Final Report

Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Dominated Rangeland

Nevada and NE California

A Case Study Utilizing BLM Nevada AIM and NRCS Nevada NRI Monitoring Data

Major Land Resource Area 25 Nevada

April 2017

Tamzen K Stringham1

Devon K Snyder2

Authors are 1Professor 2Rangeland Ecologist Dept of Agriculture Nutrition and Veterinary Sciences University of Nevada Reno NV

Cite as Stringham TK and D Snyder 2017 Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Dominated Rangeland in Nevada and NE California A Case Study Utilizing BLM Nevada AIM and NRCS Nevada NRI Monitoring Data Major Land Resource Area 25 Nevada University of Nevada Reno Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 2017-02 p55

Available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

1

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Ecological Potential 1

Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area 2 Figure 1 2

Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center 3

Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA 5

Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25 5

Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015 6

Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover 7 Figure 4 7

Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset 7 Table 1 8 Figure 5 8 Figure 6 9 Figure 7 9 Figure 810

Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands11

Table 211

Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV 12 Table 312 Table 413

Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV 13 Table 513 Table 614 Figure 914

Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25 15 Figure 1015

National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data16 Table 716

Summary Sagebrush Cover17

Conclusion Ecological Potential 17

Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass18 Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15 19

Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush19 Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015 19

Referenceshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip21

Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25 23 Appendix B Review of Table 2-2 Cited Literaturehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 26

Appendix C Photos and state and transition model diagrams DRG 1 2 and 4 MLRA 25 NVhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip40

Introduction

The Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment states that the ldquohabitat objectives in Table 2-2 summarize the characteristics that research has found represent the seasonal habitat needs for GRSG The specific seasonal components identified in the Table were adjusted based on local science and monitoring data to define the range of characteristics used in this subregion Thus the habitat objectives provide the broad vegetative conditions we strive to obtain across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats used by GRSG These habitat indicators are consistent with the rangeland health indicators used by the BLMrdquo (USDI BLM 2015) In determination of the habitat objectives presented in Table 2-2 of the RMP BLM relied on literature and science produced by biologists studying the habitat preferences of Greater Sage-Grouse The authors of the literature cited to justify the habitat objectives readily admit that Greater Sage-Grouse chose nesting and brood rearing locations that are different from the surrounding landscape in terms of shrub cover forb diversity and other habitat components (see Appendix B) In order to determine if the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 are achievable on a landscape scale a systematic analysis of BLM Nevada Assessment Inventory and Monitoring data from 2011-2015 for NE Nevada was completed The results of this analysis was compared with a subset of the USDA NRCS Nevada National Resource Inventory Data for the same location and with peer-reviewed publications focused on the ecological potential of the sagebrush biome Results indicate that achievable habitat objectives need to be developed by Major Land Resource Area and on a sagebrush subspecies specific basis

Ecological Potential In order to provide a systematic and scientifically verifiable methodology for determining the natural range of variability within the Wyoming big sagebrush mountain big sagebrush low sagebrush and Basin big sagebrush biomes in Nevada and Northeastern California a comprehensive understanding of the climate topographic and soils relationships associated with plant community development is necessary The kind amount and proportion of vegetation that rangelands can produce is determined by climate topography and soils The combination of these environmental attributes is referred to as ecological potential The principal climate variables involved in the development and production of vegetation are timing and amount of precipitation combined with temperature These climate variables also influence the rates of soil processes Topography refers to the context of the soil relative to the land surface shape and is described with such features as elevation slope landscape position and aspect The properties of a particular soil are the result of soil-forming processes acting through time and under the influence of parent material climate topography and biota (Duniway et al 2010) Soil-forming processes have created a wide variety of soils featuring differences in soil horizons occurring at different depths Soil classification groups soils with similar soil horizons together to facilitate soil mapping and management Ecological sites in turn correlate these soil groups according to their influence on vegetation and related processes (Duniway et al 2010) Ecological sites group soil map unit components which support plant communities that have similar characteristics at potential and respond similarly to management and disturbance (USDA 1997) An ecological site is defined as a ldquodistinctive kind of land based on recurring soil landform geological and climatic characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its ability to respond similarly to management actions and natural disturbancesrdquo (USDA NRCS 2014) State-and-transition models (STMs) are utilized within the ecological site descriptions to describe the ecological dynamics of the site to various natural and human-induced disturbances STMs provide valuable information for management on the ecology of plants responses to various disturbances and projected successional pathways In addition STMs identify restoration suggestions and thresholds of ecological change associated with multiple disturbances (Stringham et al 2003 Briske et al 2008 Stringham et al 2015)

The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has been correlating ecological sites and mapping the soils of the United States since the 1950s Through this process they have developed a scientifically sound methodology for classification of the nationrsquos rangelands In 2010 the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USDA Forest Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service approved the first Rangeland Interagency Ecological Site Manual (RIESM) ndash

1

BLM Manual 1734-1 Following RIESM the Interagency Ecological Site Working Group published the Interagency Ecological Site Handbook that provides a standardized method to be utilized by the agencies to define delineate and describe terrestrial ecological sites on rangelands for use in inventory monitoring evaluation and management of the Nationrsquos rangelands (Caudle et al 2013) The BLM Nevada State Office NRCS Nevada State Office and the University of Nevada Reno have been collaborating on a statewide project to update the ecological site descriptions and associated state-and-transition models for Nevadarsquos rangelands In addition Bishop CA BLM and Susanville CA BLM have recently joined this collaborative effort for revisions in their respective administrative areas To-date the Nevada Ecological Site Team (NV-EST) has completed state-and-transition models for Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) 24 25 28a and 28b (Stringham et al 2015) MLRA 23 and 26 models are available in draft form Full ecological site descriptions are available from the Nevada State Office of NRCS State-and-transition model publications by MLRA are available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area Nevada is sub-divided into ten Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) representing regions of distinct climate geology and soils (USDA NRCS 2006) MLRA 25 (figure 1) comprises over 96 million acres or 15044 square miles of NE Nevada of which 48 million acres are designated as priority habitat (PHMA) for Greater Sage-grouse (Coates et al 2014) Figure 2 illustrates the climatic differences between MLRA 25 and MLRA 24 located in north central Nevada MLRA 25 benefits from greater inputs of winter moisture favoring deeper soil moisture recharge leading to more productive and resilient

plant communities Climatic and soil differences are inherent properties that determine the potential plant community composition production and resistance and resilience to disturbance For example the Wyoming big sagebrush community in MLRA 25 is dominated with bluebunch wheatgrass whereas Thurberrsquos needlegrass is dominate in MLRA 24 reflecting a hotter drier environment Within MLRArsquos finer scale differences in topography soil and climate further influence plant community distribution production and diversity leading to multiple ecological sites

Understanding that ecological potential resistance and resilience of plant communities varies between MLRArsquos and within MLRArsquos is important when developing guidelines for management of vegetation

At the plant community scale local topography climate and soil are important Research on properties of the soil underpinning ecological sites has been ongoing for decades and is generally well understood Jensen (1990) sampled 375 locations throughout the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest located in central to northeast Nevada and utilized ordination analysis to effectively demonstrate how the sagebrush community distribution is affected by changes in soil properties The major sagebrush species responded to a complex gradient

Figure 1 Major land resource areas of Nevada USDA NRCS driven by soil depth water holding capacity mollic

25

2

BLM Manual 1734-1 Following RIESM the Interagency Ecological Site Working Group published the Interagency Ecological Site Handbook that provides a standardized method to be utilized by the agencies to define delineate and describe terrestrial ecological sites on rangelands for use in inventory monitoring evaluation and management of the Nationrsquos rangelands (Caudle et al 2013) The BLM Nevada State Office NRCS Nevada State Office and the University of Nevada Reno have been collaborating on a statewide project to update the ecological site descriptions and associated state-and-transition models for Nevadarsquos rangelands In addition Bishop CA BLM and Susanville CA BLM have recently joined this collaborative effort for revisions in their respective administrative areas To-date the Nevada Ecological Site Team (NV-EST) has completed state-and-transition models for Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) 24 25 28a and 28b (Stringham et al 2015) MLRA 23 and 26 models are available in draft form Full ecological site descriptions are available from the Nevada State Office of NRCS State-and-transition model publications by MLRA are available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area Nevada is sub-divided into ten Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) representing regions of distinct climate geology and soils (USDA NRCS 2006) MLRA 25 (figure 1) comprises over 96 million acres or 15044 square miles of NE Nevada of which 48 million acres are designated as priority habitat (PHMA) for Greater Sage-grouse (Coates et al 2014) Figure 2 illustrates the climatic differences between MLRA 25 and MLRA 24 located in north central Nevada MLRA 25 benefits from greater inputs of winter moisture favoring deeper soil moisture recharge leading to more productive and resilient

plant communities Climatic and soil differences are inherent properties that determine the potential plant community composition production and resistance and resilience to disturbance For example the Wyoming big sagebrush community in MLRA 25 is dominated with bluebunch wheatgrass whereas Thurberrsquos needlegrass is dominate in MLRA 24 reflecting a hotter drier environment Within MLRArsquos finer scale differences in topography soil and climate further influence plant community distribution production and diversity leading to multiple ecological sites

Understanding that ecological potential resistance and resilience of plant communities varies between MLRArsquos and within MLRArsquos is important when developing guidelines for management of vegetation

At the plant community scale local topography climate and soil are important Research on properties of the soil underpinning ecological sites has been ongoing for decades and is generally well understood Jensen (1990) sampled 375 locations throughout the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest located in central to northeast Nevada and utilized ordination analysis to effectively demonstrate how the sagebrush community distribution is affected by changes in soil properties The major sagebrush species responded to a complex gradient

Figure 1 Major land resource areas of Nevada USDA NRCS driven by soil depth water holding capacity mollic

25

2

epipedon thickness clay content and effective rooting depth Low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush separated into distinct groups defined by the soil characteristics listed above Water holding capacity also encapsulated elevational and precipitation differences of locations sampled

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Elko 112 084 100 097 096 065 037 037 057 075 111 120 Tuscarora 119 100 126 112 144 082 034 027 070 089 158 170 Winnemucca 087 066 083 089 112 056 025 018 044 067 088 093 Imlay 086 087 102 094 111 063 023 026 043 067 086 09

000

020

040

060

080

100

120

140

160

180

Inch

es

Average Precipitation 1981-2010

Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center

In the Intermountain West the Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp wyomingensis) biome is the most extensive of the big sagebrush communities and in Nevada MLRA 25 the Wyoming big sagebrush biome accounts for over 228 million acres of the 48 million acres of the sage-grouse priority habitat while the low sagebrush biome accounts for an additional 15+ million acres These two sagebrush types account for over 78 of the priority sage-grouse habitat in MLRA 25

In Nevada the NV-EST developed a process to upscale ecological sites into groups of ecological sites based on their responses to natural or human-induced responses These groups of ecological sites are referred to as Disturbance Response Groups (DRGs) and typically are composed of ecological sites within a MLRA with the same species of sagebrush and dominant bunchgrass (Stringham et al 2016) In MLRA 25 the dominant DRGs are the Wyoming big sagebrush bluebunch wheatgrass Thurberrsquos needlegrass DRG 4 Low sagebrush bluebunch wheatgrass Thurberrsquos needlegrass DRG 1 and Low sagebrush Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass DRG 2 Figure 3 displays the spatial extent of Greater Sage-grouse priority habitat occurring within MLRA 25 with an overlay of DRGs and BLM AIM monitoring locations DRG 4 the Wyoming big sagebrush ecological site group is mapped as light pink DRG 1 the drier low sagebrush ecological site group is mapped as dark pink and DRG 2 the mesic low sagebrush group is mapped as dark green These three DRGs comprise the majority of the PHMA for MLRA 25

3

1 4

Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA

The approach for development of sagebrush cover and deep-rooted perennial grass (DRPG) cover based on the ecological potential of the sagebrush plant communities of Nevada and Northeastern California is as follows

1 Major Land Resource Area scale stratification layer 1 2 Disturbance Response Groups (groups of ecological sites) within MLRAs Stratification layer 2 3 Utilize BLMrsquos Assessment Inventory and Monitoring data from 2010-2015 within each MLRADRG group to

determine sagebrush cover ndash DRPG relationships Add 2016 data when available 4 Utilize National Resource Inventory data when available to verify validity of BLMrsquos AIM data 5 Literature review of publications measuring vegetation in Nevada and Northeastern California where sagebrush

is identified to species and method of vegetation measurement is specified and NOT nestchick centric 6 Identify Current Potential and Shrub State sagebrush communities utilizing statistical analyzes of the AIMNRI

data 7 Utilize ecological site descriptions and state-and-transition models for the DRG to determine management

options

Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25

For purposes of Greater Sage-grouse habitat land management agencies and wildlife biologists have placed a major emphasis on developing management strategies to maintain intact sagebrush landscapes and restore degraded sagebrush communities However vegetation guidelines developed from small-scale habitat studies focused on life-stage needs of sage-grouse are mistakenly being interpreted as representing the ecological potential of sagebrush communities at both the stand and landscape scale Davies et al (2006) addressed these concerns in a seminal research paper on the northwest portion of the Wyoming big sagebrush alliance Davies et al (2006) measured the characteristics of late seral Wyoming big sagebrush communities at 107 locations across southeastern Oregon and northern Nevada within five different plant associations or ecological sites identified as sage-grouse habitat by the BLM ARTRW8 (Wyoming big sagebrush) ATCH7 (Achnatherum thurberianum Thurberrsquos needlegrass) ARTRW8PSSP (Pseudoroegneria spicata bluebunch wheatgrass) ARTRW8FEID (Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis) ARTRW8HECO26 (Hesperostipa comata needle and thread) and ARTRW8PSSP6-ACTH7 (co-dominated by the two bunchgrasses) The ARTRW8FEID community type is not known to exist in Nevada Intact late seral communities were defined as 1) understory dominated by deep-rooted native perennial bunchgrasses and native forbs 2) exotic species as a minor to nonexistent component 3) evidence of limited historic and present livestock use based on criteria developed by Passey et al (1982) 4) overstory dominated by mature stands of ARTRW8 (no fire recorded at sites for gt 50 years) and 5) no other disturbances were evident One hundred and seven sites were included in the study All sites met the requirements used for reference sites in rangeland health assessments according to Pellant et al 2005 Five 50-m transects spaced at 20-m intervals were read within the randomly located macroplot Shrub canopy cover by species was measured by line intercept (Canfield 1941) and separated into live and dead components Canopy gaps less than 15 cm were included in the canopy measurements Fifty randomly selected sagebrush heights were measured in each plot Herbaceous canopy cover was visually estimated by species inside 40x50 cm frames Wyoming big sagebrush cover ranged from 32 to 255 with a mean of 123 and median of 119 with 90 of sites sampled exhibiting cover of 6 to 20 and 50 of sites sampled with cover of 95 to 147 (Davies et al 2006) Herbaceous cover was visually estimated with perennial grass cover ranging from 45 to 283 with a mean of 1219 and median of 1085 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 00 to 1321 with a mean of 539 and median of 528 Importantly Davies et al (2006) results demonstrates differences in Wyoming big sagebrush ecological potential across the different plant community associations or ecological sites MLRA 24 NV is dominated by the Wyoming big sagebrush ndash Thurberrsquos

5

needlegrass plant community (ARTRW8ACTH7) which was found to have the lowest deep-rooted perennial bunchgrass cover at 88 whereas MLRA 23 Oregon is home to the Wyoming big sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue community (ARTRW8FEID) that exhibited the highest perennial grass cover at 194 These differences in understory herbaceous cover reflect MLRA differences and ecological site potential as defined earlier In MLRA 25 NV the Wyoming sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass-Thurberrsquos needlegrass community (ARTRW8PSSPACTH7) and the ARTRW8PSSP are dominant The ARTRW8PSSP community was found to be the most abundant intact late-seral Wyoming big sagebrushbunchgrass association in the region sampled and was represented by 63 sample locations Cover of deep-rooted perennial grasses averaged 119 and Wyoming sagebrush cover averaged 120 cover The ARTRW8PSSP-ACTH7 community averaged 94 cover of deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses and the highest average cover of Wyoming big sagebrush of the five plant communities measured at 168 (Davies et al 2006)

Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015

In 2011 the Nevada BLM began an extensive monitoring effort utilizing the Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) framework developed from the monitoring protocols specified in the Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems (Herrick et al 2005) The Nevada BLM AIM study design involved randomly generating sampling points within stratified units Study areas were stratified by allotments and then by dominant ecological sites aggregated to Disturbance Response Groups (Granberry and Lieurance 2014) Nevada BLM provided the 2011-2015 AIM data to UNR Stringham Rangeland Ecology Lab for analysis This data set provides an opportunity to assess the ecological potential of Nevadarsquos sagebrush communities by MLRA and by Disturbance Response Group within MLRAs and to compare the outcome to the Davies et al (2006) work and to the Habitat Objectives presented in Table 2-2 of the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment (USDI BLM 2015) For the purposes of this initial effort analysis was constrained to MLRA 25 in Nevada

The first metric evaluated with the Nevada AIM data was sagebrush cover The term ldquocoverrdquo is used loosely to describe the amount of ground surface covered by vegetation Vegetative cover however can be measured in many ways and therefore the values for cover can vary widely depending on the methods used The most common method found in the literature for measuring canopy cover of brush is the Continuous Line Intercept (CLI) or Line Intercept method of Canfield (1941) The Nevada Assessment Inventory and Monitoring data from MLRA 25 (2011 to 2015) included two methods of shrub cover measurements CLI and Line Point Intercept (LPI) along with LPI cover of grass cover CLI is measured along a line intercept transect by noting the point along the tape where the canopy begins and point at which it ends Summation of intercepts divided by total line length results in percent cover This technique is effective for species with dense canopies such as some shrubs and matted plants In contrast the LPI method measures canopy by the number of ldquohitsrdquo on the target species out of the total number of points measured Bonham (1989) and Floyd and Anderson (1987) found LPI to be the least biased and most objective of the basic cover measurement methods within sagebrush steppe communities This data set allowed us to evaluate the following questions

1 How does the percent cover of shrub measurements of Continuous Line Intercept (CLI) compare to those of Line Point Intercept (LPI) when performed on the same transects The AIM protocol is three 50-meter transects

2 What are the ranges of shrub cover by species particularly sagebrush in different ecological sites and Disturbance Response Groups

3 What is the relationship between percent shrub cover and percent cover of 1) deep rooted perennial grasses and 2) Sandberg bluegrass

4 Can we use statistical modeling to define ecological thresholds between Current Potential plant communities and plant communities dominated by sagebrush and Sandberg bluegrass (Shrub State)

6

Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover

SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) was used to determine lines of fit for Continuous Line Canopy cover vs Line Point Intercept Canopy cover of sagebrush First all sagebrush species cover data was compiled from the Nevada AIM dataset This includes 875 data points from 671 AIM plots Each data point is an individual sagebrush cover value from an AIM plot that had sagebrush cover (figure 4) There may be multiple data points from a single AIM plot if the plot had more than one species of sagebrush or if the plot was visited in multiple years

Figure 4 All sagebrush species in all Nevada Major Land Resource Areas (n=875)

Continuous Line Cover = 00071575 + 09230061LPI FirstHitCover R2=085 plt00001 statistically significant

Example 40 LPI cover = 376 CLI cover CLI=00071575+0923006140 = 376

Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset

Sample points excluded from analysis included

1 Sample locations not identified as ecological sites starting with R025 (representing MLRA 25)

2 Sample locations that had 0 cover (CLI and LPI) of the following species Artemisia arbuscula (low sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longicaulis (Lahontan sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longiloba (early sagebrush) Artemisia nova (black sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp tridentata (basin big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp vaseyana (mountain big sagebrush) and Artemisia tridentata ssp Wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush)

7

1 4

Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA

The approach for development of sagebrush cover and deep-rooted perennial grass (DRPG) cover based on the ecological potential of the sagebrush plant communities of Nevada and Northeastern California is as follows

1 Major Land Resource Area scale stratification layer 1 2 Disturbance Response Groups (groups of ecological sites) within MLRAs Stratification layer 2 3 Utilize BLMrsquos Assessment Inventory and Monitoring data from 2010-2015 within each MLRADRG group to

determine sagebrush cover ndash DRPG relationships Add 2016 data when available 4 Utilize National Resource Inventory data when available to verify validity of BLMrsquos AIM data 5 Literature review of publications measuring vegetation in Nevada and Northeastern California where sagebrush

is identified to species and method of vegetation measurement is specified and NOT nestchick centric 6 Identify Current Potential and Shrub State sagebrush communities utilizing statistical analyzes of the AIMNRI

data 7 Utilize ecological site descriptions and state-and-transition models for the DRG to determine management

options

Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25

For purposes of Greater Sage-grouse habitat land management agencies and wildlife biologists have placed a major emphasis on developing management strategies to maintain intact sagebrush landscapes and restore degraded sagebrush communities However vegetation guidelines developed from small-scale habitat studies focused on life-stage needs of sage-grouse are mistakenly being interpreted as representing the ecological potential of sagebrush communities at both the stand and landscape scale Davies et al (2006) addressed these concerns in a seminal research paper on the northwest portion of the Wyoming big sagebrush alliance Davies et al (2006) measured the characteristics of late seral Wyoming big sagebrush communities at 107 locations across southeastern Oregon and northern Nevada within five different plant associations or ecological sites identified as sage-grouse habitat by the BLM ARTRW8 (Wyoming big sagebrush) ATCH7 (Achnatherum thurberianum Thurberrsquos needlegrass) ARTRW8PSSP (Pseudoroegneria spicata bluebunch wheatgrass) ARTRW8FEID (Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis) ARTRW8HECO26 (Hesperostipa comata needle and thread) and ARTRW8PSSP6-ACTH7 (co-dominated by the two bunchgrasses) The ARTRW8FEID community type is not known to exist in Nevada Intact late seral communities were defined as 1) understory dominated by deep-rooted native perennial bunchgrasses and native forbs 2) exotic species as a minor to nonexistent component 3) evidence of limited historic and present livestock use based on criteria developed by Passey et al (1982) 4) overstory dominated by mature stands of ARTRW8 (no fire recorded at sites for gt 50 years) and 5) no other disturbances were evident One hundred and seven sites were included in the study All sites met the requirements used for reference sites in rangeland health assessments according to Pellant et al 2005 Five 50-m transects spaced at 20-m intervals were read within the randomly located macroplot Shrub canopy cover by species was measured by line intercept (Canfield 1941) and separated into live and dead components Canopy gaps less than 15 cm were included in the canopy measurements Fifty randomly selected sagebrush heights were measured in each plot Herbaceous canopy cover was visually estimated by species inside 40x50 cm frames Wyoming big sagebrush cover ranged from 32 to 255 with a mean of 123 and median of 119 with 90 of sites sampled exhibiting cover of 6 to 20 and 50 of sites sampled with cover of 95 to 147 (Davies et al 2006) Herbaceous cover was visually estimated with perennial grass cover ranging from 45 to 283 with a mean of 1219 and median of 1085 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 00 to 1321 with a mean of 539 and median of 528 Importantly Davies et al (2006) results demonstrates differences in Wyoming big sagebrush ecological potential across the different plant community associations or ecological sites MLRA 24 NV is dominated by the Wyoming big sagebrush ndash Thurberrsquos

5

needlegrass plant community (ARTRW8ACTH7) which was found to have the lowest deep-rooted perennial bunchgrass cover at 88 whereas MLRA 23 Oregon is home to the Wyoming big sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue community (ARTRW8FEID) that exhibited the highest perennial grass cover at 194 These differences in understory herbaceous cover reflect MLRA differences and ecological site potential as defined earlier In MLRA 25 NV the Wyoming sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass-Thurberrsquos needlegrass community (ARTRW8PSSPACTH7) and the ARTRW8PSSP are dominant The ARTRW8PSSP community was found to be the most abundant intact late-seral Wyoming big sagebrushbunchgrass association in the region sampled and was represented by 63 sample locations Cover of deep-rooted perennial grasses averaged 119 and Wyoming sagebrush cover averaged 120 cover The ARTRW8PSSP-ACTH7 community averaged 94 cover of deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses and the highest average cover of Wyoming big sagebrush of the five plant communities measured at 168 (Davies et al 2006)

Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015

In 2011 the Nevada BLM began an extensive monitoring effort utilizing the Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) framework developed from the monitoring protocols specified in the Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems (Herrick et al 2005) The Nevada BLM AIM study design involved randomly generating sampling points within stratified units Study areas were stratified by allotments and then by dominant ecological sites aggregated to Disturbance Response Groups (Granberry and Lieurance 2014) Nevada BLM provided the 2011-2015 AIM data to UNR Stringham Rangeland Ecology Lab for analysis This data set provides an opportunity to assess the ecological potential of Nevadarsquos sagebrush communities by MLRA and by Disturbance Response Group within MLRAs and to compare the outcome to the Davies et al (2006) work and to the Habitat Objectives presented in Table 2-2 of the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment (USDI BLM 2015) For the purposes of this initial effort analysis was constrained to MLRA 25 in Nevada

The first metric evaluated with the Nevada AIM data was sagebrush cover The term ldquocoverrdquo is used loosely to describe the amount of ground surface covered by vegetation Vegetative cover however can be measured in many ways and therefore the values for cover can vary widely depending on the methods used The most common method found in the literature for measuring canopy cover of brush is the Continuous Line Intercept (CLI) or Line Intercept method of Canfield (1941) The Nevada Assessment Inventory and Monitoring data from MLRA 25 (2011 to 2015) included two methods of shrub cover measurements CLI and Line Point Intercept (LPI) along with LPI cover of grass cover CLI is measured along a line intercept transect by noting the point along the tape where the canopy begins and point at which it ends Summation of intercepts divided by total line length results in percent cover This technique is effective for species with dense canopies such as some shrubs and matted plants In contrast the LPI method measures canopy by the number of ldquohitsrdquo on the target species out of the total number of points measured Bonham (1989) and Floyd and Anderson (1987) found LPI to be the least biased and most objective of the basic cover measurement methods within sagebrush steppe communities This data set allowed us to evaluate the following questions

1 How does the percent cover of shrub measurements of Continuous Line Intercept (CLI) compare to those of Line Point Intercept (LPI) when performed on the same transects The AIM protocol is three 50-meter transects

2 What are the ranges of shrub cover by species particularly sagebrush in different ecological sites and Disturbance Response Groups

3 What is the relationship between percent shrub cover and percent cover of 1) deep rooted perennial grasses and 2) Sandberg bluegrass

4 Can we use statistical modeling to define ecological thresholds between Current Potential plant communities and plant communities dominated by sagebrush and Sandberg bluegrass (Shrub State)

6

Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover

SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) was used to determine lines of fit for Continuous Line Canopy cover vs Line Point Intercept Canopy cover of sagebrush First all sagebrush species cover data was compiled from the Nevada AIM dataset This includes 875 data points from 671 AIM plots Each data point is an individual sagebrush cover value from an AIM plot that had sagebrush cover (figure 4) There may be multiple data points from a single AIM plot if the plot had more than one species of sagebrush or if the plot was visited in multiple years

Figure 4 All sagebrush species in all Nevada Major Land Resource Areas (n=875)

Continuous Line Cover = 00071575 + 09230061LPI FirstHitCover R2=085 plt00001 statistically significant

Example 40 LPI cover = 376 CLI cover CLI=00071575+0923006140 = 376

Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset

Sample points excluded from analysis included

1 Sample locations not identified as ecological sites starting with R025 (representing MLRA 25)

2 Sample locations that had 0 cover (CLI and LPI) of the following species Artemisia arbuscula (low sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longicaulis (Lahontan sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longiloba (early sagebrush) Artemisia nova (black sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp tridentata (basin big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp vaseyana (mountain big sagebrush) and Artemisia tridentata ssp Wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush)

7

Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA

The approach for development of sagebrush cover and deep-rooted perennial grass (DRPG) cover based on the ecological potential of the sagebrush plant communities of Nevada and Northeastern California is as follows

1 Major Land Resource Area scale stratification layer 1 2 Disturbance Response Groups (groups of ecological sites) within MLRAs Stratification layer 2 3 Utilize BLMrsquos Assessment Inventory and Monitoring data from 2010-2015 within each MLRADRG group to

determine sagebrush cover ndash DRPG relationships Add 2016 data when available 4 Utilize National Resource Inventory data when available to verify validity of BLMrsquos AIM data 5 Literature review of publications measuring vegetation in Nevada and Northeastern California where sagebrush

is identified to species and method of vegetation measurement is specified and NOT nestchick centric 6 Identify Current Potential and Shrub State sagebrush communities utilizing statistical analyzes of the AIMNRI

data 7 Utilize ecological site descriptions and state-and-transition models for the DRG to determine management

options

Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25

For purposes of Greater Sage-grouse habitat land management agencies and wildlife biologists have placed a major emphasis on developing management strategies to maintain intact sagebrush landscapes and restore degraded sagebrush communities However vegetation guidelines developed from small-scale habitat studies focused on life-stage needs of sage-grouse are mistakenly being interpreted as representing the ecological potential of sagebrush communities at both the stand and landscape scale Davies et al (2006) addressed these concerns in a seminal research paper on the northwest portion of the Wyoming big sagebrush alliance Davies et al (2006) measured the characteristics of late seral Wyoming big sagebrush communities at 107 locations across southeastern Oregon and northern Nevada within five different plant associations or ecological sites identified as sage-grouse habitat by the BLM ARTRW8 (Wyoming big sagebrush) ATCH7 (Achnatherum thurberianum Thurberrsquos needlegrass) ARTRW8PSSP (Pseudoroegneria spicata bluebunch wheatgrass) ARTRW8FEID (Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis) ARTRW8HECO26 (Hesperostipa comata needle and thread) and ARTRW8PSSP6-ACTH7 (co-dominated by the two bunchgrasses) The ARTRW8FEID community type is not known to exist in Nevada Intact late seral communities were defined as 1) understory dominated by deep-rooted native perennial bunchgrasses and native forbs 2) exotic species as a minor to nonexistent component 3) evidence of limited historic and present livestock use based on criteria developed by Passey et al (1982) 4) overstory dominated by mature stands of ARTRW8 (no fire recorded at sites for gt 50 years) and 5) no other disturbances were evident One hundred and seven sites were included in the study All sites met the requirements used for reference sites in rangeland health assessments according to Pellant et al 2005 Five 50-m transects spaced at 20-m intervals were read within the randomly located macroplot Shrub canopy cover by species was measured by line intercept (Canfield 1941) and separated into live and dead components Canopy gaps less than 15 cm were included in the canopy measurements Fifty randomly selected sagebrush heights were measured in each plot Herbaceous canopy cover was visually estimated by species inside 40x50 cm frames Wyoming big sagebrush cover ranged from 32 to 255 with a mean of 123 and median of 119 with 90 of sites sampled exhibiting cover of 6 to 20 and 50 of sites sampled with cover of 95 to 147 (Davies et al 2006) Herbaceous cover was visually estimated with perennial grass cover ranging from 45 to 283 with a mean of 1219 and median of 1085 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 00 to 1321 with a mean of 539 and median of 528 Importantly Davies et al (2006) results demonstrates differences in Wyoming big sagebrush ecological potential across the different plant community associations or ecological sites MLRA 24 NV is dominated by the Wyoming big sagebrush ndash Thurberrsquos

5

needlegrass plant community (ARTRW8ACTH7) which was found to have the lowest deep-rooted perennial bunchgrass cover at 88 whereas MLRA 23 Oregon is home to the Wyoming big sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue community (ARTRW8FEID) that exhibited the highest perennial grass cover at 194 These differences in understory herbaceous cover reflect MLRA differences and ecological site potential as defined earlier In MLRA 25 NV the Wyoming sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass-Thurberrsquos needlegrass community (ARTRW8PSSPACTH7) and the ARTRW8PSSP are dominant The ARTRW8PSSP community was found to be the most abundant intact late-seral Wyoming big sagebrushbunchgrass association in the region sampled and was represented by 63 sample locations Cover of deep-rooted perennial grasses averaged 119 and Wyoming sagebrush cover averaged 120 cover The ARTRW8PSSP-ACTH7 community averaged 94 cover of deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses and the highest average cover of Wyoming big sagebrush of the five plant communities measured at 168 (Davies et al 2006)

Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015

In 2011 the Nevada BLM began an extensive monitoring effort utilizing the Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) framework developed from the monitoring protocols specified in the Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems (Herrick et al 2005) The Nevada BLM AIM study design involved randomly generating sampling points within stratified units Study areas were stratified by allotments and then by dominant ecological sites aggregated to Disturbance Response Groups (Granberry and Lieurance 2014) Nevada BLM provided the 2011-2015 AIM data to UNR Stringham Rangeland Ecology Lab for analysis This data set provides an opportunity to assess the ecological potential of Nevadarsquos sagebrush communities by MLRA and by Disturbance Response Group within MLRAs and to compare the outcome to the Davies et al (2006) work and to the Habitat Objectives presented in Table 2-2 of the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment (USDI BLM 2015) For the purposes of this initial effort analysis was constrained to MLRA 25 in Nevada

The first metric evaluated with the Nevada AIM data was sagebrush cover The term ldquocoverrdquo is used loosely to describe the amount of ground surface covered by vegetation Vegetative cover however can be measured in many ways and therefore the values for cover can vary widely depending on the methods used The most common method found in the literature for measuring canopy cover of brush is the Continuous Line Intercept (CLI) or Line Intercept method of Canfield (1941) The Nevada Assessment Inventory and Monitoring data from MLRA 25 (2011 to 2015) included two methods of shrub cover measurements CLI and Line Point Intercept (LPI) along with LPI cover of grass cover CLI is measured along a line intercept transect by noting the point along the tape where the canopy begins and point at which it ends Summation of intercepts divided by total line length results in percent cover This technique is effective for species with dense canopies such as some shrubs and matted plants In contrast the LPI method measures canopy by the number of ldquohitsrdquo on the target species out of the total number of points measured Bonham (1989) and Floyd and Anderson (1987) found LPI to be the least biased and most objective of the basic cover measurement methods within sagebrush steppe communities This data set allowed us to evaluate the following questions

1 How does the percent cover of shrub measurements of Continuous Line Intercept (CLI) compare to those of Line Point Intercept (LPI) when performed on the same transects The AIM protocol is three 50-meter transects

2 What are the ranges of shrub cover by species particularly sagebrush in different ecological sites and Disturbance Response Groups

3 What is the relationship between percent shrub cover and percent cover of 1) deep rooted perennial grasses and 2) Sandberg bluegrass

4 Can we use statistical modeling to define ecological thresholds between Current Potential plant communities and plant communities dominated by sagebrush and Sandberg bluegrass (Shrub State)

6

Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover

SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) was used to determine lines of fit for Continuous Line Canopy cover vs Line Point Intercept Canopy cover of sagebrush First all sagebrush species cover data was compiled from the Nevada AIM dataset This includes 875 data points from 671 AIM plots Each data point is an individual sagebrush cover value from an AIM plot that had sagebrush cover (figure 4) There may be multiple data points from a single AIM plot if the plot had more than one species of sagebrush or if the plot was visited in multiple years

Figure 4 All sagebrush species in all Nevada Major Land Resource Areas (n=875)

Continuous Line Cover = 00071575 + 09230061LPI FirstHitCover R2=085 plt00001 statistically significant

Example 40 LPI cover = 376 CLI cover CLI=00071575+0923006140 = 376

Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset

Sample points excluded from analysis included

1 Sample locations not identified as ecological sites starting with R025 (representing MLRA 25)

2 Sample locations that had 0 cover (CLI and LPI) of the following species Artemisia arbuscula (low sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longicaulis (Lahontan sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longiloba (early sagebrush) Artemisia nova (black sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp tridentata (basin big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp vaseyana (mountain big sagebrush) and Artemisia tridentata ssp Wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush)

7

needlegrass plant community (ARTRW8ACTH7) which was found to have the lowest deep-rooted perennial bunchgrass cover at 88 whereas MLRA 23 Oregon is home to the Wyoming big sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue community (ARTRW8FEID) that exhibited the highest perennial grass cover at 194 These differences in understory herbaceous cover reflect MLRA differences and ecological site potential as defined earlier In MLRA 25 NV the Wyoming sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass-Thurberrsquos needlegrass community (ARTRW8PSSPACTH7) and the ARTRW8PSSP are dominant The ARTRW8PSSP community was found to be the most abundant intact late-seral Wyoming big sagebrushbunchgrass association in the region sampled and was represented by 63 sample locations Cover of deep-rooted perennial grasses averaged 119 and Wyoming sagebrush cover averaged 120 cover The ARTRW8PSSP-ACTH7 community averaged 94 cover of deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses and the highest average cover of Wyoming big sagebrush of the five plant communities measured at 168 (Davies et al 2006)

Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015

In 2011 the Nevada BLM began an extensive monitoring effort utilizing the Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) framework developed from the monitoring protocols specified in the Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems (Herrick et al 2005) The Nevada BLM AIM study design involved randomly generating sampling points within stratified units Study areas were stratified by allotments and then by dominant ecological sites aggregated to Disturbance Response Groups (Granberry and Lieurance 2014) Nevada BLM provided the 2011-2015 AIM data to UNR Stringham Rangeland Ecology Lab for analysis This data set provides an opportunity to assess the ecological potential of Nevadarsquos sagebrush communities by MLRA and by Disturbance Response Group within MLRAs and to compare the outcome to the Davies et al (2006) work and to the Habitat Objectives presented in Table 2-2 of the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment (USDI BLM 2015) For the purposes of this initial effort analysis was constrained to MLRA 25 in Nevada

The first metric evaluated with the Nevada AIM data was sagebrush cover The term ldquocoverrdquo is used loosely to describe the amount of ground surface covered by vegetation Vegetative cover however can be measured in many ways and therefore the values for cover can vary widely depending on the methods used The most common method found in the literature for measuring canopy cover of brush is the Continuous Line Intercept (CLI) or Line Intercept method of Canfield (1941) The Nevada Assessment Inventory and Monitoring data from MLRA 25 (2011 to 2015) included two methods of shrub cover measurements CLI and Line Point Intercept (LPI) along with LPI cover of grass cover CLI is measured along a line intercept transect by noting the point along the tape where the canopy begins and point at which it ends Summation of intercepts divided by total line length results in percent cover This technique is effective for species with dense canopies such as some shrubs and matted plants In contrast the LPI method measures canopy by the number of ldquohitsrdquo on the target species out of the total number of points measured Bonham (1989) and Floyd and Anderson (1987) found LPI to be the least biased and most objective of the basic cover measurement methods within sagebrush steppe communities This data set allowed us to evaluate the following questions

1 How does the percent cover of shrub measurements of Continuous Line Intercept (CLI) compare to those of Line Point Intercept (LPI) when performed on the same transects The AIM protocol is three 50-meter transects

2 What are the ranges of shrub cover by species particularly sagebrush in different ecological sites and Disturbance Response Groups

3 What is the relationship between percent shrub cover and percent cover of 1) deep rooted perennial grasses and 2) Sandberg bluegrass

4 Can we use statistical modeling to define ecological thresholds between Current Potential plant communities and plant communities dominated by sagebrush and Sandberg bluegrass (Shrub State)

6

Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover

SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) was used to determine lines of fit for Continuous Line Canopy cover vs Line Point Intercept Canopy cover of sagebrush First all sagebrush species cover data was compiled from the Nevada AIM dataset This includes 875 data points from 671 AIM plots Each data point is an individual sagebrush cover value from an AIM plot that had sagebrush cover (figure 4) There may be multiple data points from a single AIM plot if the plot had more than one species of sagebrush or if the plot was visited in multiple years

Figure 4 All sagebrush species in all Nevada Major Land Resource Areas (n=875)

Continuous Line Cover = 00071575 + 09230061LPI FirstHitCover R2=085 plt00001 statistically significant

Example 40 LPI cover = 376 CLI cover CLI=00071575+0923006140 = 376

Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset

Sample points excluded from analysis included

1 Sample locations not identified as ecological sites starting with R025 (representing MLRA 25)

2 Sample locations that had 0 cover (CLI and LPI) of the following species Artemisia arbuscula (low sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longicaulis (Lahontan sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longiloba (early sagebrush) Artemisia nova (black sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp tridentata (basin big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp vaseyana (mountain big sagebrush) and Artemisia tridentata ssp Wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush)

7

Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover

SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) was used to determine lines of fit for Continuous Line Canopy cover vs Line Point Intercept Canopy cover of sagebrush First all sagebrush species cover data was compiled from the Nevada AIM dataset This includes 875 data points from 671 AIM plots Each data point is an individual sagebrush cover value from an AIM plot that had sagebrush cover (figure 4) There may be multiple data points from a single AIM plot if the plot had more than one species of sagebrush or if the plot was visited in multiple years

Figure 4 All sagebrush species in all Nevada Major Land Resource Areas (n=875)

Continuous Line Cover = 00071575 + 09230061LPI FirstHitCover R2=085 plt00001 statistically significant

Example 40 LPI cover = 376 CLI cover CLI=00071575+0923006140 = 376

Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset

Sample points excluded from analysis included

1 Sample locations not identified as ecological sites starting with R025 (representing MLRA 25)

2 Sample locations that had 0 cover (CLI and LPI) of the following species Artemisia arbuscula (low sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longicaulis (Lahontan sagebrush) Artemisia arbuscula ssp Longiloba (early sagebrush) Artemisia nova (black sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp tridentata (basin big sagebrush) Artemisia tridentata ssp vaseyana (mountain big sagebrush) and Artemisia tridentata ssp Wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush)

7

A total of 213 data points from 149 plots remained for analysis

Table 1 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 Nevada (n=213)

Sagebrush species N CLI Canopy Avg Cover N LPI Foliar Avg

Cover Artemisia arbuscula 61 123 61 144 Artemisia arbuscula ssp longicaulis 3 78 3 58

Artemisia arbuscula ssp longiloba 1 49 1 113 Artemisia nova 6 74 6 61 Artemisia tridentata 7 161 7 164 Artemisia tridentata ssp tridentata 14 94 14 116

Artemisia tridentata ssp vaseyana 44 120 44 135 Artemisia tridentata ssp wyomingensis 77 112 77 117

All 213 115 213 127 The ldquoFirst Hitrdquo average cover value was used from the LPI data because it takes only ldquotop canopyrdquo hits The AIM Continuous Line Intercept does not allow for overlapping canopy cover measurements so this is a more reasonable comparison

Figure 5 Nevada BLM AIM Data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 All sagebrush communities continuous line vs line point intercept cover (n=213)

MLRA 25 sagebrush Continuous Line Cover = 0006148 + 08605LPI FirstHitCover R2=088 plt00001 statistically significant Example 40 LPI cover = 35 CLI cover

8

Figure 6 Nevada BLM AIM Data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 Wyoming big sagebrush continuous line vs line point intercept cover (n = 77) Wyoming big sagebrush Continuous Line Cover = 00083043 + 08820228LPI Cover

R2=087 plt00001 statistically significant Example 20 LPI cover = 176 CLI cover

Figure 7 Nevada BLM AIM Data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 Low sagebrush continuous line vs line point intercept cover (n=61) Low sagebrush Continuous Line Cover = 00107705 + 07828137FirstHitLPI

R2=084 plt00001 statistically significant Example 20 LPI cover = 167 CLI cover

9

Figure 8 Nevada BLM AIM Data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 Mountain big sagebrush continuous line vs line point intercept cover (n=44) Mountain big sagebrush Continuous Line Cover = -0005434 + 09474064LPI Cover

R2=093 plt00001 statistically significant Example 20 LPI cover = 195 CLI cover

In summary continuous line canopy cover measurements correlate closely with line point intercept cover of low sagebrush (R2=084) Wyoming big sagebrush (R2=087) and mountain big sagebrush (R2=093) This suggests LPI data can be converted to continuous line data if necessary In 2016 NV AIM eliminated the collection of CLI data therefore future comparisons of AIM shrub cover data to data collected by other scientists may require conversion to CLI using these relationships

10

Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands

MLRA 25 line point intercept canopy cover percentages are listed Table 1 Data are taken from AIM plots located within MLRA 25 We chose LPI data for this exercise because continuous line intercept data are not collected by all AIM crews across Nevada and was recently dropped from the AIM protocol requirements in MLRA 25 (M Coca personal communication July 18 2016) Plots were passed through a systematic multivariate statistics grouping process using cluster analysis in PC-ORD (Version 70 MjM software) that enabled us to identify sites with similar characteristics Groups of sites were removed if their vegetation characteristics were inappropriate for this analysis of shrub cover Sites where the vegetation composition indicated a recent fire (ie no sagebrush but high levels of rabbitbrush) or a high level of invasive species (ie 15 sagebrush and understory gt 50 cheatgrass) were removed for this analysis We were left with sites that fall within the Reference Current Potential or Shrub states as described in the state-and-transition models for the sagebrush ecological sites within MLRA 25 (Stringham et al 2015) available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Cover classes for shrub species were determined by running a data Partition in SAS JMP 130 based on sagebrush foliar cover average precipitation slope aspect easting northing and elevation as the dependent variables and deep-rooted perennial grass (DRPG) as the independent variable Shrub cover thresholds are listed for partition results where shrub cover predicated the first split in the data

Table 2 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was utilized to create the canopy cover values for each sagebrush species and foliar cover values for deep-rooted perennial grass functional group

Sagebrush Sagebrush foliar cover values from subset of data canopy cover values from regression equation

Estimated threshold between Current Potential

and Shrub State (data Partition)

Min Max Mean (+- std dev) Median

Low sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) (N=37)

73 57

44 345

227 +- 99 178 +- 78

227 178

gt327 shrub foliar cover = less DRPG cover gt256 canopy cover = less DRPG (Shrub State)

Sites with no Idaho fescue (N=26)

800 63

44 345

236 +- 102 185 +- 80

176 138

gt327 shrub cover = less DRPG cover but topographic variables have more influence gt256 canopy cover = less DRPG (Shrub State)

Sites with Idaho fescue (06 to 167 cover) (N=10)

73 57

36 282

211 +- 90 165 +- 71

207 162

Too few plots to determine

Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var wyomingensis) (N=50)

133 117

387 341

174 +- 89 154 +- 79

160 141

gt187 ARTRW less DRPG cover gt173 (Shrub State)

Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var vaseyana) (N=30)

13 (Total shrub cover 267) 12

38 (Total shrub cover 5467) 360

184 +- 127 (Total shrub cover 290 +- 140)

174 +- 120

19 (Total shrub cover 3033) 180

Threshold not found See Mtn big sagebrush discussion

11

Figure 6 Nevada BLM AIM Data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 Wyoming big sagebrush continuous line vs line point intercept cover (n = 77) Wyoming big sagebrush Continuous Line Cover = 00083043 + 08820228LPI Cover

R2=087 plt00001 statistically significant Example 20 LPI cover = 176 CLI cover

Figure 7 Nevada BLM AIM Data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 Low sagebrush continuous line vs line point intercept cover (n=61) Low sagebrush Continuous Line Cover = 00107705 + 07828137FirstHitLPI

R2=084 plt00001 statistically significant Example 20 LPI cover = 167 CLI cover

9

Figure 8 Nevada BLM AIM Data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 Mountain big sagebrush continuous line vs line point intercept cover (n=44) Mountain big sagebrush Continuous Line Cover = -0005434 + 09474064LPI Cover

R2=093 plt00001 statistically significant Example 20 LPI cover = 195 CLI cover

In summary continuous line canopy cover measurements correlate closely with line point intercept cover of low sagebrush (R2=084) Wyoming big sagebrush (R2=087) and mountain big sagebrush (R2=093) This suggests LPI data can be converted to continuous line data if necessary In 2016 NV AIM eliminated the collection of CLI data therefore future comparisons of AIM shrub cover data to data collected by other scientists may require conversion to CLI using these relationships

