The Greater Sage The Greater Sage-grouse: The Greater Sage The - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Greater Sage The Greater Sage-grouse: grouse: The Greater Sage The Greater Sage grouse: grouse:

Ecology, ESA Finding, Threats, and Solutions Ecology, ESA Finding, Threats, and Solutions

Joint Military Affairs Committee Joint Military Affairs Committee Joint Military Affairs Committee Joint Military Affairs Committee February 7, 2011 February 7, 2011

Ecology of the Sage Ecology of the Sage-

• grouse

grouse

Largest grouse in North America Largest grouse in North America Males much larger than females Males much larger than females Sagebrush obligate species Sagebrush obligate species ‐ ‐ Sagebrush is primary food Sagebrush is primary food

‐ Also eats Forbs and insects Also eats Forbs and insects

Migratory Migratory Faithful to breeding display sites (leks) Faithful to breeding display sites (leks) Faithful to breeding display sites (leks) Faithful to breeding display sites (leks)

Ecology of the Sage Ecology of the Sage-

• grouse

grouse

Clutch size averages 7.1 eggs Clutch size averages 7.1 eggs Likelihood of nesting averages 78.4% Likelihood of nesting averages 78.4% Likelihood of nesting averages 78.4% Likelihood of nesting averages 78.4% Re Re‐nesting averages 30% nesting averages 30% A t t i 52 1% A t t i 52 1% Average percent nest success is 52.1% Average percent nest success is 52.1%

The Habitat The Habitat

“Landscape Scale” species vast life history needs “Landscape Scale” species vast life history needs Sage Sage‐grouse habitat: grouse habitat: Sage Sage grouse habitat: grouse habitat: Breeding Breeding ‐ lek, nesting lek, nesting Summer and Late Brood Summer and Late Brood Summer and Late Brood Summer and Late Brood Fall Transitional period Fall Transitional period Winter Winter ‐ ‐ Diet is exclusively sagebrush Diet is exclusively sagebrush

Select by snow depth, hardness, topography and vegetation Select by snow depth, hardness, topography and vegetation y p p g p y g y p p g p y g height and cover height and cover

Habitat Habitat -

• The Lek

The Lek

A A Lek Lek is a traditional display area is a traditional display area where two or more male sage where two or more male sage‐grouse grouse have attended in 2 or more of previous 5 yrs have attended in 2 or more of previous 5 yrs

Occur in relatively open areas Occur in relatively open areas Range in size from 0.25 to 16 hectare Range in size from 0.25 to 16 hectare Males display early morning and evening hours Males display early morning and evening hours 2.1 km from the lek to day use The period from March The period from March ‐ ‐ June often represents higher mortality June often represents higher mortality In Idaho, 43% documented deaths occurred during this time frame

Lek Locations Lek Locations

Nesting Habitat Nesting Habitat

Landscapes usually dominated by sagebrush Landscapes usually dominated by sagebrush Nest under sagebrush shrubs. Nest under sagebrush shrubs. 70% under big sagebrush, 17% under black sagebrush 70% under big sagebrush, 17% under black sagebrush Canopy cover between Canopy cover between 15 15 ‐ ‐ 50% 50%. Sagebrush height averaged Sagebrush height averaged 46 4 cm (18 in) 46 4 cm (18 in) Sagebrush height averaged Sagebrush height averaged 46.4 cm (18 in) 46.4 cm (18 in) Mean distance of nest sites from lek where female was Mean distance of nest sites from lek where female was captured captured 3.4 3.4 ‐ ‐ 4.6 km in Idaho and 4.0 in Colorado. 4.6 km in Idaho and 4.0 in Colorado. p

Summer/Late Brood Rearing Habitat Summer/Late Brood Rearing Habitat g

Riparian corridors, wet meadows, irrigated fields, alfalfa pivot Riparian corridors, wet meadows, irrigated fields, alfalfa pivot Movement to higher elevation sites can occur Movement to higher elevation sites can occur Typically July through September Typically July through September In Nevada, elevated mortality has been documented during In Nevada, elevated mortality has been documented during this time frame this time frame

Winter Habitat

• Often dominated by big sagebrush species

Often dominated by big sagebrush species

• Canopy cover varies from 6% to 43%

Canopy cover varies from 6% to 43% W i bi b h i t t d i th i t W i bi b h i t t d i th i t

• Wyoming big sagebrush important during the winter

Wyoming big sagebrush important during the winter

– Use of mountain big sagebrush, black sagebrush and even low Use of mountain big sagebrush, black sagebrush and even low sagebrush has been documented. sagebrush has been documented.

