Rigge, M., Postma, K., and Xian, G., 2020, Analyzing vegetation change in a sagebrush ecosystem using long-term field observations and Landsat imagery in Wyoming: Ecosphere v. 11, no. 12, article e03311, 20 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, New York, Ecosystems, v. 21, no. 5, p. 913–929.
Next Step 9f Develop decision-support tools to enable managers to evaluate potential outcomes of planned treatments using information about similar treatments conducted under equivalent environmental conditions, including pre-treatment vegetation, ecological site, weather, and disturbance. 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. 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. 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., 2017, Restoration handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 3. Site level restoration decisions: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1426, 62 p. 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, article e01888, 18 p.
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, no. 493, 22 p. 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. 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. 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.
Next Step 9g Complete evaluation of monitoring indicators and adopt those that provide clear information to detect community structure and function, evaluate success of management treatments, and detect habitat changes critical to sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species. Henderson, E.B., Bell, D.M., and Gregory, M.J., 2019, Vegetation mapping to support greater sage-grouse habitat monitoring and management—Multi- or univariate approach?: Ecosphere, v. 10, no. 8, p. 1–22. Di Stefano, S., Karl, J.W., McCord, S.E., Stauffer, N.G., Makela, P.D., and Manning, M., 2018, Comparison of 2 vegetation height methods for assessing greater sage-grouse seasonal habitat: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 42, no. 2, p. 213–224. 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.
Next Step 9h Use improved soil maps, maps and models of topography and climate, and information about post-disturbance vegetation response to refine and describe community responses to treatments across environmental gradients.
Appendix 1. Literature in scoring Next Steps for the Sagebrush Sage-grouse in the Actionable Science Plan 49 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. 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.
Next Step 9i Develop a set of long-term monitoring sites across the sagebrush ecosystem, stratified by ecological site conditions, resistance and resilience, and other environmental characteristics to facilitate evaluation of long-term community dynamics. Fedy, B.C., O’Donnell, M.S., and Bowen, Z.H., 2015, Largescale control site selection for population monitoring—An example assessing sage-grouse trends: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 39, no. 4, p. 700–712. 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. 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, article e01590, 20 p.
Next Step 9j Work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to complete and improve soil surveys and maps for public lands across the West. NA.
Studies Related to Need 9, But Not Any of the Next Steps Balzotti, C.S., Kitchen, S.G., and McCarthy, C., 2016, Beyond the single species climate envelope—A multifaceted approach to mapping climate change vulnerability: Ecosphere, v. 7, no. 9, article e01444, 23 p. Boyte, S.P., Wylie, B.K., and Major, D.J., 2016, Cheatgrass percent cover change—Comparing recent estimates to climate change-driven predictions in the northern Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 69, no. 4, p. 265–279. 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.
Publishing support provided by the Science Publishing Network, Denver Publishing Service Center Tacoma Publishing Service Center For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the Director, USGS Colorado Water Science Center Box 25046, Mail Stop 415 Denver, CO 80225 (303) 236-4882 Or visit the Colorado Water Science Center website at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/co-water
Holloran and others—Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Assessment: Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, 2015–20—OFR 2023–1010
ISSN 2331-1258 (online) https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20231010