10

Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands

MLRA 25 line point intercept canopy cover percentages are listed Table 1 Data are taken from AIM plots located within MLRA 25 We chose LPI data for this exercise because continuous line intercept data are not collected by all AIM crews across Nevada and was recently dropped from the AIM protocol requirements in MLRA 25 (M Coca personal communication July 18 2016) Plots were passed through a systematic multivariate statistics grouping process using cluster analysis in PC-ORD (Version 70 MjM software) that enabled us to identify sites with similar characteristics Groups of sites were removed if their vegetation characteristics were inappropriate for this analysis of shrub cover Sites where the vegetation composition indicated a recent fire (ie no sagebrush but high levels of rabbitbrush) or a high level of invasive species (ie 15 sagebrush and understory gt 50 cheatgrass) were removed for this analysis We were left with sites that fall within the Reference Current Potential or Shrub states as described in the state-and-transition models for the sagebrush ecological sites within MLRA 25 (Stringham et al 2015) available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Cover classes for shrub species were determined by running a data Partition in SAS JMP 130 based on sagebrush foliar cover average precipitation slope aspect easting northing and elevation as the dependent variables and deep-rooted perennial grass (DRPG) as the independent variable Shrub cover thresholds are listed for partition results where shrub cover predicated the first split in the data

Table 2 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was utilized to create the canopy cover values for each sagebrush species and foliar cover values for deep-rooted perennial grass functional group

Sagebrush Sagebrush foliar cover values from subset of data canopy cover values from regression equation

Estimated threshold between Current Potential

and Shrub State (data Partition)

Min Max Mean (+- std dev) Median

Low sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) (N=37)

73 57

44 345

227 +- 99 178 +- 78

227 178

gt327 shrub foliar cover = less DRPG cover gt256 canopy cover = less DRPG (Shrub State)

Sites with no Idaho fescue (N=26)

800 63

44 345

236 +- 102 185 +- 80

176 138

gt327 shrub cover = less DRPG cover but topographic variables have more influence gt256 canopy cover = less DRPG (Shrub State)

Sites with Idaho fescue (06 to 167 cover) (N=10)

73 57

36 282

211 +- 90 165 +- 71

207 162

Too few plots to determine

Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var wyomingensis) (N=50)

133 117

387 341

174 +- 89 154 +- 79

160 141

gt187 ARTRW less DRPG cover gt173 (Shrub State)

Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var vaseyana) (N=30)

13 (Total shrub cover 267) 12

38 (Total shrub cover 5467) 360

184 +- 127 (Total shrub cover 290 +- 140)

174 +- 120

19 (Total shrub cover 3033) 180

Threshold not found See Mtn big sagebrush discussion

11

Figure 8 Nevada BLM AIM Data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 Mountain big sagebrush continuous line vs line point intercept cover (n=44) Mountain big sagebrush Continuous Line Cover = -0005434 + 09474064LPI Cover

R2=093 plt00001 statistically significant Example 20 LPI cover = 195 CLI cover

In summary continuous line canopy cover measurements correlate closely with line point intercept cover of low sagebrush (R2=084) Wyoming big sagebrush (R2=087) and mountain big sagebrush (R2=093) This suggests LPI data can be converted to continuous line data if necessary In 2016 NV AIM eliminated the collection of CLI data therefore future comparisons of AIM shrub cover data to data collected by other scientists may require conversion to CLI using these relationships

10

Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands

MLRA 25 line point intercept canopy cover percentages are listed Table 1 Data are taken from AIM plots located within MLRA 25 We chose LPI data for this exercise because continuous line intercept data are not collected by all AIM crews across Nevada and was recently dropped from the AIM protocol requirements in MLRA 25 (M Coca personal communication July 18 2016) Plots were passed through a systematic multivariate statistics grouping process using cluster analysis in PC-ORD (Version 70 MjM software) that enabled us to identify sites with similar characteristics Groups of sites were removed if their vegetation characteristics were inappropriate for this analysis of shrub cover Sites where the vegetation composition indicated a recent fire (ie no sagebrush but high levels of rabbitbrush) or a high level of invasive species (ie 15 sagebrush and understory gt 50 cheatgrass) were removed for this analysis We were left with sites that fall within the Reference Current Potential or Shrub states as described in the state-and-transition models for the sagebrush ecological sites within MLRA 25 (Stringham et al 2015) available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Cover classes for shrub species were determined by running a data Partition in SAS JMP 130 based on sagebrush foliar cover average precipitation slope aspect easting northing and elevation as the dependent variables and deep-rooted perennial grass (DRPG) as the independent variable Shrub cover thresholds are listed for partition results where shrub cover predicated the first split in the data

Table 2 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was utilized to create the canopy cover values for each sagebrush species and foliar cover values for deep-rooted perennial grass functional group

Sagebrush Sagebrush foliar cover values from subset of data canopy cover values from regression equation

Estimated threshold between Current Potential

and Shrub State (data Partition)

Min Max Mean (+- std dev) Median

Low sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) (N=37)

73 57

44 345

227 +- 99 178 +- 78

227 178

gt327 shrub foliar cover = less DRPG cover gt256 canopy cover = less DRPG (Shrub State)

Sites with no Idaho fescue (N=26)

800 63

44 345

236 +- 102 185 +- 80

176 138

gt327 shrub cover = less DRPG cover but topographic variables have more influence gt256 canopy cover = less DRPG (Shrub State)

Sites with Idaho fescue (06 to 167 cover) (N=10)

73 57

36 282

211 +- 90 165 +- 71

207 162

Too few plots to determine

Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var wyomingensis) (N=50)

133 117

387 341

174 +- 89 154 +- 79

160 141

gt187 ARTRW less DRPG cover gt173 (Shrub State)

Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var vaseyana) (N=30)

13 (Total shrub cover 267) 12

38 (Total shrub cover 5467) 360

184 +- 127 (Total shrub cover 290 +- 140)

174 +- 120

19 (Total shrub cover 3033) 180

Threshold not found See Mtn big sagebrush discussion

11

Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands

MLRA 25 line point intercept canopy cover percentages are listed Table 1 Data are taken from AIM plots located within MLRA 25 We chose LPI data for this exercise because continuous line intercept data are not collected by all AIM crews across Nevada and was recently dropped from the AIM protocol requirements in MLRA 25 (M Coca personal communication July 18 2016) Plots were passed through a systematic multivariate statistics grouping process using cluster analysis in PC-ORD (Version 70 MjM software) that enabled us to identify sites with similar characteristics Groups of sites were removed if their vegetation characteristics were inappropriate for this analysis of shrub cover Sites where the vegetation composition indicated a recent fire (ie no sagebrush but high levels of rabbitbrush) or a high level of invasive species (ie 15 sagebrush and understory gt 50 cheatgrass) were removed for this analysis We were left with sites that fall within the Reference Current Potential or Shrub states as described in the state-and-transition models for the sagebrush ecological sites within MLRA 25 (Stringham et al 2015) available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Cover classes for shrub species were determined by running a data Partition in SAS JMP 130 based on sagebrush foliar cover average precipitation slope aspect easting northing and elevation as the dependent variables and deep-rooted perennial grass (DRPG) as the independent variable Shrub cover thresholds are listed for partition results where shrub cover predicated the first split in the data

Table 2 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was utilized to create the canopy cover values for each sagebrush species and foliar cover values for deep-rooted perennial grass functional group

Sagebrush Sagebrush foliar cover values from subset of data canopy cover values from regression equation

Estimated threshold between Current Potential

and Shrub State (data Partition)

Min Max Mean (+- std dev) Median

Low sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) (N=37)

73 57

44 345

227 +- 99 178 +- 78

227 178

gt327 shrub foliar cover = less DRPG cover gt256 canopy cover = less DRPG (Shrub State)

Sites with no Idaho fescue (N=26)

800 63

44 345

236 +- 102 185 +- 80

176 138

gt327 shrub cover = less DRPG cover but topographic variables have more influence gt256 canopy cover = less DRPG (Shrub State)

Sites with Idaho fescue (06 to 167 cover) (N=10)

73 57

36 282

211 +- 90 165 +- 71

207 162

Too few plots to determine

Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var wyomingensis) (N=50)

133 117

387 341

174 +- 89 154 +- 79

160 141

gt187 ARTRW less DRPG cover gt173 (Shrub State)

Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var vaseyana) (N=30)

13 (Total shrub cover 267) 12

38 (Total shrub cover 5467) 360

184 +- 127 (Total shrub cover 290 +- 140)

174 +- 120

19 (Total shrub cover 3033) 180

Threshold not found See Mtn big sagebrush discussion

11

The Nevada BLM AIM data for the Wyoming sagebrush ndash bluebunch wheatgrass and Wyoming sagebrush ndash bluebunch wheatgrass ndash Thurberrsquos needlegrass communities confirm the findings of Davies et al (2006) in regards to sagebrush cover for MLRA 25 Nevada Cover values for the NV AIM data averaged 174 LPI or 154 CLI for plots considered in a Current Potential State (meeting Rangeland Health Standards) whereas Davies found an average of 168 CLI in the bluebunch wheatgrass ndash Thurberrsquos needlegrass community

LPI methodology is the standard method utilized for measurement of foliar cover of herbaceous communities primarily due to repeatability and unbiased observation (Herrick et al 2005) The NV AIM data utilized this method and is reported below The Davies et al (2006) paper used a visual estimation of grass cover that is not comparable

Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV

The Wyoming big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 4 This DRG is defined by a dominance of Wyoming big sagebrush and typically bluebunch wheatgrass

The Wyoming big sagebrush dataset had the largest number of plots at n=50 Wyoming big sagebrush plots in the Nevada AIM dataset for MLRA 25 have an average of 37 deep-rooted perennial grass cover (DRPG) Percent foliar cover of DRPG ranges from 0 to 87 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 0 to 348 with a mean of 92 During analysis it became clear that the Wyoming big sagebrush sites that had DRPG cover over 87 should be omitted from this analysis for the following reasons they were in a different Disturbance Response Group or they had recently burned Sites with high cover of needle and thread grass fall into DRG 5 which has an ashy soil and high productivity compared to DRG 4 so these sites were removed In addition DRG 5 is not mapped in any sage-grouse habitat areas (see figure 3)

Table 3 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was utilized to generate foliar cover values for sagebrush species and the deep-rooted perennial grass functional group Cover classes for sagebrush were determined by running a data Partition in SAS JMP 130

Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses (Sandberg bluegrass excluded)

Sandberg bluegrass

Wyoming big sagebrush Cover Class canopy cover values from regression equation

N Min Max Median Mean Std dev of mean Mean +- Std dev

13 to 187 12 to 165 Current Potential

26 07 87 47 49 27 150 +- 97

187 to 387 165 to 341 Shrub State

24 0 87 23 24 22 107 +- 84

The Current Potential or ecological potential of the Wyoming big sagebrush ndash bluebunch wheatgrass ndash Thurberrsquos needlegrass community or DRG 4 in MLRA 25 and the alternative stable Shrub State was identified through the data partition analysis in SAS JMP 13 An ecological threshold of 165 to 187 sagebrush cover (depending on method of measurement) was identified as the threshold between the Current Potential State and the Shrub State (Table 3) Deep rooted perennial bunchgrass foliar cover measured by LPI decreases from an average of 49 to 24 and Sandberg bluegrass decreases by over 4 when sagebrush cover exceeds 165 measured by CLI

An additional data partition was performed on the Wyoming big sagebrush AIM data utilizing a 25 shrub cover objective as found in Table 2-2 of the Nevada and Northeastern CA Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment (2015) The Wyoming big sagebrush community as measured utilizing LPI or CLI data is not ecologically capable of meeting the requirements of 10 bunchgrass cover as verified by the maximum value for bunchgrass in the AIM dataset measured utilizing LPI methods Canopy cover of sagebrush greater than 221 is associated with a mean DRPG cover of less than 2 (Table 4) indicating a system at risk of invasion by annual weeds or soil erosion

12

Table 4 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was analyzed in SAS JMP 130 utilizing a data partition analysis to determine the mean and median percent foliar cover associated with 25 LPI canopy cover of sagebrush

Wyoming big sagebrush Cover Class canopy cover values from CLI regression equation

Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses (Sandberg bluegrass excluded) N Min Max Median Mean Std dev of mean

ARTRW8 lt 25 foliar cover ARTRW8 lt 221 canopy cover

39 00 87 33 42 26

ARTRW8 gt 25 foliar cover ARTRW8 gt 221 canopy cover

11 00 87 13 19 25

Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV The low sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 1 and 2 These DRGs are both defined by a dominance of low sagebrush but differ in their understory composition DRG 1 is dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass whereas DRG 2 is more productive and has both Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass as co-dominants

Low sagebrush plots in the Nevada AIM dataset for MLRA 25 have an average of 52 deep-rooted perennial grass foliar cover with 105 cover of Sandberg bluegrass For all perennial grasses the median value was 157 The maximum percent perennial grass cover (including POSE) was 280 and these sites tend to be northerly sites with Idaho fescue Sites in a recently-burned phase were removed prior to analysis so that we werenrsquot comparing non-shrubbed sites to shrubbed sites

The data partition shown in Table 5 below for low sagebrush revealed that 256 CLI canopy cover to 327 LPI canopy cover of low sagebrush determined the ecological threshold between the Current Potential and Shrub State Deep rooted perennial bunchgrass cover averaged 61 in Current Potential and dropped to 15 in the Shrub State Sandberg bluegrass and mat-forming forbs remained similar therefore bare ground increased

Table 5 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was utilized to generate foliar cover values for low sagebrush species and the deep-rooted perennial grass functional group Cover classes for sagebrush were determined by running a data Partition in SAS JMP 130

Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses Sandberg Mat-forming (Sandberg bluegrass excluded) bluegrass forbs

Low sagebrush Cover N Min Max Median Mean Std dev Mean +- std Mean +- std dev Class of dev

canopy cover values mean from regression equation

73 to 327 29 00 220 40 61 57 106 +- 57 24 +- 27 57 to 256

Current Potential 327 to 440 7 00 33 07 15 13 99 +- 56 32 +- 30

256 to 345 Shrub State

An additional data partition was performed on the low sagebrush AIM data utilizing a fixed 25 LPI shrub cover requirement (Table 6) The low sagebrush community shows a wide range of variation in DRPG cover associated with the 25 sagebrush cover value This is likely due to the fact DRG 1 and DRG 2 datasets were combined for the analysis However a pattern of increasing sagebrush cover and decreasing DRPG foliar cover is observed in the dataset along with mean values for bunchgrass of less than 7 An additional data partition was run with DRPG cover held constant at 10 per nesting cover requirement of Table 2-2 (USDI BLM 2015) Results showed only 8 out 37 plots met the requirement of gt 10 DRPG foliar cover when sagebrush was lt25 cover

13

Table 6 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was analyzed in SAS JMP 130 utilizing a data partition analysis to determine the mean and median percent foliar cover associated with 25 LPI canopy cover of low sagebrush and LPI sagebrush cover associated with 10 foliar cover of deep-rooted perennial grasses

Low sagebrush Cover Class canopy cover values from regression equation

Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses (Sandberg bluegrass excluded) N Min Max Median Mean Std dev of mean

ARAR lt 25 foliar cover ARAR lt 221 canopy cover

24 07 413 40 68 88

ARAR gt 25 foliar cover ARAR gt 221 canopy cover

13 00 220 27 50 65

Deep-rooted Perennial Grass Cover Low Sagebrush Canopy Cover (LPI) DRPG lt 10 foliar cover 29 80 440 200 234 106 DRPG gt = 10 foliar cover 8 73 273 227 200 70

In a further analysis low sagebrush sites were split into two groups sites with Idaho fescue (10 sites) and sites without Idaho fescue (26 sites) Idaho fescue is an indicator of generally colder temperatures and higher soil moisture and this pattern shows in the data Idaho fescue was not present in any sites located below 1878m (6161 ft) or sites south of 41223N latitude Sites with Idaho fescue fall into Disturbance Response Group 2 Sites without Idaho fescue fall into Group 1

Figure 9 shows differences between sites with and without Idaho fescue Variation is large and sample sizes are too small to assess whether differences are statistically significant however the higher elevation sites with Idaho fescue tend to have greater cover of other shrubs (All Shrubs includes Low sagebrush) and greater deep rooted perennial grass cover Removal of DRG 2 sampling locations from the overall analysis would decrease the average deep rooted perennial grass cover and likely decrease the sagebrush cover percentage related to the ecological threshold between the Current Potential and Shrub State

Mean All Shrubs Mean Sagebrush Mean DRPG + Sandberg bluegrass Mean DRPG Mean Sandberg bluegrass Mean Perennial forbs Mean Matt forming forbs

Figure 9 Low sagebrush ndash bluebunch DRG 1 vs low sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue - bluebunch wheatgrass DRG 2 foliar cover values for various vegetation classes Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 MLRA 25

DRG 1 DRG 2

14

Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25 The mountain big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 6 This DRG is defined by a dominance of mountain big sagebrush and typically bluebunch wheatgrass or Idaho fescue

Following scrutiny of photos of the plots several plots were excluded due to lack of shrubs or shrub misidentification Only 30 plots remained for analysis limiting our ability to make conclusions about thresholds from these data The analysis below shows some relationships of grass and sagebrush cover to environmental variables Mountain big sagebrush cover range is similar to Wyoming big sagebrush but the mountain big sagebrush biome supports additional shrub cover up to 547 (518 canopy cover) and even at high foliar shrub cover values (30 and up) perennial grass cover can be as high as 40

When performing the same partition method that was completed for the other two shrub types sagebrush cover did not predict the first split in the data Slope followed by ldquoUTM Northingrdquo were the strongest predictors Slope average annual precipitation aspect and elevation are correlated to higher perennial grass cover and are also related to higher shrub cover in this dataset (Figure 10) Sites with heavy mountain big sagebrush cover also had high perennial bunchgrass cover indicating that these sites are highly productive in general Sites located in the more northern portion of MLRA 25 have a different precipitation pattern than those farther south which may explain the increase in grass cover at more northern latitudes (see climate chart)

Deep-rooted perennial grass cover ranged from 0 to 4733 with an average of 1672 +- 114

Figure 10 The scatter plots above show relationships between mountain big sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and all perennial grasses with slope UTM northing and elevation

15

In SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) a stepwise linear model was run for DRPG with available environmental variables Mountain big sagebrush was included in the list to see if shrub cover influenced grass cover but it did not come out as a significant explanatory variable in the model The resulting equation has an R2 of 072

DRPG Cover = -1219 + 001231slope ndash 00001183UTM Northing+2652latitude + (slope-1634)((UTM northing-9127)(-0001168))

National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) line point intercept data were acquired from Nevada NRCS for the Wyoming big sagebrush community type or Loamy 8-10 ecological site (ARTRW8PSSP-ACTH7) in MLRA 25 The Loamy 8-10 ecological site in MLRA 25 is the most common ecological site representing over 25 million acres (Stringham et al 2015) Because of the sensitive nature of these data we did not have access to location or environmental data and thus could not run a full analysis like that done for the AIM data We were however able to complete the same cluster analysis method on the NRI data In Table 7 we present a comparison of AIM vs NRI line point intercept summary statistics for species of interest

Table 7 Wyoming big sagebrush and grass foliar cover summary statistics BLM Nevada AIM vs NRCS Nevada NRI Data for MLRA 25

AIM Foliar Cover NRI Foliar Cover (N=50) (N=50)

Wyoming big sagebrush

Min 13 10

Max 387 436

Median 167 168

Mean +- Std dev

180 +- 88 171 +- 99

Sandberg bluegrass Min 0 0

Max 347 515

Median 80 59

Mean +- Std dev

92 +- 80 84 +- 94

DRPG Min 0 0

Max 87 208

Median 33 3

Mean +- Std dev

37 +- 28 50 +- 42

Total Perennial Grass

Min 0 0

Max 380 604

Median 120 110

Mean +- Std dev

129 +- 92 133 +- 1031

DRPG includes ACHY ACTH7 ELEL5 HECO26 PSSP6 LECI4 Total perennial grass includes DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass

16

Summary Sagebrush Cover

BLM Nevada AIM data NRCS Nevada NRI data and the Davies et al (2006) all confirm that the ecological potential of the Wyoming sagebrush plant community in MLRA 25 (Disturbance Response Group 4) is represented by an average sagebrush canopy cover ranging between 154 to 168 CLI These values were obtained by different researchers and individuals at different times in different random locations across MLRA 25 and represent the average landscape value for an area in late seral condition The data partition analysis on the AIM data indicated the range of canopy cover for the Wyoming big sagebrush community in Current Potential State was 12 to 165 whereas the Shrub State canopy cover ranged from gt165 to 341 in MLRA 25

Furthermore Davies et al (2006) documented differences within five different Wyoming big sagebrush community types representing different subregions or MLRAs of the Wyoming big sagebrush biome The information presented in this report focused on MLRA 25 however given the climate data presented here and the differences found by Davies et al (2006) it appears warranted that habitat guidelines must be developed by MLRA for each subspecies of sagebrush

The low sagebrush community gave similar results as the Wyoming sagebrush community with two identifiable states Current Potential and Shrub State Average low sagebrush canopy cover was 178 with a maximum of 345 The ecological threshold between the Current Potential state and Shrub State was identified as 256 canopy cover with a significant reduction in deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses from an average foliar cover of 61 to 15 The data partition analysis with a fixed gt10 deep-rooted perennial grass cover value identified only 8 out 37 plots with a mean sagebrush cover of 20 in this group Meeting the 10 foliar cover measured with LPI of native bunchgrass objective in Table 2-2 (USDI BLM 2015) with less than 25 sagebrush cover would not on average be achievable given site potential This is particularly the case within DRG 1 the lower elevation less productive low sagebrush ecological sites Sandberg bluegrass is the dominant grass within the low sagebrush community however it is not considered a deep rooted perennial bunchgrass Additional data for DRG 2 is required to determine the threshold between the Current Potential State and Shrub State however the BLM Nevada AIM data suggests the threshold occurs on average near 20 sagebrush cover

The mountain big sagebrush community which represents 439100 acres within MLRA 25 PHMA for sage-grouse appears to be the only community type capable of meeting the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 Caution should be utilized in this conclusion however as only 30 data points were available for analysis Spatial distribution of the mountain sagebrush community may be important in determining the ability of this community in maintaining ecological integrity with increasing shrub cover

Conclusion Ecological Potential The kind amount and proportion of vegetation that rangelands can produce is determined by climate topography and soils The combination of these environmental attributes determines the amount of sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and forb cover a landscape is ecologically capable of producing This is referred to as ecological potential Nevada BLMrsquos AIM data USDA NRI data for the same region and scientific publications support the need to produce habitat objectives that are MLRA and sagebrush subspecies specific In addition the significant differences between the production and cover of understory species within the same sagebrush species group ie low sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue vs low sagebrush ndash bluebunch wheatgrass justifies using the Disturbance Response Group stratification of ecological sites within MLRAs to capture these landscape differences within the subspecies of sagebrush Developing habitat guidelines from these recommendations will provide the land management agencies with objectives that are obtainable and ecologically sound

The Wyoming big sagebrush community comprises the largest area of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within MLRA 25 Neither the BLM AIM nor NRCS NRI datasets indicate that Wyoming big sagebrush ecological sites can achieve the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 and the rangeland health indicators used by BLM Statistical analysis of the AIM dataset clearly shows that sagebrush canopy cover values greater than 17 are associated with an ecological threshold to a

17

Shrub State In addition both datasets indicate a 10 DRPG foliar cover measured by LPI on average would be impossible to achieve even in a Current Potential condition Davies et al (2006) reported a foliar DRPG cover of just under 10 estimated ocularly for sites he rated as good condition late seral Wyoming big sagebrush