• Aspect (south to southwest facing slopes) and use of lower

Aspect (south to southwest facing slopes) and use of lower elevation sagebrush habitats help sage elevation sagebrush habitats help sage‐grouse find forage grouse find forage during the winter months during the winter months during the winter months during the winter months. .

Distribution (Current vs. Historic)

Sage Sage‐grouse grouse distribution distribution Sage Sagebrush brush distribution distribution

Population Population Management Management Units Units Units Units

Sage Sage-grouse Population Status grouse Population Status g g p g p

• Surveyed 738 leks in Nevada

Surveyed 738 leks in Nevada ‐ ‐ 405 were active in 2011 405 were active in 2011

• Observed a total of 7,755 male sage

Observed a total of 7,755 male sage‐grouse grouse 2010 P d ti 1 85 hi k h d t 2010 P d ti 1 85 hi k h d t

• 2010 Production = 1.85 chicks per hen and nest success was

2010 Production = 1.85 chicks per hen and nest success was estimated at 54%. estimated at 54%.

• 2011 Production = 1.43 chicks per hen and nest success was

2011 Production = 1.43 chicks per hen and nest success was estimated at 52.4% estimated at 52.4%

Population of Sage Population of Sage-

• grouse in

grouse in N d N d Nevada Nevada

30 000

Nevada Sage‐grouse Harvest Information

25,000 30,000 15,000 20,000 10,000 5,000 Estimated Sage‐grouse Harvest Estimated # of Hunters

Annual Harvest in Relation to Fall P l ti E ti t f N d Population Estimates for Nevada

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Harvest

5,244 3176 3701 4897 5775 8944 7,355 6,141

Fall Population Estimate

146,327 155,305 115,385 107,601 139,206 140,056 141,996 168,120

Estimate Percentage

3.6% 2.0% 3.2% 4.6% 4.1% 7.1% 5.2% 3.7%

60 70 0

Nevada Sage‐grouse Trend Lek Counts Average Male Attendance (1975‐2010)

50 60 60.0 70.0 40 50.0 s 30 30.0 40.0 # of Leks Counted Average # of Males 20 20.0 A 10 0 0 10.0 0.0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 # of Leks Counted Average Male Attendance Long Term Average

• Log. (Average Male Attendance)

U S Fish & Wildlife Service Threat Determination U S Fish & Wildlife Service Threat Determination U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Threat Determination U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Threat Determination

• n all Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listings
• n all Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listings
• Damage

amage to, or destruction of, a to, or destruction of, a species’ habitat species’ habitat

• Overutilization

Overutilization of the

• f the species for

species for commercial, recreational, commercial, recreational, scientific or scientific or educational educational purposes purposes scientific, or scientific, or educational educational purposes purposes

• Disease or predation

Disease or predation

• Inadequacy

Inadequacy of

• f existing protection

existing protection Inadequacy Inadequacy of

• f existing protection

existing protection

• Other natural or manmade

Other natural or manmade factors that affect the factors that affect the continued continued existence existence of the species.

• f the species.

ESA Status for Greater Sage ESA Status for Greater Sage-Grouse Grouse g

• January 2005

January 2005 ‐ ‐ FWS issued 12 FWS issued 12‐month “not warranted” month “not warranted” finding finding finding finding – Greater listing priority number (LPN) 8 – Bi‐State distinct population segment (DPS) LPN 3

• December 2007

December 2007 – District Court remanded FWS decision District Court remanded FWS decision h d “ d b l d d” d “ d b l d d”

• March 2010

March 2010 – FWS Issued “warranted but precluded” FWS Issued “warranted but precluded” finding making the greater sage finding making the greater sage‐grouse a “candidate” for grouse a “candidate” for listing listing

• FY 2013

FY 2013 – Bi Bi‐State final listing decision State final listing decision

• FY 2015

FY 2015 – Greater Sage Greater Sage‐Grouse final listing decision Grouse final listing decision