In conclusion re-evaluation of the habitat objectives of 20-25 sagebrush canopy cover or grass and forb cover of 10-15 is recommended for both the Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush community types In addition data analysis on sagebrush height by species should be included in future discussions of habitat objectives Sagebrush height varies widely by species with low and black sagebrush typically less than 175 feet tall Wyoming big sagebrush seldom taller than 25 feet but up to 4 feet and mountain big sagebrush varying between 2 and 4 feet (Shultz 2012 Perryman 2014) All habitat objectives should be developed on the basis of the ecological potential of the MLRA and DRG

Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass Understanding the differences in ecological potential within the sagebrush biomes of the Great Basin and Intermountain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas will improve land managerrsquos ability to make informed decisions on habitat criteria and expectations for plant community cover height and composition Ecological site potential and plant phenology produces temporal variation in vegetation composition structure and total biomass In studies of avian nesting ecology investigators often measure vegetation features to provide explanatory variables for next survival (as cited by Gibson et al 2016) For many birds vegetation concealment of the nest site is hypothesized to be a key driver of nest success and thus population growth of the species (Smith et al 2016) Borgmann and Conway (2015) provided a review and comparative analysis of 114 studies of open-cup-nesting songbirds and found only 26 support for the nest concealment hypothesis Multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors may influence the effect of concealment on nest success such as the composition of the local predator community or the brightness of the plumage of the bird species (Borgmann and Conway 2015) However more concerning are methodological aspects of studies that produce biased inference regarding effects of concealment on nest survival when the bias is pervasive in research regarding habitat fitness relationships in species of concern such as Greater Sage-Grouse (Smith et al 2016 Gibson et al 2016 Borgmann and Conway 2015) According to Gibson et al (2016) vegetation is typically sampled by sage-grouse biologists subsequent to nest fate (success or failure) to minimize disturbance at active nests However there is inconsistency among studies with respect to when successful and failed nests are sampled with some investigators choosing to sample vegetation at or near timing of fate and others on a standardized date (Gibson et al 2016) Decisions on timing of vegetation sampling has potentially important consequences to grass height since sampling at nest fate results in vegetation around successful nests being measured later in the growing season on average than failed nests (Gibson et al 2016) Gibson et al (2016) monitored over 400 nests from 2004-2012 in Eureka County NV collecting a suite of habitat variables at all nest sites within 3 days of either the predicted or actual date of hatch In addition the authors reviewed and provided a comparative analysis of 28 previously published studies addressing grass height as a habitat variable Their results provide multiple lines of evidence that confounding between plant phenology and demographic processes can have important implications when evaluating vegetation effects on vital rates of greater sage-grouse They concluded that studies they reviewed predominantly used nest site vegetation metrics sampled at the time of nest fate which was more likely to yield a positive effect of grass height or cover when compared to data collected on a standardized date such as predicted hatch (Gibson et al 2016) Their results are supported by Smith et al (2016) who employed similar methods to correct for phenology in a re-analysis of four datasets from Montana Utah and Wyoming Uncorrected for phenology each of the four datasets was found to show a strong positive association between grass height and daily nest survival however once corrected to remove temporal bias no association between grass height and nest survival in any of the four datasets was found (Smith et al 2016) To further the discussion of when to measure nest-site vegetation to minimize bias in conclusions of vegetation relationships to fitness metrics such as nest success McConnell et al (2017) simulated four methods of measuring nest-site vegetation associated with timing of nest fate Results of the simulations indicated that the risk of drawing an erroneous conclusion was present in all methods but greatest in the method that simulated measurement at nest termination regardless of fate ndash the most common method

18

reported in the literature (McConnell et al 2017) The conclusions of this simulated study agree with both Gibson et al (2016) and Smith et al (2016) in that measuring at nest termination for successful nests and at estimated completion for unsuccessful nests was found to be most effective at minimizing inherent bias (McConnell et al 2017)

In light of this new research and revelations concerning methodologies of sampling procedures utilized by the majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat studies used to support the 7 inch grass height requirement in Table 2-2 it seems unnecessary to discuss the structural attribute differences of deep-rooted bunchgrasses and Sandberg bluegrass However since Sandberg bluegrass a short-statured grass was found to be the dominant grass on 74 of the AIM and 58 of the NRI plots within the Wyoming big sagebrush community and 78 of the AIM plots within the low sagebrush community in MLRA 25 the discussion of ecological potential is relevant

Nevada BLM AIM MLRA 25 data included residual grass height in 2014 and 2015 Grass height was measured at droop height and species was recorded Table 8 provides the average minimum maximum and median (central tendency) of the residual grass height by sagebrush community type Grazing history and timing of measurement was not provided Residual grass height in general was shorter in the Wyoming big sagebrush community type however the mean height was 83 inches for Sandberg bluegrass and 106 inches for DRPG On average DRPG are taller across all sagebrush communities with the mountain sagebrush community recording the tallest residual grass heights by 7 inches

Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median

ARTRW 26 83 34 22 158 86 27 106 31 50 173 102 ARTRV 19 134 32 51 181 130 20 186 62 92 260 187 ARAR 11 95 29 58 134 94 13 116 46 35 212 122

N may be different for Sandberg bluegrass and DRPG values if one plot was missing heights for either grass species grass height by species available for 2014 and 2015 AIM data only

ARTRW=Wyoming big sagebrush ARTRV=mountain big sagebrush ARAR=low sagebrush

Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush The Wyoming big sagebrush community (DRG 4) represents the largest amount of acreage in the MLRA 25 and occurs at the lowest elevations of the three types of sagebrush communities discussed here In Current Potential condition the data presented here suggests this plant community is dominated by Sandberg bluegrass with an average of 150 foliar cover and DRPG foliar cover of 49

Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

ARTRW8 Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median N Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median

2014 8 92 38 22 128 101 27 90 19 61 118 87 2015 18 79 33 31 158 77 20 114 33 50 173 106

19

The annual variation in growing conditions is reflected in the Table 9 for Wyoming big sagebrush Unknown variance in the dataset is the impact of grazing animals and the timing of measurement of the community Both unknowns add variability to the question of residual grass height however for this small dataset the Sandberg bluegrass data for both years indicates the mean height of the grass exceeds the 7 inch requirement of Table 2-2 The standard deviation however suggests that on average in both years there would be locations where Sandberg bluegrass is dominant (78 of AIM plots) that would not meet the 7 inch requirement This is not the case for DRPG

In conclusion additional datasets analyzed by MLRA DRG DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass are necessary to determine an appropriate grass height requirement Furthermore multiple years of data collection are required to cover the wide range of annual variation in precipitation encountered in the Great Basin

20

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

Table 4 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was analyzed in SAS JMP 130 utilizing a data partition analysis to determine the mean and median percent foliar cover associated with 25 LPI canopy cover of sagebrush

Wyoming big sagebrush Cover Class canopy cover values from CLI regression equation

Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses (Sandberg bluegrass excluded) N Min Max Median Mean Std dev of mean

ARTRW8 lt 25 foliar cover ARTRW8 lt 221 canopy cover

39 00 87 33 42 26

ARTRW8 gt 25 foliar cover ARTRW8 gt 221 canopy cover

11 00 87 13 19 25

Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV The low sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 1 and 2 These DRGs are both defined by a dominance of low sagebrush but differ in their understory composition DRG 1 is dominated by bluebunch wheatgrass whereas DRG 2 is more productive and has both Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass as co-dominants

Low sagebrush plots in the Nevada AIM dataset for MLRA 25 have an average of 52 deep-rooted perennial grass foliar cover with 105 cover of Sandberg bluegrass For all perennial grasses the median value was 157 The maximum percent perennial grass cover (including POSE) was 280 and these sites tend to be northerly sites with Idaho fescue Sites in a recently-burned phase were removed prior to analysis so that we werenrsquot comparing non-shrubbed sites to shrubbed sites

The data partition shown in Table 5 below for low sagebrush revealed that 256 CLI canopy cover to 327 LPI canopy cover of low sagebrush determined the ecological threshold between the Current Potential and Shrub State Deep rooted perennial bunchgrass cover averaged 61 in Current Potential and dropped to 15 in the Shrub State Sandberg bluegrass and mat-forming forbs remained similar therefore bare ground increased

Table 5 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was utilized to generate foliar cover values for low sagebrush species and the deep-rooted perennial grass functional group Cover classes for sagebrush were determined by running a data Partition in SAS JMP 130

Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses Sandberg Mat-forming (Sandberg bluegrass excluded) bluegrass forbs

Low sagebrush Cover N Min Max Median Mean Std dev Mean +- std Mean +- std dev Class of dev

canopy cover values mean from regression equation

73 to 327 29 00 220 40 61 57 106 +- 57 24 +- 27 57 to 256

Current Potential 327 to 440 7 00 33 07 15 13 99 +- 56 32 +- 30

256 to 345 Shrub State

An additional data partition was performed on the low sagebrush AIM data utilizing a fixed 25 LPI shrub cover requirement (Table 6) The low sagebrush community shows a wide range of variation in DRPG cover associated with the 25 sagebrush cover value This is likely due to the fact DRG 1 and DRG 2 datasets were combined for the analysis However a pattern of increasing sagebrush cover and decreasing DRPG foliar cover is observed in the dataset along with mean values for bunchgrass of less than 7 An additional data partition was run with DRPG cover held constant at 10 per nesting cover requirement of Table 2-2 (USDI BLM 2015) Results showed only 8 out 37 plots met the requirement of gt 10 DRPG foliar cover when sagebrush was lt25 cover

13

Table 6 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was analyzed in SAS JMP 130 utilizing a data partition analysis to determine the mean and median percent foliar cover associated with 25 LPI canopy cover of low sagebrush and LPI sagebrush cover associated with 10 foliar cover of deep-rooted perennial grasses

Low sagebrush Cover Class canopy cover values from regression equation

Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses (Sandberg bluegrass excluded) N Min Max Median Mean Std dev of mean

ARAR lt 25 foliar cover ARAR lt 221 canopy cover

24 07 413 40 68 88

ARAR gt 25 foliar cover ARAR gt 221 canopy cover

13 00 220 27 50 65

Deep-rooted Perennial Grass Cover Low Sagebrush Canopy Cover (LPI) DRPG lt 10 foliar cover 29 80 440 200 234 106 DRPG gt = 10 foliar cover 8 73 273 227 200 70

In a further analysis low sagebrush sites were split into two groups sites with Idaho fescue (10 sites) and sites without Idaho fescue (26 sites) Idaho fescue is an indicator of generally colder temperatures and higher soil moisture and this pattern shows in the data Idaho fescue was not present in any sites located below 1878m (6161 ft) or sites south of 41223N latitude Sites with Idaho fescue fall into Disturbance Response Group 2 Sites without Idaho fescue fall into Group 1

Figure 9 shows differences between sites with and without Idaho fescue Variation is large and sample sizes are too small to assess whether differences are statistically significant however the higher elevation sites with Idaho fescue tend to have greater cover of other shrubs (All Shrubs includes Low sagebrush) and greater deep rooted perennial grass cover Removal of DRG 2 sampling locations from the overall analysis would decrease the average deep rooted perennial grass cover and likely decrease the sagebrush cover percentage related to the ecological threshold between the Current Potential and Shrub State

Mean All Shrubs Mean Sagebrush Mean DRPG + Sandberg bluegrass Mean DRPG Mean Sandberg bluegrass Mean Perennial forbs Mean Matt forming forbs

Figure 9 Low sagebrush ndash bluebunch DRG 1 vs low sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue - bluebunch wheatgrass DRG 2 foliar cover values for various vegetation classes Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 MLRA 25

DRG 1 DRG 2

14

Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25 The mountain big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 6 This DRG is defined by a dominance of mountain big sagebrush and typically bluebunch wheatgrass or Idaho fescue

Following scrutiny of photos of the plots several plots were excluded due to lack of shrubs or shrub misidentification Only 30 plots remained for analysis limiting our ability to make conclusions about thresholds from these data The analysis below shows some relationships of grass and sagebrush cover to environmental variables Mountain big sagebrush cover range is similar to Wyoming big sagebrush but the mountain big sagebrush biome supports additional shrub cover up to 547 (518 canopy cover) and even at high foliar shrub cover values (30 and up) perennial grass cover can be as high as 40

When performing the same partition method that was completed for the other two shrub types sagebrush cover did not predict the first split in the data Slope followed by ldquoUTM Northingrdquo were the strongest predictors Slope average annual precipitation aspect and elevation are correlated to higher perennial grass cover and are also related to higher shrub cover in this dataset (Figure 10) Sites with heavy mountain big sagebrush cover also had high perennial bunchgrass cover indicating that these sites are highly productive in general Sites located in the more northern portion of MLRA 25 have a different precipitation pattern than those farther south which may explain the increase in grass cover at more northern latitudes (see climate chart)

Deep-rooted perennial grass cover ranged from 0 to 4733 with an average of 1672 +- 114

Figure 10 The scatter plots above show relationships between mountain big sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and all perennial grasses with slope UTM northing and elevation

15

In SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) a stepwise linear model was run for DRPG with available environmental variables Mountain big sagebrush was included in the list to see if shrub cover influenced grass cover but it did not come out as a significant explanatory variable in the model The resulting equation has an R2 of 072

DRPG Cover = -1219 + 001231slope ndash 00001183UTM Northing+2652latitude + (slope-1634)((UTM northing-9127)(-0001168))

National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) line point intercept data were acquired from Nevada NRCS for the Wyoming big sagebrush community type or Loamy 8-10 ecological site (ARTRW8PSSP-ACTH7) in MLRA 25 The Loamy 8-10 ecological site in MLRA 25 is the most common ecological site representing over 25 million acres (Stringham et al 2015) Because of the sensitive nature of these data we did not have access to location or environmental data and thus could not run a full analysis like that done for the AIM data We were however able to complete the same cluster analysis method on the NRI data In Table 7 we present a comparison of AIM vs NRI line point intercept summary statistics for species of interest

Table 7 Wyoming big sagebrush and grass foliar cover summary statistics BLM Nevada AIM vs NRCS Nevada NRI Data for MLRA 25

AIM Foliar Cover NRI Foliar Cover (N=50) (N=50)

Wyoming big sagebrush

Min 13 10

Max 387 436

Median 167 168

Mean +- Std dev

180 +- 88 171 +- 99

Sandberg bluegrass Min 0 0

Max 347 515

Median 80 59

Mean +- Std dev

92 +- 80 84 +- 94

DRPG Min 0 0

Max 87 208

Median 33 3

Mean +- Std dev

37 +- 28 50 +- 42

Total Perennial Grass

Min 0 0

Max 380 604

Median 120 110

Mean +- Std dev

129 +- 92 133 +- 1031

DRPG includes ACHY ACTH7 ELEL5 HECO26 PSSP6 LECI4 Total perennial grass includes DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass

16

Summary Sagebrush Cover

BLM Nevada AIM data NRCS Nevada NRI data and the Davies et al (2006) all confirm that the ecological potential of the Wyoming sagebrush plant community in MLRA 25 (Disturbance Response Group 4) is represented by an average sagebrush canopy cover ranging between 154 to 168 CLI These values were obtained by different researchers and individuals at different times in different random locations across MLRA 25 and represent the average landscape value for an area in late seral condition The data partition analysis on the AIM data indicated the range of canopy cover for the Wyoming big sagebrush community in Current Potential State was 12 to 165 whereas the Shrub State canopy cover ranged from gt165 to 341 in MLRA 25

Furthermore Davies et al (2006) documented differences within five different Wyoming big sagebrush community types representing different subregions or MLRAs of the Wyoming big sagebrush biome The information presented in this report focused on MLRA 25 however given the climate data presented here and the differences found by Davies et al (2006) it appears warranted that habitat guidelines must be developed by MLRA for each subspecies of sagebrush

The low sagebrush community gave similar results as the Wyoming sagebrush community with two identifiable states Current Potential and Shrub State Average low sagebrush canopy cover was 178 with a maximum of 345 The ecological threshold between the Current Potential state and Shrub State was identified as 256 canopy cover with a significant reduction in deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses from an average foliar cover of 61 to 15 The data partition analysis with a fixed gt10 deep-rooted perennial grass cover value identified only 8 out 37 plots with a mean sagebrush cover of 20 in this group Meeting the 10 foliar cover measured with LPI of native bunchgrass objective in Table 2-2 (USDI BLM 2015) with less than 25 sagebrush cover would not on average be achievable given site potential This is particularly the case within DRG 1 the lower elevation less productive low sagebrush ecological sites Sandberg bluegrass is the dominant grass within the low sagebrush community however it is not considered a deep rooted perennial bunchgrass Additional data for DRG 2 is required to determine the threshold between the Current Potential State and Shrub State however the BLM Nevada AIM data suggests the threshold occurs on average near 20 sagebrush cover

The mountain big sagebrush community which represents 439100 acres within MLRA 25 PHMA for sage-grouse appears to be the only community type capable of meeting the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 Caution should be utilized in this conclusion however as only 30 data points were available for analysis Spatial distribution of the mountain sagebrush community may be important in determining the ability of this community in maintaining ecological integrity with increasing shrub cover

Conclusion Ecological Potential The kind amount and proportion of vegetation that rangelands can produce is determined by climate topography and soils The combination of these environmental attributes determines the amount of sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and forb cover a landscape is ecologically capable of producing This is referred to as ecological potential Nevada BLMrsquos AIM data USDA NRI data for the same region and scientific publications support the need to produce habitat objectives that are MLRA and sagebrush subspecies specific In addition the significant differences between the production and cover of understory species within the same sagebrush species group ie low sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue vs low sagebrush ndash bluebunch wheatgrass justifies using the Disturbance Response Group stratification of ecological sites within MLRAs to capture these landscape differences within the subspecies of sagebrush Developing habitat guidelines from these recommendations will provide the land management agencies with objectives that are obtainable and ecologically sound

The Wyoming big sagebrush community comprises the largest area of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within MLRA 25 Neither the BLM AIM nor NRCS NRI datasets indicate that Wyoming big sagebrush ecological sites can achieve the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 and the rangeland health indicators used by BLM Statistical analysis of the AIM dataset clearly shows that sagebrush canopy cover values greater than 17 are associated with an ecological threshold to a

17

Shrub State In addition both datasets indicate a 10 DRPG foliar cover measured by LPI on average would be impossible to achieve even in a Current Potential condition Davies et al (2006) reported a foliar DRPG cover of just under 10 estimated ocularly for sites he rated as good condition late seral Wyoming big sagebrush

In conclusion re-evaluation of the habitat objectives of 20-25 sagebrush canopy cover or grass and forb cover of 10-15 is recommended for both the Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush community types In addition data analysis on sagebrush height by species should be included in future discussions of habitat objectives Sagebrush height varies widely by species with low and black sagebrush typically less than 175 feet tall Wyoming big sagebrush seldom taller than 25 feet but up to 4 feet and mountain big sagebrush varying between 2 and 4 feet (Shultz 2012 Perryman 2014) All habitat objectives should be developed on the basis of the ecological potential of the MLRA and DRG

Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass Understanding the differences in ecological potential within the sagebrush biomes of the Great Basin and Intermountain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas will improve land managerrsquos ability to make informed decisions on habitat criteria and expectations for plant community cover height and composition Ecological site potential and plant phenology produces temporal variation in vegetation composition structure and total biomass In studies of avian nesting ecology investigators often measure vegetation features to provide explanatory variables for next survival (as cited by Gibson et al 2016) For many birds vegetation concealment of the nest site is hypothesized to be a key driver of nest success and thus population growth of the species (Smith et al 2016) Borgmann and Conway (2015) provided a review and comparative analysis of 114 studies of open-cup-nesting songbirds and found only 26 support for the nest concealment hypothesis Multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors may influence the effect of concealment on nest success such as the composition of the local predator community or the brightness of the plumage of the bird species (Borgmann and Conway 2015) However more concerning are methodological aspects of studies that produce biased inference regarding effects of concealment on nest survival when the bias is pervasive in research regarding habitat fitness relationships in species of concern such as Greater Sage-Grouse (Smith et al 2016 Gibson et al 2016 Borgmann and Conway 2015) According to Gibson et al (2016) vegetation is typically sampled by sage-grouse biologists subsequent to nest fate (success or failure) to minimize disturbance at active nests However there is inconsistency among studies with respect to when successful and failed nests are sampled with some investigators choosing to sample vegetation at or near timing of fate and others on a standardized date (Gibson et al 2016) Decisions on timing of vegetation sampling has potentially important consequences to grass height since sampling at nest fate results in vegetation around successful nests being measured later in the growing season on average than failed nests (Gibson et al 2016) Gibson et al (2016) monitored over 400 nests from 2004-2012 in Eureka County NV collecting a suite of habitat variables at all nest sites within 3 days of either the predicted or actual date of hatch In addition the authors reviewed and provided a comparative analysis of 28 previously published studies addressing grass height as a habitat variable Their results provide multiple lines of evidence that confounding between plant phenology and demographic processes can have important implications when evaluating vegetation effects on vital rates of greater sage-grouse They concluded that studies they reviewed predominantly used nest site vegetation metrics sampled at the time of nest fate which was more likely to yield a positive effect of grass height or cover when compared to data collected on a standardized date such as predicted hatch (Gibson et al 2016) Their results are supported by Smith et al (2016) who employed similar methods to correct for phenology in a re-analysis of four datasets from Montana Utah and Wyoming Uncorrected for phenology each of the four datasets was found to show a strong positive association between grass height and daily nest survival however once corrected to remove temporal bias no association between grass height and nest survival in any of the four datasets was found (Smith et al 2016) To further the discussion of when to measure nest-site vegetation to minimize bias in conclusions of vegetation relationships to fitness metrics such as nest success McConnell et al (2017) simulated four methods of measuring nest-site vegetation associated with timing of nest fate Results of the simulations indicated that the risk of drawing an erroneous conclusion was present in all methods but greatest in the method that simulated measurement at nest termination regardless of fate ndash the most common method

18

reported in the literature (McConnell et al 2017) The conclusions of this simulated study agree with both Gibson et al (2016) and Smith et al (2016) in that measuring at nest termination for successful nests and at estimated completion for unsuccessful nests was found to be most effective at minimizing inherent bias (McConnell et al 2017)

In light of this new research and revelations concerning methodologies of sampling procedures utilized by the majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat studies used to support the 7 inch grass height requirement in Table 2-2 it seems unnecessary to discuss the structural attribute differences of deep-rooted bunchgrasses and Sandberg bluegrass However since Sandberg bluegrass a short-statured grass was found to be the dominant grass on 74 of the AIM and 58 of the NRI plots within the Wyoming big sagebrush community and 78 of the AIM plots within the low sagebrush community in MLRA 25 the discussion of ecological potential is relevant

Nevada BLM AIM MLRA 25 data included residual grass height in 2014 and 2015 Grass height was measured at droop height and species was recorded Table 8 provides the average minimum maximum and median (central tendency) of the residual grass height by sagebrush community type Grazing history and timing of measurement was not provided Residual grass height in general was shorter in the Wyoming big sagebrush community type however the mean height was 83 inches for Sandberg bluegrass and 106 inches for DRPG On average DRPG are taller across all sagebrush communities with the mountain sagebrush community recording the tallest residual grass heights by 7 inches

Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median

ARTRW 26 83 34 22 158 86 27 106 31 50 173 102 ARTRV 19 134 32 51 181 130 20 186 62 92 260 187 ARAR 11 95 29 58 134 94 13 116 46 35 212 122

N may be different for Sandberg bluegrass and DRPG values if one plot was missing heights for either grass species grass height by species available for 2014 and 2015 AIM data only

ARTRW=Wyoming big sagebrush ARTRV=mountain big sagebrush ARAR=low sagebrush

Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush The Wyoming big sagebrush community (DRG 4) represents the largest amount of acreage in the MLRA 25 and occurs at the lowest elevations of the three types of sagebrush communities discussed here In Current Potential condition the data presented here suggests this plant community is dominated by Sandberg bluegrass with an average of 150 foliar cover and DRPG foliar cover of 49

Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

ARTRW8 Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median N Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median

2014 8 92 38 22 128 101 27 90 19 61 118 87 2015 18 79 33 31 158 77 20 114 33 50 173 106

19

The annual variation in growing conditions is reflected in the Table 9 for Wyoming big sagebrush Unknown variance in the dataset is the impact of grazing animals and the timing of measurement of the community Both unknowns add variability to the question of residual grass height however for this small dataset the Sandberg bluegrass data for both years indicates the mean height of the grass exceeds the 7 inch requirement of Table 2-2 The standard deviation however suggests that on average in both years there would be locations where Sandberg bluegrass is dominant (78 of AIM plots) that would not meet the 7 inch requirement This is not the case for DRPG

In conclusion additional datasets analyzed by MLRA DRG DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass are necessary to determine an appropriate grass height requirement Furthermore multiple years of data collection are required to cover the wide range of annual variation in precipitation encountered in the Great Basin

20

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

Table 6 Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 for MLRA 25 was analyzed in SAS JMP 130 utilizing a data partition analysis to determine the mean and median percent foliar cover associated with 25 LPI canopy cover of low sagebrush and LPI sagebrush cover associated with 10 foliar cover of deep-rooted perennial grasses

Low sagebrush Cover Class canopy cover values from regression equation

Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses (Sandberg bluegrass excluded) N Min Max Median Mean Std dev of mean

ARAR lt 25 foliar cover ARAR lt 221 canopy cover

24 07 413 40 68 88

ARAR gt 25 foliar cover ARAR gt 221 canopy cover

13 00 220 27 50 65

Deep-rooted Perennial Grass Cover Low Sagebrush Canopy Cover (LPI) DRPG lt 10 foliar cover 29 80 440 200 234 106 DRPG gt = 10 foliar cover 8 73 273 227 200 70

In a further analysis low sagebrush sites were split into two groups sites with Idaho fescue (10 sites) and sites without Idaho fescue (26 sites) Idaho fescue is an indicator of generally colder temperatures and higher soil moisture and this pattern shows in the data Idaho fescue was not present in any sites located below 1878m (6161 ft) or sites south of 41223N latitude Sites with Idaho fescue fall into Disturbance Response Group 2 Sites without Idaho fescue fall into Group 1

Figure 9 shows differences between sites with and without Idaho fescue Variation is large and sample sizes are too small to assess whether differences are statistically significant however the higher elevation sites with Idaho fescue tend to have greater cover of other shrubs (All Shrubs includes Low sagebrush) and greater deep rooted perennial grass cover Removal of DRG 2 sampling locations from the overall analysis would decrease the average deep rooted perennial grass cover and likely decrease the sagebrush cover percentage related to the ecological threshold between the Current Potential and Shrub State

Mean All Shrubs Mean Sagebrush Mean DRPG + Sandberg bluegrass Mean DRPG Mean Sandberg bluegrass Mean Perennial forbs Mean Matt forming forbs

Figure 9 Low sagebrush ndash bluebunch DRG 1 vs low sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue - bluebunch wheatgrass DRG 2 foliar cover values for various vegetation classes Nevada BLM AIM data 2011-2015 MLRA 25

DRG 1 DRG 2

14

Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25 The mountain big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 6 This DRG is defined by a dominance of mountain big sagebrush and typically bluebunch wheatgrass or Idaho fescue

Following scrutiny of photos of the plots several plots were excluded due to lack of shrubs or shrub misidentification Only 30 plots remained for analysis limiting our ability to make conclusions about thresholds from these data The analysis below shows some relationships of grass and sagebrush cover to environmental variables Mountain big sagebrush cover range is similar to Wyoming big sagebrush but the mountain big sagebrush biome supports additional shrub cover up to 547 (518 canopy cover) and even at high foliar shrub cover values (30 and up) perennial grass cover can be as high as 40

When performing the same partition method that was completed for the other two shrub types sagebrush cover did not predict the first split in the data Slope followed by ldquoUTM Northingrdquo were the strongest predictors Slope average annual precipitation aspect and elevation are correlated to higher perennial grass cover and are also related to higher shrub cover in this dataset (Figure 10) Sites with heavy mountain big sagebrush cover also had high perennial bunchgrass cover indicating that these sites are highly productive in general Sites located in the more northern portion of MLRA 25 have a different precipitation pattern than those farther south which may explain the increase in grass cover at more northern latitudes (see climate chart)

Deep-rooted perennial grass cover ranged from 0 to 4733 with an average of 1672 +- 114

Figure 10 The scatter plots above show relationships between mountain big sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and all perennial grasses with slope UTM northing and elevation

15

In SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) a stepwise linear model was run for DRPG with available environmental variables Mountain big sagebrush was included in the list to see if shrub cover influenced grass cover but it did not come out as a significant explanatory variable in the model The resulting equation has an R2 of 072

DRPG Cover = -1219 + 001231slope ndash 00001183UTM Northing+2652latitude + (slope-1634)((UTM northing-9127)(-0001168))

National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) line point intercept data were acquired from Nevada NRCS for the Wyoming big sagebrush community type or Loamy 8-10 ecological site (ARTRW8PSSP-ACTH7) in MLRA 25 The Loamy 8-10 ecological site in MLRA 25 is the most common ecological site representing over 25 million acres (Stringham et al 2015) Because of the sensitive nature of these data we did not have access to location or environmental data and thus could not run a full analysis like that done for the AIM data We were however able to complete the same cluster analysis method on the NRI data In Table 7 we present a comparison of AIM vs NRI line point intercept summary statistics for species of interest

Table 7 Wyoming big sagebrush and grass foliar cover summary statistics BLM Nevada AIM vs NRCS Nevada NRI Data for MLRA 25

AIM Foliar Cover NRI Foliar Cover (N=50) (N=50)

Wyoming big sagebrush

Min 13 10

Max 387 436

Median 167 168

Mean +- Std dev

180 +- 88 171 +- 99

Sandberg bluegrass Min 0 0

Max 347 515

Median 80 59

Mean +- Std dev

92 +- 80 84 +- 94

DRPG Min 0 0

Max 87 208

Median 33 3

Mean +- Std dev

37 +- 28 50 +- 42

Total Perennial Grass

Min 0 0

Max 380 604

Median 120 110

Mean +- Std dev

129 +- 92 133 +- 1031

DRPG includes ACHY ACTH7 ELEL5 HECO26 PSSP6 LECI4 Total perennial grass includes DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass

16

Summary Sagebrush Cover

BLM Nevada AIM data NRCS Nevada NRI data and the Davies et al (2006) all confirm that the ecological potential of the Wyoming sagebrush plant community in MLRA 25 (Disturbance Response Group 4) is represented by an average sagebrush canopy cover ranging between 154 to 168 CLI These values were obtained by different researchers and individuals at different times in different random locations across MLRA 25 and represent the average landscape value for an area in late seral condition The data partition analysis on the AIM data indicated the range of canopy cover for the Wyoming big sagebrush community in Current Potential State was 12 to 165 whereas the Shrub State canopy cover ranged from gt165 to 341 in MLRA 25

Furthermore Davies et al (2006) documented differences within five different Wyoming big sagebrush community types representing different subregions or MLRAs of the Wyoming big sagebrush biome The information presented in this report focused on MLRA 25 however given the climate data presented here and the differences found by Davies et al (2006) it appears warranted that habitat guidelines must be developed by MLRA for each subspecies of sagebrush

The low sagebrush community gave similar results as the Wyoming sagebrush community with two identifiable states Current Potential and Shrub State Average low sagebrush canopy cover was 178 with a maximum of 345 The ecological threshold between the Current Potential state and Shrub State was identified as 256 canopy cover with a significant reduction in deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses from an average foliar cover of 61 to 15 The data partition analysis with a fixed gt10 deep-rooted perennial grass cover value identified only 8 out 37 plots with a mean sagebrush cover of 20 in this group Meeting the 10 foliar cover measured with LPI of native bunchgrass objective in Table 2-2 (USDI BLM 2015) with less than 25 sagebrush cover would not on average be achievable given site potential This is particularly the case within DRG 1 the lower elevation less productive low sagebrush ecological sites Sandberg bluegrass is the dominant grass within the low sagebrush community however it is not considered a deep rooted perennial bunchgrass Additional data for DRG 2 is required to determine the threshold between the Current Potential State and Shrub State however the BLM Nevada AIM data suggests the threshold occurs on average near 20 sagebrush cover

The mountain big sagebrush community which represents 439100 acres within MLRA 25 PHMA for sage-grouse appears to be the only community type capable of meeting the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 Caution should be utilized in this conclusion however as only 30 data points were available for analysis Spatial distribution of the mountain sagebrush community may be important in determining the ability of this community in maintaining ecological integrity with increasing shrub cover

Conclusion Ecological Potential The kind amount and proportion of vegetation that rangelands can produce is determined by climate topography and soils The combination of these environmental attributes determines the amount of sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and forb cover a landscape is ecologically capable of producing This is referred to as ecological potential Nevada BLMrsquos AIM data USDA NRI data for the same region and scientific publications support the need to produce habitat objectives that are MLRA and sagebrush subspecies specific In addition the significant differences between the production and cover of understory species within the same sagebrush species group ie low sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue vs low sagebrush ndash bluebunch wheatgrass justifies using the Disturbance Response Group stratification of ecological sites within MLRAs to capture these landscape differences within the subspecies of sagebrush Developing habitat guidelines from these recommendations will provide the land management agencies with objectives that are obtainable and ecologically sound

The Wyoming big sagebrush community comprises the largest area of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within MLRA 25 Neither the BLM AIM nor NRCS NRI datasets indicate that Wyoming big sagebrush ecological sites can achieve the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 and the rangeland health indicators used by BLM Statistical analysis of the AIM dataset clearly shows that sagebrush canopy cover values greater than 17 are associated with an ecological threshold to a

17

Shrub State In addition both datasets indicate a 10 DRPG foliar cover measured by LPI on average would be impossible to achieve even in a Current Potential condition Davies et al (2006) reported a foliar DRPG cover of just under 10 estimated ocularly for sites he rated as good condition late seral Wyoming big sagebrush

In conclusion re-evaluation of the habitat objectives of 20-25 sagebrush canopy cover or grass and forb cover of 10-15 is recommended for both the Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush community types In addition data analysis on sagebrush height by species should be included in future discussions of habitat objectives Sagebrush height varies widely by species with low and black sagebrush typically less than 175 feet tall Wyoming big sagebrush seldom taller than 25 feet but up to 4 feet and mountain big sagebrush varying between 2 and 4 feet (Shultz 2012 Perryman 2014) All habitat objectives should be developed on the basis of the ecological potential of the MLRA and DRG

Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass Understanding the differences in ecological potential within the sagebrush biomes of the Great Basin and Intermountain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas will improve land managerrsquos ability to make informed decisions on habitat criteria and expectations for plant community cover height and composition Ecological site potential and plant phenology produces temporal variation in vegetation composition structure and total biomass In studies of avian nesting ecology investigators often measure vegetation features to provide explanatory variables for next survival (as cited by Gibson et al 2016) For many birds vegetation concealment of the nest site is hypothesized to be a key driver of nest success and thus population growth of the species (Smith et al 2016) Borgmann and Conway (2015) provided a review and comparative analysis of 114 studies of open-cup-nesting songbirds and found only 26 support for the nest concealment hypothesis Multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors may influence the effect of concealment on nest success such as the composition of the local predator community or the brightness of the plumage of the bird species (Borgmann and Conway 2015) However more concerning are methodological aspects of studies that produce biased inference regarding effects of concealment on nest survival when the bias is pervasive in research regarding habitat fitness relationships in species of concern such as Greater Sage-Grouse (Smith et al 2016 Gibson et al 2016 Borgmann and Conway 2015) According to Gibson et al (2016) vegetation is typically sampled by sage-grouse biologists subsequent to nest fate (success or failure) to minimize disturbance at active nests However there is inconsistency among studies with respect to when successful and failed nests are sampled with some investigators choosing to sample vegetation at or near timing of fate and others on a standardized date (Gibson et al 2016) Decisions on timing of vegetation sampling has potentially important consequences to grass height since sampling at nest fate results in vegetation around successful nests being measured later in the growing season on average than failed nests (Gibson et al 2016) Gibson et al (2016) monitored over 400 nests from 2004-2012 in Eureka County NV collecting a suite of habitat variables at all nest sites within 3 days of either the predicted or actual date of hatch In addition the authors reviewed and provided a comparative analysis of 28 previously published studies addressing grass height as a habitat variable Their results provide multiple lines of evidence that confounding between plant phenology and demographic processes can have important implications when evaluating vegetation effects on vital rates of greater sage-grouse They concluded that studies they reviewed predominantly used nest site vegetation metrics sampled at the time of nest fate which was more likely to yield a positive effect of grass height or cover when compared to data collected on a standardized date such as predicted hatch (Gibson et al 2016) Their results are supported by Smith et al (2016) who employed similar methods to correct for phenology in a re-analysis of four datasets from Montana Utah and Wyoming Uncorrected for phenology each of the four datasets was found to show a strong positive association between grass height and daily nest survival however once corrected to remove temporal bias no association between grass height and nest survival in any of the four datasets was found (Smith et al 2016) To further the discussion of when to measure nest-site vegetation to minimize bias in conclusions of vegetation relationships to fitness metrics such as nest success McConnell et al (2017) simulated four methods of measuring nest-site vegetation associated with timing of nest fate Results of the simulations indicated that the risk of drawing an erroneous conclusion was present in all methods but greatest in the method that simulated measurement at nest termination regardless of fate ndash the most common method

18

reported in the literature (McConnell et al 2017) The conclusions of this simulated study agree with both Gibson et al (2016) and Smith et al (2016) in that measuring at nest termination for successful nests and at estimated completion for unsuccessful nests was found to be most effective at minimizing inherent bias (McConnell et al 2017)

In light of this new research and revelations concerning methodologies of sampling procedures utilized by the majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat studies used to support the 7 inch grass height requirement in Table 2-2 it seems unnecessary to discuss the structural attribute differences of deep-rooted bunchgrasses and Sandberg bluegrass However since Sandberg bluegrass a short-statured grass was found to be the dominant grass on 74 of the AIM and 58 of the NRI plots within the Wyoming big sagebrush community and 78 of the AIM plots within the low sagebrush community in MLRA 25 the discussion of ecological potential is relevant

Nevada BLM AIM MLRA 25 data included residual grass height in 2014 and 2015 Grass height was measured at droop height and species was recorded Table 8 provides the average minimum maximum and median (central tendency) of the residual grass height by sagebrush community type Grazing history and timing of measurement was not provided Residual grass height in general was shorter in the Wyoming big sagebrush community type however the mean height was 83 inches for Sandberg bluegrass and 106 inches for DRPG On average DRPG are taller across all sagebrush communities with the mountain sagebrush community recording the tallest residual grass heights by 7 inches

Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median

ARTRW 26 83 34 22 158 86 27 106 31 50 173 102 ARTRV 19 134 32 51 181 130 20 186 62 92 260 187 ARAR 11 95 29 58 134 94 13 116 46 35 212 122

N may be different for Sandberg bluegrass and DRPG values if one plot was missing heights for either grass species grass height by species available for 2014 and 2015 AIM data only

ARTRW=Wyoming big sagebrush ARTRV=mountain big sagebrush ARAR=low sagebrush

Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush The Wyoming big sagebrush community (DRG 4) represents the largest amount of acreage in the MLRA 25 and occurs at the lowest elevations of the three types of sagebrush communities discussed here In Current Potential condition the data presented here suggests this plant community is dominated by Sandberg bluegrass with an average of 150 foliar cover and DRPG foliar cover of 49

Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

ARTRW8 Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median N Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median

2014 8 92 38 22 128 101 27 90 19 61 118 87 2015 18 79 33 31 158 77 20 114 33 50 173 106

19

The annual variation in growing conditions is reflected in the Table 9 for Wyoming big sagebrush Unknown variance in the dataset is the impact of grazing animals and the timing of measurement of the community Both unknowns add variability to the question of residual grass height however for this small dataset the Sandberg bluegrass data for both years indicates the mean height of the grass exceeds the 7 inch requirement of Table 2-2 The standard deviation however suggests that on average in both years there would be locations where Sandberg bluegrass is dominant (78 of AIM plots) that would not meet the 7 inch requirement This is not the case for DRPG

In conclusion additional datasets analyzed by MLRA DRG DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass are necessary to determine an appropriate grass height requirement Furthermore multiple years of data collection are required to cover the wide range of annual variation in precipitation encountered in the Great Basin

20

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25 The mountain big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 6 This DRG is defined by a dominance of mountain big sagebrush and typically bluebunch wheatgrass or Idaho fescue

Following scrutiny of photos of the plots several plots were excluded due to lack of shrubs or shrub misidentification Only 30 plots remained for analysis limiting our ability to make conclusions about thresholds from these data The analysis below shows some relationships of grass and sagebrush cover to environmental variables Mountain big sagebrush cover range is similar to Wyoming big sagebrush but the mountain big sagebrush biome supports additional shrub cover up to 547 (518 canopy cover) and even at high foliar shrub cover values (30 and up) perennial grass cover can be as high as 40

When performing the same partition method that was completed for the other two shrub types sagebrush cover did not predict the first split in the data Slope followed by ldquoUTM Northingrdquo were the strongest predictors Slope average annual precipitation aspect and elevation are correlated to higher perennial grass cover and are also related to higher shrub cover in this dataset (Figure 10) Sites with heavy mountain big sagebrush cover also had high perennial bunchgrass cover indicating that these sites are highly productive in general Sites located in the more northern portion of MLRA 25 have a different precipitation pattern than those farther south which may explain the increase in grass cover at more northern latitudes (see climate chart)

Deep-rooted perennial grass cover ranged from 0 to 4733 with an average of 1672 +- 114

Figure 10 The scatter plots above show relationships between mountain big sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and all perennial grasses with slope UTM northing and elevation

15

In SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) a stepwise linear model was run for DRPG with available environmental variables Mountain big sagebrush was included in the list to see if shrub cover influenced grass cover but it did not come out as a significant explanatory variable in the model The resulting equation has an R2 of 072

DRPG Cover = -1219 + 001231slope ndash 00001183UTM Northing+2652latitude + (slope-1634)((UTM northing-9127)(-0001168))

National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) line point intercept data were acquired from Nevada NRCS for the Wyoming big sagebrush community type or Loamy 8-10 ecological site (ARTRW8PSSP-ACTH7) in MLRA 25 The Loamy 8-10 ecological site in MLRA 25 is the most common ecological site representing over 25 million acres (Stringham et al 2015) Because of the sensitive nature of these data we did not have access to location or environmental data and thus could not run a full analysis like that done for the AIM data We were however able to complete the same cluster analysis method on the NRI data In Table 7 we present a comparison of AIM vs NRI line point intercept summary statistics for species of interest

Table 7 Wyoming big sagebrush and grass foliar cover summary statistics BLM Nevada AIM vs NRCS Nevada NRI Data for MLRA 25

AIM Foliar Cover NRI Foliar Cover (N=50) (N=50)

Wyoming big sagebrush

Min 13 10

Max 387 436

Median 167 168

Mean +- Std dev

180 +- 88 171 +- 99

Sandberg bluegrass Min 0 0

Max 347 515

Median 80 59

Mean +- Std dev

92 +- 80 84 +- 94

DRPG Min 0 0

Max 87 208

Median 33 3

Mean +- Std dev

37 +- 28 50 +- 42

Total Perennial Grass

Min 0 0

Max 380 604

Median 120 110

Mean +- Std dev

129 +- 92 133 +- 1031

DRPG includes ACHY ACTH7 ELEL5 HECO26 PSSP6 LECI4 Total perennial grass includes DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass

16

Summary Sagebrush Cover

BLM Nevada AIM data NRCS Nevada NRI data and the Davies et al (2006) all confirm that the ecological potential of the Wyoming sagebrush plant community in MLRA 25 (Disturbance Response Group 4) is represented by an average sagebrush canopy cover ranging between 154 to 168 CLI These values were obtained by different researchers and individuals at different times in different random locations across MLRA 25 and represent the average landscape value for an area in late seral condition The data partition analysis on the AIM data indicated the range of canopy cover for the Wyoming big sagebrush community in Current Potential State was 12 to 165 whereas the Shrub State canopy cover ranged from gt165 to 341 in MLRA 25

Furthermore Davies et al (2006) documented differences within five different Wyoming big sagebrush community types representing different subregions or MLRAs of the Wyoming big sagebrush biome The information presented in this report focused on MLRA 25 however given the climate data presented here and the differences found by Davies et al (2006) it appears warranted that habitat guidelines must be developed by MLRA for each subspecies of sagebrush

The low sagebrush community gave similar results as the Wyoming sagebrush community with two identifiable states Current Potential and Shrub State Average low sagebrush canopy cover was 178 with a maximum of 345 The ecological threshold between the Current Potential state and Shrub State was identified as 256 canopy cover with a significant reduction in deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses from an average foliar cover of 61 to 15 The data partition analysis with a fixed gt10 deep-rooted perennial grass cover value identified only 8 out 37 plots with a mean sagebrush cover of 20 in this group Meeting the 10 foliar cover measured with LPI of native bunchgrass objective in Table 2-2 (USDI BLM 2015) with less than 25 sagebrush cover would not on average be achievable given site potential This is particularly the case within DRG 1 the lower elevation less productive low sagebrush ecological sites Sandberg bluegrass is the dominant grass within the low sagebrush community however it is not considered a deep rooted perennial bunchgrass Additional data for DRG 2 is required to determine the threshold between the Current Potential State and Shrub State however the BLM Nevada AIM data suggests the threshold occurs on average near 20 sagebrush cover

The mountain big sagebrush community which represents 439100 acres within MLRA 25 PHMA for sage-grouse appears to be the only community type capable of meeting the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 Caution should be utilized in this conclusion however as only 30 data points were available for analysis Spatial distribution of the mountain sagebrush community may be important in determining the ability of this community in maintaining ecological integrity with increasing shrub cover

Conclusion Ecological Potential The kind amount and proportion of vegetation that rangelands can produce is determined by climate topography and soils The combination of these environmental attributes determines the amount of sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and forb cover a landscape is ecologically capable of producing This is referred to as ecological potential Nevada BLMrsquos AIM data USDA NRI data for the same region and scientific publications support the need to produce habitat objectives that are MLRA and sagebrush subspecies specific In addition the significant differences between the production and cover of understory species within the same sagebrush species group ie low sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue vs low sagebrush ndash bluebunch wheatgrass justifies using the Disturbance Response Group stratification of ecological sites within MLRAs to capture these landscape differences within the subspecies of sagebrush Developing habitat guidelines from these recommendations will provide the land management agencies with objectives that are obtainable and ecologically sound

The Wyoming big sagebrush community comprises the largest area of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within MLRA 25 Neither the BLM AIM nor NRCS NRI datasets indicate that Wyoming big sagebrush ecological sites can achieve the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 and the rangeland health indicators used by BLM Statistical analysis of the AIM dataset clearly shows that sagebrush canopy cover values greater than 17 are associated with an ecological threshold to a

17

Shrub State In addition both datasets indicate a 10 DRPG foliar cover measured by LPI on average would be impossible to achieve even in a Current Potential condition Davies et al (2006) reported a foliar DRPG cover of just under 10 estimated ocularly for sites he rated as good condition late seral Wyoming big sagebrush

In conclusion re-evaluation of the habitat objectives of 20-25 sagebrush canopy cover or grass and forb cover of 10-15 is recommended for both the Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush community types In addition data analysis on sagebrush height by species should be included in future discussions of habitat objectives Sagebrush height varies widely by species with low and black sagebrush typically less than 175 feet tall Wyoming big sagebrush seldom taller than 25 feet but up to 4 feet and mountain big sagebrush varying between 2 and 4 feet (Shultz 2012 Perryman 2014) All habitat objectives should be developed on the basis of the ecological potential of the MLRA and DRG

Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass Understanding the differences in ecological potential within the sagebrush biomes of the Great Basin and Intermountain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas will improve land managerrsquos ability to make informed decisions on habitat criteria and expectations for plant community cover height and composition Ecological site potential and plant phenology produces temporal variation in vegetation composition structure and total biomass In studies of avian nesting ecology investigators often measure vegetation features to provide explanatory variables for next survival (as cited by Gibson et al 2016) For many birds vegetation concealment of the nest site is hypothesized to be a key driver of nest success and thus population growth of the species (Smith et al 2016) Borgmann and Conway (2015) provided a review and comparative analysis of 114 studies of open-cup-nesting songbirds and found only 26 support for the nest concealment hypothesis Multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors may influence the effect of concealment on nest success such as the composition of the local predator community or the brightness of the plumage of the bird species (Borgmann and Conway 2015) However more concerning are methodological aspects of studies that produce biased inference regarding effects of concealment on nest survival when the bias is pervasive in research regarding habitat fitness relationships in species of concern such as Greater Sage-Grouse (Smith et al 2016 Gibson et al 2016 Borgmann and Conway 2015) According to Gibson et al (2016) vegetation is typically sampled by sage-grouse biologists subsequent to nest fate (success or failure) to minimize disturbance at active nests However there is inconsistency among studies with respect to when successful and failed nests are sampled with some investigators choosing to sample vegetation at or near timing of fate and others on a standardized date (Gibson et al 2016) Decisions on timing of vegetation sampling has potentially important consequences to grass height since sampling at nest fate results in vegetation around successful nests being measured later in the growing season on average than failed nests (Gibson et al 2016) Gibson et al (2016) monitored over 400 nests from 2004-2012 in Eureka County NV collecting a suite of habitat variables at all nest sites within 3 days of either the predicted or actual date of hatch In addition the authors reviewed and provided a comparative analysis of 28 previously published studies addressing grass height as a habitat variable Their results provide multiple lines of evidence that confounding between plant phenology and demographic processes can have important implications when evaluating vegetation effects on vital rates of greater sage-grouse They concluded that studies they reviewed predominantly used nest site vegetation metrics sampled at the time of nest fate which was more likely to yield a positive effect of grass height or cover when compared to data collected on a standardized date such as predicted hatch (Gibson et al 2016) Their results are supported by Smith et al (2016) who employed similar methods to correct for phenology in a re-analysis of four datasets from Montana Utah and Wyoming Uncorrected for phenology each of the four datasets was found to show a strong positive association between grass height and daily nest survival however once corrected to remove temporal bias no association between grass height and nest survival in any of the four datasets was found (Smith et al 2016) To further the discussion of when to measure nest-site vegetation to minimize bias in conclusions of vegetation relationships to fitness metrics such as nest success McConnell et al (2017) simulated four methods of measuring nest-site vegetation associated with timing of nest fate Results of the simulations indicated that the risk of drawing an erroneous conclusion was present in all methods but greatest in the method that simulated measurement at nest termination regardless of fate ndash the most common method

18

reported in the literature (McConnell et al 2017) The conclusions of this simulated study agree with both Gibson et al (2016) and Smith et al (2016) in that measuring at nest termination for successful nests and at estimated completion for unsuccessful nests was found to be most effective at minimizing inherent bias (McConnell et al 2017)

In light of this new research and revelations concerning methodologies of sampling procedures utilized by the majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat studies used to support the 7 inch grass height requirement in Table 2-2 it seems unnecessary to discuss the structural attribute differences of deep-rooted bunchgrasses and Sandberg bluegrass However since Sandberg bluegrass a short-statured grass was found to be the dominant grass on 74 of the AIM and 58 of the NRI plots within the Wyoming big sagebrush community and 78 of the AIM plots within the low sagebrush community in MLRA 25 the discussion of ecological potential is relevant

Nevada BLM AIM MLRA 25 data included residual grass height in 2014 and 2015 Grass height was measured at droop height and species was recorded Table 8 provides the average minimum maximum and median (central tendency) of the residual grass height by sagebrush community type Grazing history and timing of measurement was not provided Residual grass height in general was shorter in the Wyoming big sagebrush community type however the mean height was 83 inches for Sandberg bluegrass and 106 inches for DRPG On average DRPG are taller across all sagebrush communities with the mountain sagebrush community recording the tallest residual grass heights by 7 inches

Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median

ARTRW 26 83 34 22 158 86 27 106 31 50 173 102 ARTRV 19 134 32 51 181 130 20 186 62 92 260 187 ARAR 11 95 29 58 134 94 13 116 46 35 212 122

N may be different for Sandberg bluegrass and DRPG values if one plot was missing heights for either grass species grass height by species available for 2014 and 2015 AIM data only

ARTRW=Wyoming big sagebrush ARTRV=mountain big sagebrush ARAR=low sagebrush

Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush The Wyoming big sagebrush community (DRG 4) represents the largest amount of acreage in the MLRA 25 and occurs at the lowest elevations of the three types of sagebrush communities discussed here In Current Potential condition the data presented here suggests this plant community is dominated by Sandberg bluegrass with an average of 150 foliar cover and DRPG foliar cover of 49

Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

ARTRW8 Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median N Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median

2014 8 92 38 22 128 101 27 90 19 61 118 87 2015 18 79 33 31 158 77 20 114 33 50 173 106

19

The annual variation in growing conditions is reflected in the Table 9 for Wyoming big sagebrush Unknown variance in the dataset is the impact of grazing animals and the timing of measurement of the community Both unknowns add variability to the question of residual grass height however for this small dataset the Sandberg bluegrass data for both years indicates the mean height of the grass exceeds the 7 inch requirement of Table 2-2 The standard deviation however suggests that on average in both years there would be locations where Sandberg bluegrass is dominant (78 of AIM plots) that would not meet the 7 inch requirement This is not the case for DRPG

In conclusion additional datasets analyzed by MLRA DRG DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass are necessary to determine an appropriate grass height requirement Furthermore multiple years of data collection are required to cover the wide range of annual variation in precipitation encountered in the Great Basin

20

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

In SAS JMP 130 statistical software (SAS Institute 2016) a stepwise linear model was run for DRPG with available environmental variables Mountain big sagebrush was included in the list to see if shrub cover influenced grass cover but it did not come out as a significant explanatory variable in the model The resulting equation has an R2 of 072

DRPG Cover = -1219 + 001231slope ndash 00001183UTM Northing+2652latitude + (slope-1634)((UTM northing-9127)(-0001168))

National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) line point intercept data were acquired from Nevada NRCS for the Wyoming big sagebrush community type or Loamy 8-10 ecological site (ARTRW8PSSP-ACTH7) in MLRA 25 The Loamy 8-10 ecological site in MLRA 25 is the most common ecological site representing over 25 million acres (Stringham et al 2015) Because of the sensitive nature of these data we did not have access to location or environmental data and thus could not run a full analysis like that done for the AIM data We were however able to complete the same cluster analysis method on the NRI data In Table 7 we present a comparison of AIM vs NRI line point intercept summary statistics for species of interest

Table 7 Wyoming big sagebrush and grass foliar cover summary statistics BLM Nevada AIM vs NRCS Nevada NRI Data for MLRA 25

AIM Foliar Cover NRI Foliar Cover (N=50) (N=50)

Wyoming big sagebrush

Min 13 10

Max 387 436

Median 167 168

Mean +- Std dev

180 +- 88 171 +- 99

Sandberg bluegrass Min 0 0

Max 347 515

Median 80 59

Mean +- Std dev

92 +- 80 84 +- 94

DRPG Min 0 0

Max 87 208

Median 33 3

Mean +- Std dev

37 +- 28 50 +- 42

Total Perennial Grass

Min 0 0

Max 380 604

Median 120 110

Mean +- Std dev

129 +- 92 133 +- 1031

DRPG includes ACHY ACTH7 ELEL5 HECO26 PSSP6 LECI4 Total perennial grass includes DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass

16

Summary Sagebrush Cover

BLM Nevada AIM data NRCS Nevada NRI data and the Davies et al (2006) all confirm that the ecological potential of the Wyoming sagebrush plant community in MLRA 25 (Disturbance Response Group 4) is represented by an average sagebrush canopy cover ranging between 154 to 168 CLI These values were obtained by different researchers and individuals at different times in different random locations across MLRA 25 and represent the average landscape value for an area in late seral condition The data partition analysis on the AIM data indicated the range of canopy cover for the Wyoming big sagebrush community in Current Potential State was 12 to 165 whereas the Shrub State canopy cover ranged from gt165 to 341 in MLRA 25

Furthermore Davies et al (2006) documented differences within five different Wyoming big sagebrush community types representing different subregions or MLRAs of the Wyoming big sagebrush biome The information presented in this report focused on MLRA 25 however given the climate data presented here and the differences found by Davies et al (2006) it appears warranted that habitat guidelines must be developed by MLRA for each subspecies of sagebrush

The low sagebrush community gave similar results as the Wyoming sagebrush community with two identifiable states Current Potential and Shrub State Average low sagebrush canopy cover was 178 with a maximum of 345 The ecological threshold between the Current Potential state and Shrub State was identified as 256 canopy cover with a significant reduction in deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses from an average foliar cover of 61 to 15 The data partition analysis with a fixed gt10 deep-rooted perennial grass cover value identified only 8 out 37 plots with a mean sagebrush cover of 20 in this group Meeting the 10 foliar cover measured with LPI of native bunchgrass objective in Table 2-2 (USDI BLM 2015) with less than 25 sagebrush cover would not on average be achievable given site potential This is particularly the case within DRG 1 the lower elevation less productive low sagebrush ecological sites Sandberg bluegrass is the dominant grass within the low sagebrush community however it is not considered a deep rooted perennial bunchgrass Additional data for DRG 2 is required to determine the threshold between the Current Potential State and Shrub State however the BLM Nevada AIM data suggests the threshold occurs on average near 20 sagebrush cover

The mountain big sagebrush community which represents 439100 acres within MLRA 25 PHMA for sage-grouse appears to be the only community type capable of meeting the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 Caution should be utilized in this conclusion however as only 30 data points were available for analysis Spatial distribution of the mountain sagebrush community may be important in determining the ability of this community in maintaining ecological integrity with increasing shrub cover

Conclusion Ecological Potential The kind amount and proportion of vegetation that rangelands can produce is determined by climate topography and soils The combination of these environmental attributes determines the amount of sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and forb cover a landscape is ecologically capable of producing This is referred to as ecological potential Nevada BLMrsquos AIM data USDA NRI data for the same region and scientific publications support the need to produce habitat objectives that are MLRA and sagebrush subspecies specific In addition the significant differences between the production and cover of understory species within the same sagebrush species group ie low sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue vs low sagebrush ndash bluebunch wheatgrass justifies using the Disturbance Response Group stratification of ecological sites within MLRAs to capture these landscape differences within the subspecies of sagebrush Developing habitat guidelines from these recommendations will provide the land management agencies with objectives that are obtainable and ecologically sound

The Wyoming big sagebrush community comprises the largest area of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within MLRA 25 Neither the BLM AIM nor NRCS NRI datasets indicate that Wyoming big sagebrush ecological sites can achieve the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 and the rangeland health indicators used by BLM Statistical analysis of the AIM dataset clearly shows that sagebrush canopy cover values greater than 17 are associated with an ecological threshold to a

17

Shrub State In addition both datasets indicate a 10 DRPG foliar cover measured by LPI on average would be impossible to achieve even in a Current Potential condition Davies et al (2006) reported a foliar DRPG cover of just under 10 estimated ocularly for sites he rated as good condition late seral Wyoming big sagebrush

In conclusion re-evaluation of the habitat objectives of 20-25 sagebrush canopy cover or grass and forb cover of 10-15 is recommended for both the Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush community types In addition data analysis on sagebrush height by species should be included in future discussions of habitat objectives Sagebrush height varies widely by species with low and black sagebrush typically less than 175 feet tall Wyoming big sagebrush seldom taller than 25 feet but up to 4 feet and mountain big sagebrush varying between 2 and 4 feet (Shultz 2012 Perryman 2014) All habitat objectives should be developed on the basis of the ecological potential of the MLRA and DRG

Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass Understanding the differences in ecological potential within the sagebrush biomes of the Great Basin and Intermountain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas will improve land managerrsquos ability to make informed decisions on habitat criteria and expectations for plant community cover height and composition Ecological site potential and plant phenology produces temporal variation in vegetation composition structure and total biomass In studies of avian nesting ecology investigators often measure vegetation features to provide explanatory variables for next survival (as cited by Gibson et al 2016) For many birds vegetation concealment of the nest site is hypothesized to be a key driver of nest success and thus population growth of the species (Smith et al 2016) Borgmann and Conway (2015) provided a review and comparative analysis of 114 studies of open-cup-nesting songbirds and found only 26 support for the nest concealment hypothesis Multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors may influence the effect of concealment on nest success such as the composition of the local predator community or the brightness of the plumage of the bird species (Borgmann and Conway 2015) However more concerning are methodological aspects of studies that produce biased inference regarding effects of concealment on nest survival when the bias is pervasive in research regarding habitat fitness relationships in species of concern such as Greater Sage-Grouse (Smith et al 2016 Gibson et al 2016 Borgmann and Conway 2015) According to Gibson et al (2016) vegetation is typically sampled by sage-grouse biologists subsequent to nest fate (success or failure) to minimize disturbance at active nests However there is inconsistency among studies with respect to when successful and failed nests are sampled with some investigators choosing to sample vegetation at or near timing of fate and others on a standardized date (Gibson et al 2016) Decisions on timing of vegetation sampling has potentially important consequences to grass height since sampling at nest fate results in vegetation around successful nests being measured later in the growing season on average than failed nests (Gibson et al 2016) Gibson et al (2016) monitored over 400 nests from 2004-2012 in Eureka County NV collecting a suite of habitat variables at all nest sites within 3 days of either the predicted or actual date of hatch In addition the authors reviewed and provided a comparative analysis of 28 previously published studies addressing grass height as a habitat variable Their results provide multiple lines of evidence that confounding between plant phenology and demographic processes can have important implications when evaluating vegetation effects on vital rates of greater sage-grouse They concluded that studies they reviewed predominantly used nest site vegetation metrics sampled at the time of nest fate which was more likely to yield a positive effect of grass height or cover when compared to data collected on a standardized date such as predicted hatch (Gibson et al 2016) Their results are supported by Smith et al (2016) who employed similar methods to correct for phenology in a re-analysis of four datasets from Montana Utah and Wyoming Uncorrected for phenology each of the four datasets was found to show a strong positive association between grass height and daily nest survival however once corrected to remove temporal bias no association between grass height and nest survival in any of the four datasets was found (Smith et al 2016) To further the discussion of when to measure nest-site vegetation to minimize bias in conclusions of vegetation relationships to fitness metrics such as nest success McConnell et al (2017) simulated four methods of measuring nest-site vegetation associated with timing of nest fate Results of the simulations indicated that the risk of drawing an erroneous conclusion was present in all methods but greatest in the method that simulated measurement at nest termination regardless of fate ndash the most common method

18

reported in the literature (McConnell et al 2017) The conclusions of this simulated study agree with both Gibson et al (2016) and Smith et al (2016) in that measuring at nest termination for successful nests and at estimated completion for unsuccessful nests was found to be most effective at minimizing inherent bias (McConnell et al 2017)

In light of this new research and revelations concerning methodologies of sampling procedures utilized by the majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat studies used to support the 7 inch grass height requirement in Table 2-2 it seems unnecessary to discuss the structural attribute differences of deep-rooted bunchgrasses and Sandberg bluegrass However since Sandberg bluegrass a short-statured grass was found to be the dominant grass on 74 of the AIM and 58 of the NRI plots within the Wyoming big sagebrush community and 78 of the AIM plots within the low sagebrush community in MLRA 25 the discussion of ecological potential is relevant

Nevada BLM AIM MLRA 25 data included residual grass height in 2014 and 2015 Grass height was measured at droop height and species was recorded Table 8 provides the average minimum maximum and median (central tendency) of the residual grass height by sagebrush community type Grazing history and timing of measurement was not provided Residual grass height in general was shorter in the Wyoming big sagebrush community type however the mean height was 83 inches for Sandberg bluegrass and 106 inches for DRPG On average DRPG are taller across all sagebrush communities with the mountain sagebrush community recording the tallest residual grass heights by 7 inches

Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median

ARTRW 26 83 34 22 158 86 27 106 31 50 173 102 ARTRV 19 134 32 51 181 130 20 186 62 92 260 187 ARAR 11 95 29 58 134 94 13 116 46 35 212 122

N may be different for Sandberg bluegrass and DRPG values if one plot was missing heights for either grass species grass height by species available for 2014 and 2015 AIM data only

ARTRW=Wyoming big sagebrush ARTRV=mountain big sagebrush ARAR=low sagebrush

Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush The Wyoming big sagebrush community (DRG 4) represents the largest amount of acreage in the MLRA 25 and occurs at the lowest elevations of the three types of sagebrush communities discussed here In Current Potential condition the data presented here suggests this plant community is dominated by Sandberg bluegrass with an average of 150 foliar cover and DRPG foliar cover of 49

Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

ARTRW8 Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median N Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median

2014 8 92 38 22 128 101 27 90 19 61 118 87 2015 18 79 33 31 158 77 20 114 33 50 173 106

19

The annual variation in growing conditions is reflected in the Table 9 for Wyoming big sagebrush Unknown variance in the dataset is the impact of grazing animals and the timing of measurement of the community Both unknowns add variability to the question of residual grass height however for this small dataset the Sandberg bluegrass data for both years indicates the mean height of the grass exceeds the 7 inch requirement of Table 2-2 The standard deviation however suggests that on average in both years there would be locations where Sandberg bluegrass is dominant (78 of AIM plots) that would not meet the 7 inch requirement This is not the case for DRPG

In conclusion additional datasets analyzed by MLRA DRG DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass are necessary to determine an appropriate grass height requirement Furthermore multiple years of data collection are required to cover the wide range of annual variation in precipitation encountered in the Great Basin

20

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

Summary Sagebrush Cover

BLM Nevada AIM data NRCS Nevada NRI data and the Davies et al (2006) all confirm that the ecological potential of the Wyoming sagebrush plant community in MLRA 25 (Disturbance Response Group 4) is represented by an average sagebrush canopy cover ranging between 154 to 168 CLI These values were obtained by different researchers and individuals at different times in different random locations across MLRA 25 and represent the average landscape value for an area in late seral condition The data partition analysis on the AIM data indicated the range of canopy cover for the Wyoming big sagebrush community in Current Potential State was 12 to 165 whereas the Shrub State canopy cover ranged from gt165 to 341 in MLRA 25

Furthermore Davies et al (2006) documented differences within five different Wyoming big sagebrush community types representing different subregions or MLRAs of the Wyoming big sagebrush biome The information presented in this report focused on MLRA 25 however given the climate data presented here and the differences found by Davies et al (2006) it appears warranted that habitat guidelines must be developed by MLRA for each subspecies of sagebrush

The low sagebrush community gave similar results as the Wyoming sagebrush community with two identifiable states Current Potential and Shrub State Average low sagebrush canopy cover was 178 with a maximum of 345 The ecological threshold between the Current Potential state and Shrub State was identified as 256 canopy cover with a significant reduction in deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses from an average foliar cover of 61 to 15 The data partition analysis with a fixed gt10 deep-rooted perennial grass cover value identified only 8 out 37 plots with a mean sagebrush cover of 20 in this group Meeting the 10 foliar cover measured with LPI of native bunchgrass objective in Table 2-2 (USDI BLM 2015) with less than 25 sagebrush cover would not on average be achievable given site potential This is particularly the case within DRG 1 the lower elevation less productive low sagebrush ecological sites Sandberg bluegrass is the dominant grass within the low sagebrush community however it is not considered a deep rooted perennial bunchgrass Additional data for DRG 2 is required to determine the threshold between the Current Potential State and Shrub State however the BLM Nevada AIM data suggests the threshold occurs on average near 20 sagebrush cover

The mountain big sagebrush community which represents 439100 acres within MLRA 25 PHMA for sage-grouse appears to be the only community type capable of meeting the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 Caution should be utilized in this conclusion however as only 30 data points were available for analysis Spatial distribution of the mountain sagebrush community may be important in determining the ability of this community in maintaining ecological integrity with increasing shrub cover

Conclusion Ecological Potential The kind amount and proportion of vegetation that rangelands can produce is determined by climate topography and soils The combination of these environmental attributes determines the amount of sagebrush deep-rooted perennial grass and forb cover a landscape is ecologically capable of producing This is referred to as ecological potential Nevada BLMrsquos AIM data USDA NRI data for the same region and scientific publications support the need to produce habitat objectives that are MLRA and sagebrush subspecies specific In addition the significant differences between the production and cover of understory species within the same sagebrush species group ie low sagebrush ndash Idaho fescue vs low sagebrush ndash bluebunch wheatgrass justifies using the Disturbance Response Group stratification of ecological sites within MLRAs to capture these landscape differences within the subspecies of sagebrush Developing habitat guidelines from these recommendations will provide the land management agencies with objectives that are obtainable and ecologically sound

The Wyoming big sagebrush community comprises the largest area of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within MLRA 25 Neither the BLM AIM nor NRCS NRI datasets indicate that Wyoming big sagebrush ecological sites can achieve the habitat objectives of Table 2-2 and the rangeland health indicators used by BLM Statistical analysis of the AIM dataset clearly shows that sagebrush canopy cover values greater than 17 are associated with an ecological threshold to a

17

Shrub State In addition both datasets indicate a 10 DRPG foliar cover measured by LPI on average would be impossible to achieve even in a Current Potential condition Davies et al (2006) reported a foliar DRPG cover of just under 10 estimated ocularly for sites he rated as good condition late seral Wyoming big sagebrush

In conclusion re-evaluation of the habitat objectives of 20-25 sagebrush canopy cover or grass and forb cover of 10-15 is recommended for both the Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush community types In addition data analysis on sagebrush height by species should be included in future discussions of habitat objectives Sagebrush height varies widely by species with low and black sagebrush typically less than 175 feet tall Wyoming big sagebrush seldom taller than 25 feet but up to 4 feet and mountain big sagebrush varying between 2 and 4 feet (Shultz 2012 Perryman 2014) All habitat objectives should be developed on the basis of the ecological potential of the MLRA and DRG

Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass Understanding the differences in ecological potential within the sagebrush biomes of the Great Basin and Intermountain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas will improve land managerrsquos ability to make informed decisions on habitat criteria and expectations for plant community cover height and composition Ecological site potential and plant phenology produces temporal variation in vegetation composition structure and total biomass In studies of avian nesting ecology investigators often measure vegetation features to provide explanatory variables for next survival (as cited by Gibson et al 2016) For many birds vegetation concealment of the nest site is hypothesized to be a key driver of nest success and thus population growth of the species (Smith et al 2016) Borgmann and Conway (2015) provided a review and comparative analysis of 114 studies of open-cup-nesting songbirds and found only 26 support for the nest concealment hypothesis Multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors may influence the effect of concealment on nest success such as the composition of the local predator community or the brightness of the plumage of the bird species (Borgmann and Conway 2015) However more concerning are methodological aspects of studies that produce biased inference regarding effects of concealment on nest survival when the bias is pervasive in research regarding habitat fitness relationships in species of concern such as Greater Sage-Grouse (Smith et al 2016 Gibson et al 2016 Borgmann and Conway 2015) According to Gibson et al (2016) vegetation is typically sampled by sage-grouse biologists subsequent to nest fate (success or failure) to minimize disturbance at active nests However there is inconsistency among studies with respect to when successful and failed nests are sampled with some investigators choosing to sample vegetation at or near timing of fate and others on a standardized date (Gibson et al 2016) Decisions on timing of vegetation sampling has potentially important consequences to grass height since sampling at nest fate results in vegetation around successful nests being measured later in the growing season on average than failed nests (Gibson et al 2016) Gibson et al (2016) monitored over 400 nests from 2004-2012 in Eureka County NV collecting a suite of habitat variables at all nest sites within 3 days of either the predicted or actual date of hatch In addition the authors reviewed and provided a comparative analysis of 28 previously published studies addressing grass height as a habitat variable Their results provide multiple lines of evidence that confounding between plant phenology and demographic processes can have important implications when evaluating vegetation effects on vital rates of greater sage-grouse They concluded that studies they reviewed predominantly used nest site vegetation metrics sampled at the time of nest fate which was more likely to yield a positive effect of grass height or cover when compared to data collected on a standardized date such as predicted hatch (Gibson et al 2016) Their results are supported by Smith et al (2016) who employed similar methods to correct for phenology in a re-analysis of four datasets from Montana Utah and Wyoming Uncorrected for phenology each of the four datasets was found to show a strong positive association between grass height and daily nest survival however once corrected to remove temporal bias no association between grass height and nest survival in any of the four datasets was found (Smith et al 2016) To further the discussion of when to measure nest-site vegetation to minimize bias in conclusions of vegetation relationships to fitness metrics such as nest success McConnell et al (2017) simulated four methods of measuring nest-site vegetation associated with timing of nest fate Results of the simulations indicated that the risk of drawing an erroneous conclusion was present in all methods but greatest in the method that simulated measurement at nest termination regardless of fate ndash the most common method