#1 Threats to Sage-Grouse g

FWS considers the 4 red arrows tied for 1st (invasive i species, infrastructure, wildfire, and energy development)

Oil and gas includes

• ther types of energy

‐ wind, uranium, and geothermal Agriculture is a close 2, because of its relatively limited distribution Threats vary across Threats vary across the range

Threats to Sage-Grouse Threats to Sage Grouse

“In Nevada, the major threat to Sage‐ Grouse is habitat loss and fragmentation, and the main cause of that is the fire‐invasive species cycle, which is cheat grass that displaces sage habitat after a fire.” “Other major threats include encroachment

• f pinion pine and juniper, land development, lek

and nest habitat disturbance, meadow degradation, grazing, and predators.”

d h d ldl f ff Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office – State Supervisor

*Essential and Irreplaceable Habitat is Yellow *Important Habitat is Orange

BLM Approach for Sage BLM Approach for Sage-

• Grouse

Grouse pp g pp g

Establishing a Regulatory Mechanism Establishing a Regulatory Mechanism

• Planning Approach:

Planning Approach:

– Develop and implement new or revised regulatory mechanisms through Develop and implement new or revised regulatory mechanisms through land use planning and appropriate policy land use planning and appropriate policy bl h h hl d d l bl h h hl d d l l l h d l l h d – Establish highly coordinated, multi Establish highly coordinated, multi‐level interagency teams that respond level interagency teams that respond to clear national direction to clear national direction Incorporate regulatory mechanisms into RMPs at state/multi Incorporate regulatory mechanisms into RMPs at state/multi state level state level – Incorporate regulatory mechanisms into RMPs at state/multi Incorporate regulatory mechanisms into RMPs at state/multi‐state level state level

• Sage

Sage‐grouse located across 10 states (CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, ND, OR, SD, UT, grouse located across 10 states (CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, ND, OR, SD, UT, WY) on approximately 50% on BLM surface managed lands and 8% Forest WY) on approximately 50% on BLM surface managed lands and 8% Forest WY) on approximately 50% on BLM surface managed lands and 8% Forest WY) on approximately 50% on BLM surface managed lands and 8% Forest Service land Service land

• Affects 68 BLM planning units of which 28 plans are currently under

Affects 68 BLM planning units of which 28 plans are currently under p g p y p g p y revision revision

BLM Process BLM Process

• Instructional Memorandum (IM)

Instructional Memorandum (IM)

– National Interim Policy addressing habitat management short term National Interim Policy addressing habitat management short term

N ti f I t t t d l d l N ti f I t t t d l d l

• Notice of Intent to amend land use plans

Notice of Intent to amend land use plans

• Scoping Processes

Scoping Processes

• Amend the resource management plans (RMP)

Amend the resource management plans (RMP)

– The Regulatory Mechanisms The Regulatory Mechanisms ‐ ‐ Addresses habitat management long term Addresses habitat management long term

• Environmental impact statement (EIS) (currently underway)

Environmental impact statement (EIS) (currently underway)

– US Forest Service Joining EIS Process US Forest Service Joining EIS Process – Public and agency scoping process Public and agency scoping process – Draft FY13, Final FY 14 Draft FY13, Final FY 14

• Records of Decision to be signed (FY14)

Records of Decision to be signed (FY14) g ( ) g ( )

• USFWS issues listing dates for 254 species

USFWS issues listing dates for 254 species

– September 2013 for Bi September 2013 for Bi‐State State – September 2015 for Greater September 2015 for Greater – September 2015 for Greater September 2015 for Greater

NDOW Actions for NDOW Actions for Greater Sage Greater Sage-

• grouse

grouse g g

National leadership roles National leadership roles

• Director is

Director is Chairman of National Sage Chairman of National Sage‐grouse Executive Oversight Committee grouse Executive Oversight Committee WAFWA; Chairman of Bird Conservation Committee/Sage WAFWA; Chairman of Bird Conservation Committee/Sage‐grouse lead; on National grouse lead; on National Policy Team Policy Team

• Staff on National Technical Team, Resource Management Team, and

Staff on National Technical Team, Resource Management Team, and implementation teams. implementation teams.

• Developing Greater Sage

Developing Greater Sage‐grouse habitat maps with threats overlaid grouse habitat maps with threats overlaid

• Nevada Partners for Conservation and Development

Nevada Partners for Conservation and Development

On the ground projects On the ground projects Guided by 2004 and updated bi Guided by 2004 and updated bi‐state action plan state action plan

• Local population management unit (PMU) lead

Local population management unit (PMU) lead p p g ( ) p p g ( )

• Lead Governor’s Sage

Lead Governor’s Sage‐grouse Task Force grouse Task Force

• Data Collection and management

Data Collection and management

• Research

Research

• Research

Research

Conservation Measures Conservation Measures

• Since 2001, NDOW involved with

Since 2001, NDOW involved with >27

>27 sage

sage‐ ifi h bit t i t ifi h bit t i t grouse specific habitat improvement or grouse specific habitat improvement or restoration projects consisting of; restoration projects consisting of;

11 fire restoration projects; 11 fire restoration projects; 14 brood rearing or nesting habitat projects; 14 brood rearing or nesting habitat projects; 2 habitat protection projects; 2 habitat protection projects; 2 long term research projects; 2 long term research projects; g p j ; g p j ;

• The total acreage treated = 71,348 acres at a

The total acreage treated = 71,348 acres at a cost of $2 3 million dollars cost of $2 3 million dollars cost of $2.3 million dollars. cost of $2.3 million dollars.

NDOW Actions on NDOW Actions on S G Sage Sage-

• Grouse

Grouse

• Nevada Partners for Conservation and Development

Nevada Partners for Conservation and Development Nevada Partners for Conservation and Development Nevada Partners for Conservation and Development

– – Collaborative, inclusive process Collaborative, inclusive process – – Leverage funding Leverage funding

• > 1,000,000 acres at a cost of many millions

> 1,000,000 acres at a cost of many millions

– October 2011 fires ~300,000 acres October 2011 fires ~300,000 acres – >$600,000 >$600,000

• Pinyon

Pinyon‐ ‐Juniper treatments in Juniper treatments in Bi Bi‐ ‐State PMUs State PMUs

NPCD Participants NPCD Participants NPCD Participants NPCD Participants

• Agricultural Research Service
• Nevada Department of

A i lt

• Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Bureau of Land Management
• Natural Resource Conservation

Agriculture

• Nevada Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources Service

• U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U. S. Forest Service

Resources

• Nevada Department of

Wildlife

• Nevada Division of Forestry
• U.S.F.S. Rocky Mountain

Research Station Nevada Division of Forestry

• Nevada Historic Preservation

Office

• Nevada State Lands
• University of Nevada Reno
• University of Nevada

Cooperative Extension Service

Nevada Association of Counties Nevada Mining Association Nevada Cattleman’s Association The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

NPCD Habitat Projects NPCD Habitat Projects NPCD Habitat Projects NPCD Habitat Projects

• > 1,000,000 acres at a cost of many millions

> 1,000,000 acres at a cost of many millions , , y , , y

– October 2011 fires ~300,000 acres October 2011 fires ~300,000 acres

– >$600,000 >$600,000

• Landscape scale projects

Landscape scale projects

• Landscape scale projects

Landscape scale projects – South Steptoe South Steptoe – 220,000 acres over next 10 years 220,000 acres over next 10 years

• Pinyon

Pinyon‐Juniper treatments in Bi Juniper treatments in Bi‐State PMUs State PMUs y p

• Projects designed to address specific threats

Projects designed to address specific threats

• Projects monitored pre and post treatment

Projects monitored pre and post treatment – Vegetation Vegetation – Sage Sage‐grouse grouse

Pinyon Pinyon-

• Juniper Habitat Project

Juniper Habitat Project

Before PJ removal in 2008

After PJ removal in 2010

Military Lands and Military Lands and Military Lands and Military Lands and Sage Sage-

• Grouse

Grouse Habitat Habitat

• Hawthorne operations in Mt. Grant

Bodie Hills PMU Bodie Hills PMU Habitat prioritization proposal PJ Thinning projects l d

• Sweetwater summit C130 landing

practice strip PJ thinning treatments on US Forest Service and private land p adjacent to strip

• Fallon Naval Air Station bombing

ti

• perations

Thank You