18

reported in the literature (McConnell et al 2017) The conclusions of this simulated study agree with both Gibson et al (2016) and Smith et al (2016) in that measuring at nest termination for successful nests and at estimated completion for unsuccessful nests was found to be most effective at minimizing inherent bias (McConnell et al 2017)

In light of this new research and revelations concerning methodologies of sampling procedures utilized by the majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat studies used to support the 7 inch grass height requirement in Table 2-2 it seems unnecessary to discuss the structural attribute differences of deep-rooted bunchgrasses and Sandberg bluegrass However since Sandberg bluegrass a short-statured grass was found to be the dominant grass on 74 of the AIM and 58 of the NRI plots within the Wyoming big sagebrush community and 78 of the AIM plots within the low sagebrush community in MLRA 25 the discussion of ecological potential is relevant

Nevada BLM AIM MLRA 25 data included residual grass height in 2014 and 2015 Grass height was measured at droop height and species was recorded Table 8 provides the average minimum maximum and median (central tendency) of the residual grass height by sagebrush community type Grazing history and timing of measurement was not provided Residual grass height in general was shorter in the Wyoming big sagebrush community type however the mean height was 83 inches for Sandberg bluegrass and 106 inches for DRPG On average DRPG are taller across all sagebrush communities with the mountain sagebrush community recording the tallest residual grass heights by 7 inches

Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median

ARTRW 26 83 34 22 158 86 27 106 31 50 173 102 ARTRV 19 134 32 51 181 130 20 186 62 92 260 187 ARAR 11 95 29 58 134 94 13 116 46 35 212 122

N may be different for Sandberg bluegrass and DRPG values if one plot was missing heights for either grass species grass height by species available for 2014 and 2015 AIM data only

ARTRW=Wyoming big sagebrush ARTRV=mountain big sagebrush ARAR=low sagebrush

Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush The Wyoming big sagebrush community (DRG 4) represents the largest amount of acreage in the MLRA 25 and occurs at the lowest elevations of the three types of sagebrush communities discussed here In Current Potential condition the data presented here suggests this plant community is dominated by Sandberg bluegrass with an average of 150 foliar cover and DRPG foliar cover of 49

Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

ARTRW8 Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median N Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median

2014 8 92 38 22 128 101 27 90 19 61 118 87 2015 18 79 33 31 158 77 20 114 33 50 173 106

19

The annual variation in growing conditions is reflected in the Table 9 for Wyoming big sagebrush Unknown variance in the dataset is the impact of grazing animals and the timing of measurement of the community Both unknowns add variability to the question of residual grass height however for this small dataset the Sandberg bluegrass data for both years indicates the mean height of the grass exceeds the 7 inch requirement of Table 2-2 The standard deviation however suggests that on average in both years there would be locations where Sandberg bluegrass is dominant (78 of AIM plots) that would not meet the 7 inch requirement This is not the case for DRPG

In conclusion additional datasets analyzed by MLRA DRG DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass are necessary to determine an appropriate grass height requirement Furthermore multiple years of data collection are required to cover the wide range of annual variation in precipitation encountered in the Great Basin

20

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

Shrub State In addition both datasets indicate a 10 DRPG foliar cover measured by LPI on average would be impossible to achieve even in a Current Potential condition Davies et al (2006) reported a foliar DRPG cover of just under 10 estimated ocularly for sites he rated as good condition late seral Wyoming big sagebrush

In conclusion re-evaluation of the habitat objectives of 20-25 sagebrush canopy cover or grass and forb cover of 10-15 is recommended for both the Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush community types In addition data analysis on sagebrush height by species should be included in future discussions of habitat objectives Sagebrush height varies widely by species with low and black sagebrush typically less than 175 feet tall Wyoming big sagebrush seldom taller than 25 feet but up to 4 feet and mountain big sagebrush varying between 2 and 4 feet (Shultz 2012 Perryman 2014) All habitat objectives should be developed on the basis of the ecological potential of the MLRA and DRG

Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass Understanding the differences in ecological potential within the sagebrush biomes of the Great Basin and Intermountain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas will improve land managerrsquos ability to make informed decisions on habitat criteria and expectations for plant community cover height and composition Ecological site potential and plant phenology produces temporal variation in vegetation composition structure and total biomass In studies of avian nesting ecology investigators often measure vegetation features to provide explanatory variables for next survival (as cited by Gibson et al 2016) For many birds vegetation concealment of the nest site is hypothesized to be a key driver of nest success and thus population growth of the species (Smith et al 2016) Borgmann and Conway (2015) provided a review and comparative analysis of 114 studies of open-cup-nesting songbirds and found only 26 support for the nest concealment hypothesis Multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors may influence the effect of concealment on nest success such as the composition of the local predator community or the brightness of the plumage of the bird species (Borgmann and Conway 2015) However more concerning are methodological aspects of studies that produce biased inference regarding effects of concealment on nest survival when the bias is pervasive in research regarding habitat fitness relationships in species of concern such as Greater Sage-Grouse (Smith et al 2016 Gibson et al 2016 Borgmann and Conway 2015) According to Gibson et al (2016) vegetation is typically sampled by sage-grouse biologists subsequent to nest fate (success or failure) to minimize disturbance at active nests However there is inconsistency among studies with respect to when successful and failed nests are sampled with some investigators choosing to sample vegetation at or near timing of fate and others on a standardized date (Gibson et al 2016) Decisions on timing of vegetation sampling has potentially important consequences to grass height since sampling at nest fate results in vegetation around successful nests being measured later in the growing season on average than failed nests (Gibson et al 2016) Gibson et al (2016) monitored over 400 nests from 2004-2012 in Eureka County NV collecting a suite of habitat variables at all nest sites within 3 days of either the predicted or actual date of hatch In addition the authors reviewed and provided a comparative analysis of 28 previously published studies addressing grass height as a habitat variable Their results provide multiple lines of evidence that confounding between plant phenology and demographic processes can have important implications when evaluating vegetation effects on vital rates of greater sage-grouse They concluded that studies they reviewed predominantly used nest site vegetation metrics sampled at the time of nest fate which was more likely to yield a positive effect of grass height or cover when compared to data collected on a standardized date such as predicted hatch (Gibson et al 2016) Their results are supported by Smith et al (2016) who employed similar methods to correct for phenology in a re-analysis of four datasets from Montana Utah and Wyoming Uncorrected for phenology each of the four datasets was found to show a strong positive association between grass height and daily nest survival however once corrected to remove temporal bias no association between grass height and nest survival in any of the four datasets was found (Smith et al 2016) To further the discussion of when to measure nest-site vegetation to minimize bias in conclusions of vegetation relationships to fitness metrics such as nest success McConnell et al (2017) simulated four methods of measuring nest-site vegetation associated with timing of nest fate Results of the simulations indicated that the risk of drawing an erroneous conclusion was present in all methods but greatest in the method that simulated measurement at nest termination regardless of fate ndash the most common method

18

reported in the literature (McConnell et al 2017) The conclusions of this simulated study agree with both Gibson et al (2016) and Smith et al (2016) in that measuring at nest termination for successful nests and at estimated completion for unsuccessful nests was found to be most effective at minimizing inherent bias (McConnell et al 2017)

In light of this new research and revelations concerning methodologies of sampling procedures utilized by the majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat studies used to support the 7 inch grass height requirement in Table 2-2 it seems unnecessary to discuss the structural attribute differences of deep-rooted bunchgrasses and Sandberg bluegrass However since Sandberg bluegrass a short-statured grass was found to be the dominant grass on 74 of the AIM and 58 of the NRI plots within the Wyoming big sagebrush community and 78 of the AIM plots within the low sagebrush community in MLRA 25 the discussion of ecological potential is relevant

Nevada BLM AIM MLRA 25 data included residual grass height in 2014 and 2015 Grass height was measured at droop height and species was recorded Table 8 provides the average minimum maximum and median (central tendency) of the residual grass height by sagebrush community type Grazing history and timing of measurement was not provided Residual grass height in general was shorter in the Wyoming big sagebrush community type however the mean height was 83 inches for Sandberg bluegrass and 106 inches for DRPG On average DRPG are taller across all sagebrush communities with the mountain sagebrush community recording the tallest residual grass heights by 7 inches

Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median

ARTRW 26 83 34 22 158 86 27 106 31 50 173 102 ARTRV 19 134 32 51 181 130 20 186 62 92 260 187 ARAR 11 95 29 58 134 94 13 116 46 35 212 122

N may be different for Sandberg bluegrass and DRPG values if one plot was missing heights for either grass species grass height by species available for 2014 and 2015 AIM data only

ARTRW=Wyoming big sagebrush ARTRV=mountain big sagebrush ARAR=low sagebrush

Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush The Wyoming big sagebrush community (DRG 4) represents the largest amount of acreage in the MLRA 25 and occurs at the lowest elevations of the three types of sagebrush communities discussed here In Current Potential condition the data presented here suggests this plant community is dominated by Sandberg bluegrass with an average of 150 foliar cover and DRPG foliar cover of 49

Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

ARTRW8 Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median N Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median

2014 8 92 38 22 128 101 27 90 19 61 118 87 2015 18 79 33 31 158 77 20 114 33 50 173 106

19

The annual variation in growing conditions is reflected in the Table 9 for Wyoming big sagebrush Unknown variance in the dataset is the impact of grazing animals and the timing of measurement of the community Both unknowns add variability to the question of residual grass height however for this small dataset the Sandberg bluegrass data for both years indicates the mean height of the grass exceeds the 7 inch requirement of Table 2-2 The standard deviation however suggests that on average in both years there would be locations where Sandberg bluegrass is dominant (78 of AIM plots) that would not meet the 7 inch requirement This is not the case for DRPG

In conclusion additional datasets analyzed by MLRA DRG DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass are necessary to determine an appropriate grass height requirement Furthermore multiple years of data collection are required to cover the wide range of annual variation in precipitation encountered in the Great Basin

20

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

reported in the literature (McConnell et al 2017) The conclusions of this simulated study agree with both Gibson et al (2016) and Smith et al (2016) in that measuring at nest termination for successful nests and at estimated completion for unsuccessful nests was found to be most effective at minimizing inherent bias (McConnell et al 2017)

In light of this new research and revelations concerning methodologies of sampling procedures utilized by the majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat studies used to support the 7 inch grass height requirement in Table 2-2 it seems unnecessary to discuss the structural attribute differences of deep-rooted bunchgrasses and Sandberg bluegrass However since Sandberg bluegrass a short-statured grass was found to be the dominant grass on 74 of the AIM and 58 of the NRI plots within the Wyoming big sagebrush community and 78 of the AIM plots within the low sagebrush community in MLRA 25 the discussion of ecological potential is relevant

Nevada BLM AIM MLRA 25 data included residual grass height in 2014 and 2015 Grass height was measured at droop height and species was recorded Table 8 provides the average minimum maximum and median (central tendency) of the residual grass height by sagebrush community type Grazing history and timing of measurement was not provided Residual grass height in general was shorter in the Wyoming big sagebrush community type however the mean height was 83 inches for Sandberg bluegrass and 106 inches for DRPG On average DRPG are taller across all sagebrush communities with the mountain sagebrush community recording the tallest residual grass heights by 7 inches

Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median N Mean Std Dev

Min Max Median

ARTRW 26 83 34 22 158 86 27 106 31 50 173 102 ARTRV 19 134 32 51 181 130 20 186 62 92 260 187 ARAR 11 95 29 58 134 94 13 116 46 35 212 122

N may be different for Sandberg bluegrass and DRPG values if one plot was missing heights for either grass species grass height by species available for 2014 and 2015 AIM data only

ARTRW=Wyoming big sagebrush ARTRV=mountain big sagebrush ARAR=low sagebrush

Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush The Wyoming big sagebrush community (DRG 4) represents the largest amount of acreage in the MLRA 25 and occurs at the lowest elevations of the three types of sagebrush communities discussed here In Current Potential condition the data presented here suggests this plant community is dominated by Sandberg bluegrass with an average of 150 foliar cover and DRPG foliar cover of 49

Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015

Sandberg bluegrass height INCHES Deep rooted bunchgrasses (DRPG)

ARTRW8 Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median N Mean Std

Dev Min Max Median

2014 8 92 38 22 128 101 27 90 19 61 118 87 2015 18 79 33 31 158 77 20 114 33 50 173 106

19

The annual variation in growing conditions is reflected in the Table 9 for Wyoming big sagebrush Unknown variance in the dataset is the impact of grazing animals and the timing of measurement of the community Both unknowns add variability to the question of residual grass height however for this small dataset the Sandberg bluegrass data for both years indicates the mean height of the grass exceeds the 7 inch requirement of Table 2-2 The standard deviation however suggests that on average in both years there would be locations where Sandberg bluegrass is dominant (78 of AIM plots) that would not meet the 7 inch requirement This is not the case for DRPG

In conclusion additional datasets analyzed by MLRA DRG DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass are necessary to determine an appropriate grass height requirement Furthermore multiple years of data collection are required to cover the wide range of annual variation in precipitation encountered in the Great Basin

20

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

The annual variation in growing conditions is reflected in the Table 9 for Wyoming big sagebrush Unknown variance in the dataset is the impact of grazing animals and the timing of measurement of the community Both unknowns add variability to the question of residual grass height however for this small dataset the Sandberg bluegrass data for both years indicates the mean height of the grass exceeds the 7 inch requirement of Table 2-2 The standard deviation however suggests that on average in both years there would be locations where Sandberg bluegrass is dominant (78 of AIM plots) that would not meet the 7 inch requirement This is not the case for DRPG

In conclusion additional datasets analyzed by MLRA DRG DRPG and Sandberg bluegrass are necessary to determine an appropriate grass height requirement Furthermore multiple years of data collection are required to cover the wide range of annual variation in precipitation encountered in the Great Basin

20

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

References Cited

Bonham CD 1989 Measurements for terrestrial vegetation New York NY John Wiley and Sons

Borgmann KL and CJ Conway 2015 The nest-concealment hypothesis new insights from a comparative analysis The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(4)646-660

Briske DD BT Bestelmeyer TK Stringham and PL Shaver 2008 Recommendations for development of resilience-based state-and-transition models Rangeland Ecology amp Management 61359-367

Canfield RH 1941 Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation Journal of Forestry 39388-394

Caudle D DiBenedetto J Karl SM Sanchez H and Talbot C 2013 Interagency Ecological Site Handbook P 109 httpdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

Coates PS ML Casazza BE Brussee MA Ricca KB Gustafson KB CT Overton E Sanchez-Chopitea T Kroger K Mauch L Niell K Howe S Gardner S Espinosa and DJ Delehanty 2014 Spatially explicit modeling of greater sagendash grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern Californiamdash A decision-support tool for management US Geological Survey

Davies K W J D Bates and RF Miller 2006 Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming Big Sagebrush Alliance Rangeland Ecology and Management 59567-575

Daubenmire RF 1959 A canopy-coverage method Northwest Science 3343-64

Duniway M C B T Bestelmeyer and A Tugel 2010 Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states Rangelands

Floyd D A and J E Anderson 1987 A comparison of three methods for estimating plant cover J of Ecology 75(1)221-118

Gibson D EJ Blomberg and JS Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11)361-3631

Granberry T and W Lieurance 2014 Great Basin Institute Land Health Assessment Program Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Report 2014 Assistance Agreement L11AC20105

Hatton TJ NE West and PS Johnson 1986 Relationship of the error associated with ocular estimation and actual total cover J of Range Management 3991-92

Herrick JE JW Van Zee KM Havstad LM Burkett and WG Whitford 2005 Monitoring Manual for Grassland Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems Volume II Design supplementary methods and interpretation USDA-ARS- Jornada Experimental Range

Jensen M E 1990 Interpretation of environmental gradients which influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada J of Range Management 43(2)

Kennedy KA and PA Addison 1987 Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring J of Ecology 75151-157

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

21

Passey HB VK Hugie EW Williams and DE Ball 1982 Relationships between soil plant community and climate on rangelands of the Intermountain West (No 157643) United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service

Perryman BL 2014 A field guide to Nevada shrubs Indigenous Rangeland Management Press Lander Wyoming

SAS Institute 2016 JMP Version 13 Cary NC USA SAS Institute httpswwwjmpcomen_ussoftwaredata-analysis-softwarehtml

Shultz L 2012 Pocket guide to sagebrush PRBO Conservation Science

Smith JT 2016 Landscape to Local A Multi-Scale Evaluation of Voluntary Efforts to Reduce Fragmentation and Enhance Management of Rangelands for Sage-Grouse Theses Dissertations Professional Papers 10902 Scholar Works at University of Montana

Symstad AJ CL Wienk and AD Thorstenson 2008 Precision repeatability and efficiency of two canopy-cover estimate methods in Northern Great Plains Vegetation Rangeland Ecology and Management 61(4)419-429

Stringham TK WC Krueger and PL Shaver 2003 State and transition modeling an ecological process approach Journal of Range Management 56106-113

Stringham TK P Novak-Echenique P Blackburn C Coombs DK Snyder and A Wartgow 2015 Final Report for USDA Ecological Site Description State-and-Transition Models by Disturbance Response Groups Major Land Resource Area 25 Nevada University of Nevada Reno Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 2015-02

Stringham TK P Novak-Echenique DK Snyder S Peterson KA Snyder 2016 Disturbance response grouping of ecological sites increases utility of ecological sites and state-and-transition models for landscape scale planning in the Great Basin Rangelands 38371-378

Thacker ET 2010 Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal ecology and responses to habitat manipulations in northern Utah All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Paper 707 Utah State University

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1997 Ecological sites and forage suitability groups In National range and pasture handbook Washington DC USA USDA P 3-1-3-120

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006 Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States the Caribbean and the Pacific Basin US Department of Agriculture Handbook 296

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2010 National Ecological Site Manual 1st Edition httpsdirectivesscegovusdagovOpenNonWebContentaspxcontent=27123wba

USDI Bureau of Land Management 2015 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

22

Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25

23

MLRA25Distb - b atur anc e Re sponse Groupswithin Gre ate r Sage grouse Ge ne ralHa it

Milesmacr 0 25 50 General Habitat Management AreaSagebrush Ecosystem ProgramGHMA

Label1-ARAR8PSSP6-ACTH710-ARCAVMURI12-POTR5SYOR2BRMA4-ELTR713-MURIPO E3- N15-ARTRV-SYMPHBRMA4-ELTR72-ARAR8FEID-PSSP63-ARN O4PSSP64-ARTRW ACTH-PSSP66-ARTRV-PUTR2FEID-PSSP67-ARTR2LECI4-PSSP6-ACTH78-CELE3ARTRVFEID-PSSP6Loam yBottom 8-14-ARTRTLECI4MahoganySavanna 16+-CELE3SYOR2FEIDRiparian -DECE

Se rvic e Laye r Cre d e nt e N N N eitsSourc e sEsriHEREDLorm e Tom Tom Ie rm apinc re m ntPCorpGEBCOUSGSFAOPS RCA Ge oBasRiparian -PON E3-PHAL2 IGN d e r N LOrd nanc e SurvyEsriJapanMETIEsriChina (Hong Kong)swisstopoMapm yId re e t b orsandKa ast e n iacopy Ope nSt Mapc ontri ut theRiparian -SALIX LETR5-LECI4 GISUse r Com m unitySte e pN h Slope FEIDort -MLRA25AIMPoints-known ESDs

Hab r d r rTitatLaye r Ce itsCoate sPSCasazzaMLBusse e BERic c aMAGustafsonKBOve rtonCTSanc he z-Chopite aEKroge Mauc hK ie llLHowe KGard ne rSEspinosaSand De le hantyDJ2014Spatiallye xplic itm od e ling ofgre ate r sage grouseN -(Ce ntroc e rcusurophasianus)hab itatin N d a and he aste rn Californiamdash Ad e c ision-supporttoolfor m anage m e nte va nort USGe ologic alSurve y

Se rvic e Laye r Cre d its Sourc e s Esri HERE De Lorm e Tom Tom Inte rm ap incre m e nt P Corp GEBCO USGS FAO N PSN RCAN Ge oBas e IGN Kad as te r N L Ord nanc e Surve y Esri Japan METI Esri China (Hong Kong) swis s topo Mapm yInd ia copyOpe nStre e tMap c ontrib utors and the GIS Us e r Com m unity

0 5025Miles

MLRA 25 DRGs - All sage-grouse habitat categories1 - ARAR8PSSP6-ACTH710 - ARCAVMURI12 - POTR5SYOR2BRMA4-ELTR713 - MURI-PON E315 - ARTRV-SYMPHBRMA4-ELTR72 - ARAR8FEID-PSSP63 - ARN O4PSSP64 - ARTRW ACTH-PSSP66 - ARTRV-PUTR2FEID-PSSP67 - ARTR2LECI4-PSSP6-ACTH78 - CELE3ARTRVFEID-PSSP6Loam y Bottom 8-14 - ARTRTLECI4Mahogany Savanna 16+ - CELE3SYOR2FEIDRiparian - DECERiparian - PON E3-PHAL2Riparian - SALIX LETR5-LECI4Ste e p N orth Slope - FEID

macr

MLRA 25 Disturb anc e Re s pons e Groups within Gre ate r Sage -grous e Hab itat PHMA GHMA OHMA

Hab itat Laye r Cre d its Coate s PS Cas azza ML Brus s e e BE Ric c a MA Gustafs on KB Ove rton CT Sanc he z-Chopite aE Kroge r T Mauch K N ie ll L Howe K Gard ne r S Es pinos a S and De le hanty DJ 2014 Spatially e xplic it m od e ling ofgre ate r s age -grous e (Ce ntroc e rcus urophas ianus) hab itat in N e vad a and northe as te rn Californiamdash A d e c is ion-support tool for

26

Appendix B Literature Review Summary

27

28

Habitat Objectives

General Landscape Level Cover

gt 65 of the landscape in sagebrush cover Aldridge and Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence habitat based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17(2)508-526 T

This study was conducted in Alberta Canada The dominant shrub was silver sagebrush with a needleandthread junegrass blue grama and western wheatgrass understory The cover values estimated in this paper were based off a TM Landsat satellite image from July 2000 with a 1km2 moving window Pixel size 30m2 There were no indication that modeling results were field tested In all life stages Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found sage-grouse preferred areas of ldquomoderaterdquo sagebrush cover that was heterogeneous in its distribution The numerical value of ldquomoderaterdquo was not found within the report however in Aldridge (2005) thesis in the same study area the author reported sage-grouse selected for moderate sagebrush cover (3-9) with heterogeneous distribution for nesting The author further suggests survival would increase with an increase in sagebrush cover to 15 (Aldridge 2005)

Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

Blomberg et al 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 3(6)1-20

Blomberg et al 2012 studied the effects of climatic processes and disturbance on male sage-grouse populations They compared climatic effects among populations of leks near wildfires vs sagebrush dominated rangelands Their results showed that precipitation was the single most predictive variable for annual recruitment Leks impacted by exotic grasslands showed low and stable recruitment throughout the study while leks not impacted by exotic grasslands showed recruitment levels increased with increased annual precipitation This study combined cheatgrass (BRTE) dominated rangelands and crested wheatgrass (AGCR) seeded rangelands into the term exotic grasslands and did not differentiate between the two species of grass This study did not measure cover or density of the exotic grasslands instead they used GIS to quantify the spatial extent of exotic grasslands (BRTE and AGCR) created by wildfires and their distance from leks They did conclude that large-scale disturbance in their case wildfire and landscape conversion from sagebrush to exotic grassland (cheatgrass or crested wheatgrass) interacts with climatic variability and depresses vital rates They did NOT separate cheatgrass from crested wheatgrass and they did indicate sagebrush was minimal to non-existent in the converted areas Therefore is it the conversion to a particular grass cover type or the loss of sagebrush that is the driver in depression of vital rates Regardless the citation does not support Table 2-2 Habitat Objective of Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

29

Security Cover and Food (winter)

USGS (in prep A B C) requested from BLM on December 29 2016 BLM provided two recent publications and the following oral statement from BLM was provided concerning the ldquoin preprdquo publications Publications were requested of Dr Pete Coates via email He provided the following publications (Prochaska et al 2017 and Coates et al 2017) in regards to ldquoin prep Ardquo references regarding conifer encroachment however he ldquodoesnrsquot know what BLM is talking about in regards to in prep Crdquo This information was relayed to BLM in an email from Dr Coates

In any professional document it is not customary to use unpublished material as justification for conclusions or management decisions This indicates lack of scientific credibility and impartiality of the author of the report table

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

The effect of pinyon-juniper (PJ) encounters on survival was dependent on movement rate and differed among age class of sage-grouse Under high speed movements mortality risk increased as encountering PJ increased across all age classes of birds Slower speeds yielded similar adverse effects for young birds

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates et al (2017) identified predictable relationships between PJ cover and sage-grouse demography This paper provides response curves for decisions across different canopy cover classes and levels of productivity based on resistance and resilience (RampR) classes Additional refinement of this tool is warranted with field testing to assure accuracy of model predictions However this tool provides the basis for developing a more precise planning mechanism than the generalized Habitat Objectives for PJ cover presented in Table 2-2

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors reported that at large scales (79 ha and 2268 ha) areas encroached with PJ were avoided by sage grouse

Doherty et al 2008 Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development Journal of Wildlife Management

30

This study was conducted in Wyoming and Montana The shrub-steppe habitat was dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of bluebunch wheatgrass western wheatgrass blue grama and Japanese brome cheatgrass The sagebrush cover value was 760 (SE= 055) sagebrush cover intermixed with grassland Their herbaceous cover value was 191 (SE= 061) Cover values were measured from a satellite image taken in August 2003 and 2004 They collected ldquofield training pointsrdquo (n=7092) that were stratified by space and landowner access to classify their 5 habitat cover classes as sagebrush conifer grassland riparian and barren Sagebrush was sampled at a 900m2 pixel size The final data set contained 435 locations for building the model and 74 locations for testing the model

Lek Cover

Blomberg et al 2012 see review above

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 1 provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38 The report also states that the science finds that in general nests were found in shrubs having larger canopies and more ground and lateral cover as well as in stands with more shrub canopy cover than at random sites This finding indicates sage-grouse chose patches of habitat on the landscape that have higher than average shrub cover Furthermore the greatest nest success occurred in a mountain big sagebrush cover type where shrubs were 40-80cm in height (Gregg 1991) This location is also where grass height of greater than 7 inches occurring in stands of sagebrush 40-80 cm tall resulted in lesser nest predations rates than stands with lesser grass heights (Gregg et al 1994) NOTE GRASS HEIGHT OF 7rdquo IS CORRELATED TO A MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY Early brood rearing sites typically occur in more open stands of sagebrush (14 canopy cover) with gt15 canopy cover of grasses and forbs (Sveum et al 1998b Lyon 2000) Wallestad (1975) in Montana reported sage grouse during winter used sagebrush habitats with gt 20 canopy cover However Robertson (1991) indicated they used Wyoming big sagebrush habitats with average canopy coverage of 15 in SE ID Table 2 provides mean canopy cover values for winter habitat from studies completed in Colorado Idaho Montana and Oregon Canopy cover values range from 12-43 with no species indicated The Robertson (1991) study in SE Idaho was Wyoming big sagebrush with a reported canopy cover of 15 Table 3 provides Connellyrsquos recommendations for Breeding Brood-rearing and Winter habitat He breaks down the recommendations by mesic and arid sites which he indicates should be defined on a local basis annual precipitation herbaceous understory and soils should be considered In other words Ecological Sites

Table 3 from Connelly et al (2000) is duplicated below

31

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

The Coates et al 2013 study was conducted in Mono County California on the Bi-state sage-grouse population This study did not measure sagebrush cover but instead focused on habitat use relative to distance from the lek This study found most use was within 5 km of the lek year round and that 75 km would encompass nearly all seasonal space used The farthest nesting distance from the lek was 85 km however the majority were within 5 km of the lek This study included both migratory and non-migratory populations These values are based off of 11878 radio-telemetry locations from 193 sag-grouse across 4 study sites during 2003-2009 This study did not study the impact of structures on lek use or nesting It provides empirical findings on seasonal space use of sage-grouse in relation to their lek sites and can be used as a decision support tool to help guide management actions The authors do caution however that care should be taken in applying these findings range wide as this research was conducted in Mono County CA on the bi-state population As noted by Casazza et al 2011 Mono County is more mesic than the rest of the Great Basin

MLRA25Distb - b atur anc e Re sponse Groupswithin Gre ate r Sage grouse Ge ne ralHa it

Milesmacr 0 25 50 General Habitat Management AreaSagebrush Ecosystem ProgramGHMA

Label1-ARAR8PSSP6-ACTH710-ARCAVMURI12-POTR5SYOR2BRMA4-ELTR713-MURIPO E3- N15-ARTRV-SYMPHBRMA4-ELTR72-ARAR8FEID-PSSP63-ARN O4PSSP64-ARTRW ACTH-PSSP66-ARTRV-PUTR2FEID-PSSP67-ARTR2LECI4-PSSP6-ACTH78-CELE3ARTRVFEID-PSSP6Loam yBottom 8-14-ARTRTLECI4MahoganySavanna 16+-CELE3SYOR2FEIDRiparian -DECE

Se rvic e Laye r Cre d e nt e N N N eitsSourc e sEsriHEREDLorm e Tom Tom Ie rm apinc re m ntPCorpGEBCOUSGSFAOPS RCA Ge oBasRiparian -PON E3-PHAL2 IGN d e r N LOrd nanc e SurvyEsriJapanMETIEsriChina (Hong Kong)swisstopoMapm yId re e t b orsandKa ast e n iacopy Ope nSt Mapc ontri ut theRiparian -SALIX LETR5-LECI4 GISUse r Com m unitySte e pN h Slope FEIDort -MLRA25AIMPoints-known ESDs

Hab r d r rTitatLaye r Ce itsCoate sPSCasazzaMLBusse e BERic c aMAGustafsonKBOve rtonCTSanc he z-Chopite aEKroge Mauc hK ie llLHowe KGard ne rSEspinosaSand De le hantyDJ2014Spatiallye xplic itm od e ling ofgre ate r sage grouseN -(Ce ntroc e rcusurophasianus)hab itatin N d a and he aste rn Californiamdash Ad e c ision-supporttoolfor m anage m e nte va nort USGe ologic alSurve y

Se rvic e Laye r Cre d its Sourc e s Esri HERE De Lorm e Tom Tom Inte rm ap incre m e nt P Corp GEBCO USGS FAO N PSN RCAN Ge oBas e IGN Kad as te r N L Ord nanc e Surve y Esri Japan METI Esri China (Hong Kong) swis s topo Mapm yInd ia copyOpe nStre e tMap c ontrib utors and the GIS Us e r Com m unity

0 5025Miles

MLRA 25 DRGs - All sage-grouse habitat categories1 - ARAR8PSSP6-ACTH710 - ARCAVMURI12 - POTR5SYOR2BRMA4-ELTR713 - MURI-PON E315 - ARTRV-SYMPHBRMA4-ELTR72 - ARAR8FEID-PSSP63 - ARN O4PSSP64 - ARTRW ACTH-PSSP66 - ARTRV-PUTR2FEID-PSSP67 - ARTR2LECI4-PSSP6-ACTH78 - CELE3ARTRVFEID-PSSP6Loam y Bottom 8-14 - ARTRTLECI4Mahogany Savanna 16+ - CELE3SYOR2FEIDRiparian - DECERiparian - PON E3-PHAL2Riparian - SALIX LETR5-LECI4Ste e p N orth Slope - FEID

macr

MLRA 25 Disturb anc e Re s pons e Groups within Gre ate r Sage -grous e Hab itat PHMA GHMA OHMA

Hab itat Laye r Cre d its Coate s PS Cas azza ML Brus s e e BE Ric c a MA Gustafs on KB Ove rton CT Sanc he z-Chopite aE Kroge r T Mauch K N ie ll L Howe K Gard ne r S Es pinos a S and De le hanty DJ 2014 Spatially e xplic it m od e ling ofgre ate r s age -grous e (Ce ntroc e rcus urophas ianus) hab itat in N e vad a and northe as te rn Californiamdash A d e c is ion-support tool for

26

Appendix B Literature Review Summary

27

28

Habitat Objectives

General Landscape Level Cover

gt 65 of the landscape in sagebrush cover Aldridge and Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence habitat based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17(2)508-526 T

This study was conducted in Alberta Canada The dominant shrub was silver sagebrush with a needleandthread junegrass blue grama and western wheatgrass understory The cover values estimated in this paper were based off a TM Landsat satellite image from July 2000 with a 1km2 moving window Pixel size 30m2 There were no indication that modeling results were field tested In all life stages Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found sage-grouse preferred areas of ldquomoderaterdquo sagebrush cover that was heterogeneous in its distribution The numerical value of ldquomoderaterdquo was not found within the report however in Aldridge (2005) thesis in the same study area the author reported sage-grouse selected for moderate sagebrush cover (3-9) with heterogeneous distribution for nesting The author further suggests survival would increase with an increase in sagebrush cover to 15 (Aldridge 2005)

Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

Blomberg et al 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 3(6)1-20

Blomberg et al 2012 studied the effects of climatic processes and disturbance on male sage-grouse populations They compared climatic effects among populations of leks near wildfires vs sagebrush dominated rangelands Their results showed that precipitation was the single most predictive variable for annual recruitment Leks impacted by exotic grasslands showed low and stable recruitment throughout the study while leks not impacted by exotic grasslands showed recruitment levels increased with increased annual precipitation This study combined cheatgrass (BRTE) dominated rangelands and crested wheatgrass (AGCR) seeded rangelands into the term exotic grasslands and did not differentiate between the two species of grass This study did not measure cover or density of the exotic grasslands instead they used GIS to quantify the spatial extent of exotic grasslands (BRTE and AGCR) created by wildfires and their distance from leks They did conclude that large-scale disturbance in their case wildfire and landscape conversion from sagebrush to exotic grassland (cheatgrass or crested wheatgrass) interacts with climatic variability and depresses vital rates They did NOT separate cheatgrass from crested wheatgrass and they did indicate sagebrush was minimal to non-existent in the converted areas Therefore is it the conversion to a particular grass cover type or the loss of sagebrush that is the driver in depression of vital rates Regardless the citation does not support Table 2-2 Habitat Objective of Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

29

Security Cover and Food (winter)

USGS (in prep A B C) requested from BLM on December 29 2016 BLM provided two recent publications and the following oral statement from BLM was provided concerning the ldquoin preprdquo publications Publications were requested of Dr Pete Coates via email He provided the following publications (Prochaska et al 2017 and Coates et al 2017) in regards to ldquoin prep Ardquo references regarding conifer encroachment however he ldquodoesnrsquot know what BLM is talking about in regards to in prep Crdquo This information was relayed to BLM in an email from Dr Coates

In any professional document it is not customary to use unpublished material as justification for conclusions or management decisions This indicates lack of scientific credibility and impartiality of the author of the report table

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

The effect of pinyon-juniper (PJ) encounters on survival was dependent on movement rate and differed among age class of sage-grouse Under high speed movements mortality risk increased as encountering PJ increased across all age classes of birds Slower speeds yielded similar adverse effects for young birds

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates et al (2017) identified predictable relationships between PJ cover and sage-grouse demography This paper provides response curves for decisions across different canopy cover classes and levels of productivity based on resistance and resilience (RampR) classes Additional refinement of this tool is warranted with field testing to assure accuracy of model predictions However this tool provides the basis for developing a more precise planning mechanism than the generalized Habitat Objectives for PJ cover presented in Table 2-2

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors reported that at large scales (79 ha and 2268 ha) areas encroached with PJ were avoided by sage grouse

Doherty et al 2008 Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development Journal of Wildlife Management

30

This study was conducted in Wyoming and Montana The shrub-steppe habitat was dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of bluebunch wheatgrass western wheatgrass blue grama and Japanese brome cheatgrass The sagebrush cover value was 760 (SE= 055) sagebrush cover intermixed with grassland Their herbaceous cover value was 191 (SE= 061) Cover values were measured from a satellite image taken in August 2003 and 2004 They collected ldquofield training pointsrdquo (n=7092) that were stratified by space and landowner access to classify their 5 habitat cover classes as sagebrush conifer grassland riparian and barren Sagebrush was sampled at a 900m2 pixel size The final data set contained 435 locations for building the model and 74 locations for testing the model

Lek Cover

Blomberg et al 2012 see review above

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 1 provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38 The report also states that the science finds that in general nests were found in shrubs having larger canopies and more ground and lateral cover as well as in stands with more shrub canopy cover than at random sites This finding indicates sage-grouse chose patches of habitat on the landscape that have higher than average shrub cover Furthermore the greatest nest success occurred in a mountain big sagebrush cover type where shrubs were 40-80cm in height (Gregg 1991) This location is also where grass height of greater than 7 inches occurring in stands of sagebrush 40-80 cm tall resulted in lesser nest predations rates than stands with lesser grass heights (Gregg et al 1994) NOTE GRASS HEIGHT OF 7rdquo IS CORRELATED TO A MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY Early brood rearing sites typically occur in more open stands of sagebrush (14 canopy cover) with gt15 canopy cover of grasses and forbs (Sveum et al 1998b Lyon 2000) Wallestad (1975) in Montana reported sage grouse during winter used sagebrush habitats with gt 20 canopy cover However Robertson (1991) indicated they used Wyoming big sagebrush habitats with average canopy coverage of 15 in SE ID Table 2 provides mean canopy cover values for winter habitat from studies completed in Colorado Idaho Montana and Oregon Canopy cover values range from 12-43 with no species indicated The Robertson (1991) study in SE Idaho was Wyoming big sagebrush with a reported canopy cover of 15 Table 3 provides Connellyrsquos recommendations for Breeding Brood-rearing and Winter habitat He breaks down the recommendations by mesic and arid sites which he indicates should be defined on a local basis annual precipitation herbaceous understory and soils should be considered In other words Ecological Sites

Table 3 from Connelly et al (2000) is duplicated below

31

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

The Coates et al 2013 study was conducted in Mono County California on the Bi-state sage-grouse population This study did not measure sagebrush cover but instead focused on habitat use relative to distance from the lek This study found most use was within 5 km of the lek year round and that 75 km would encompass nearly all seasonal space used The farthest nesting distance from the lek was 85 km however the majority were within 5 km of the lek This study included both migratory and non-migratory populations These values are based off of 11878 radio-telemetry locations from 193 sag-grouse across 4 study sites during 2003-2009 This study did not study the impact of structures on lek use or nesting It provides empirical findings on seasonal space use of sage-grouse in relation to their lek sites and can be used as a decision support tool to help guide management actions The authors do caution however that care should be taken in applying these findings range wide as this research was conducted in Mono County CA on the bi-state population As noted by Casazza et al 2011 Mono County is more mesic than the rest of the Great Basin

Se rvic e Laye r Cre d its Sourc e s Esri HERE De Lorm e Tom Tom Inte rm ap incre m e nt P Corp GEBCO USGS FAO N PSN RCAN Ge oBas e IGN Kad as te r N L Ord nanc e Surve y Esri Japan METI Esri China (Hong Kong) swis s topo Mapm yInd ia copyOpe nStre e tMap c ontrib utors and the GIS Us e r Com m unity

0 5025Miles

MLRA 25 DRGs - All sage-grouse habitat categories1 - ARAR8PSSP6-ACTH710 - ARCAVMURI12 - POTR5SYOR2BRMA4-ELTR713 - MURI-PON E315 - ARTRV-SYMPHBRMA4-ELTR72 - ARAR8FEID-PSSP63 - ARN O4PSSP64 - ARTRW ACTH-PSSP66 - ARTRV-PUTR2FEID-PSSP67 - ARTR2LECI4-PSSP6-ACTH78 - CELE3ARTRVFEID-PSSP6Loam y Bottom 8-14 - ARTRTLECI4Mahogany Savanna 16+ - CELE3SYOR2FEIDRiparian - DECERiparian - PON E3-PHAL2Riparian - SALIX LETR5-LECI4Ste e p N orth Slope - FEID

macr

MLRA 25 Disturb anc e Re s pons e Groups within Gre ate r Sage -grous e Hab itat PHMA GHMA OHMA

Hab itat Laye r Cre d its Coate s PS Cas azza ML Brus s e e BE Ric c a MA Gustafs on KB Ove rton CT Sanc he z-Chopite aE Kroge r T Mauch K N ie ll L Howe K Gard ne r S Es pinos a S and De le hanty DJ 2014 Spatially e xplic it m od e ling ofgre ate r s age -grous e (Ce ntroc e rcus urophas ianus) hab itat in N e vad a and northe as te rn Californiamdash A d e c is ion-support tool for

26

Appendix B Literature Review Summary

27

28

Habitat Objectives

General Landscape Level Cover

gt 65 of the landscape in sagebrush cover Aldridge and Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence habitat based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17(2)508-526 T

This study was conducted in Alberta Canada The dominant shrub was silver sagebrush with a needleandthread junegrass blue grama and western wheatgrass understory The cover values estimated in this paper were based off a TM Landsat satellite image from July 2000 with a 1km2 moving window Pixel size 30m2 There were no indication that modeling results were field tested In all life stages Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found sage-grouse preferred areas of ldquomoderaterdquo sagebrush cover that was heterogeneous in its distribution The numerical value of ldquomoderaterdquo was not found within the report however in Aldridge (2005) thesis in the same study area the author reported sage-grouse selected for moderate sagebrush cover (3-9) with heterogeneous distribution for nesting The author further suggests survival would increase with an increase in sagebrush cover to 15 (Aldridge 2005)

Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

Blomberg et al 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 3(6)1-20

Blomberg et al 2012 studied the effects of climatic processes and disturbance on male sage-grouse populations They compared climatic effects among populations of leks near wildfires vs sagebrush dominated rangelands Their results showed that precipitation was the single most predictive variable for annual recruitment Leks impacted by exotic grasslands showed low and stable recruitment throughout the study while leks not impacted by exotic grasslands showed recruitment levels increased with increased annual precipitation This study combined cheatgrass (BRTE) dominated rangelands and crested wheatgrass (AGCR) seeded rangelands into the term exotic grasslands and did not differentiate between the two species of grass This study did not measure cover or density of the exotic grasslands instead they used GIS to quantify the spatial extent of exotic grasslands (BRTE and AGCR) created by wildfires and their distance from leks They did conclude that large-scale disturbance in their case wildfire and landscape conversion from sagebrush to exotic grassland (cheatgrass or crested wheatgrass) interacts with climatic variability and depresses vital rates They did NOT separate cheatgrass from crested wheatgrass and they did indicate sagebrush was minimal to non-existent in the converted areas Therefore is it the conversion to a particular grass cover type or the loss of sagebrush that is the driver in depression of vital rates Regardless the citation does not support Table 2-2 Habitat Objective of Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

29

Security Cover and Food (winter)

USGS (in prep A B C) requested from BLM on December 29 2016 BLM provided two recent publications and the following oral statement from BLM was provided concerning the ldquoin preprdquo publications Publications were requested of Dr Pete Coates via email He provided the following publications (Prochaska et al 2017 and Coates et al 2017) in regards to ldquoin prep Ardquo references regarding conifer encroachment however he ldquodoesnrsquot know what BLM is talking about in regards to in prep Crdquo This information was relayed to BLM in an email from Dr Coates

In any professional document it is not customary to use unpublished material as justification for conclusions or management decisions This indicates lack of scientific credibility and impartiality of the author of the report table

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

The effect of pinyon-juniper (PJ) encounters on survival was dependent on movement rate and differed among age class of sage-grouse Under high speed movements mortality risk increased as encountering PJ increased across all age classes of birds Slower speeds yielded similar adverse effects for young birds

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates et al (2017) identified predictable relationships between PJ cover and sage-grouse demography This paper provides response curves for decisions across different canopy cover classes and levels of productivity based on resistance and resilience (RampR) classes Additional refinement of this tool is warranted with field testing to assure accuracy of model predictions However this tool provides the basis for developing a more precise planning mechanism than the generalized Habitat Objectives for PJ cover presented in Table 2-2

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors reported that at large scales (79 ha and 2268 ha) areas encroached with PJ were avoided by sage grouse

Doherty et al 2008 Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development Journal of Wildlife Management

30

This study was conducted in Wyoming and Montana The shrub-steppe habitat was dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of bluebunch wheatgrass western wheatgrass blue grama and Japanese brome cheatgrass The sagebrush cover value was 760 (SE= 055) sagebrush cover intermixed with grassland Their herbaceous cover value was 191 (SE= 061) Cover values were measured from a satellite image taken in August 2003 and 2004 They collected ldquofield training pointsrdquo (n=7092) that were stratified by space and landowner access to classify their 5 habitat cover classes as sagebrush conifer grassland riparian and barren Sagebrush was sampled at a 900m2 pixel size The final data set contained 435 locations for building the model and 74 locations for testing the model

Lek Cover

Blomberg et al 2012 see review above

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 1 provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38 The report also states that the science finds that in general nests were found in shrubs having larger canopies and more ground and lateral cover as well as in stands with more shrub canopy cover than at random sites This finding indicates sage-grouse chose patches of habitat on the landscape that have higher than average shrub cover Furthermore the greatest nest success occurred in a mountain big sagebrush cover type where shrubs were 40-80cm in height (Gregg 1991) This location is also where grass height of greater than 7 inches occurring in stands of sagebrush 40-80 cm tall resulted in lesser nest predations rates than stands with lesser grass heights (Gregg et al 1994) NOTE GRASS HEIGHT OF 7rdquo IS CORRELATED TO A MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY Early brood rearing sites typically occur in more open stands of sagebrush (14 canopy cover) with gt15 canopy cover of grasses and forbs (Sveum et al 1998b Lyon 2000) Wallestad (1975) in Montana reported sage grouse during winter used sagebrush habitats with gt 20 canopy cover However Robertson (1991) indicated they used Wyoming big sagebrush habitats with average canopy coverage of 15 in SE ID Table 2 provides mean canopy cover values for winter habitat from studies completed in Colorado Idaho Montana and Oregon Canopy cover values range from 12-43 with no species indicated The Robertson (1991) study in SE Idaho was Wyoming big sagebrush with a reported canopy cover of 15 Table 3 provides Connellyrsquos recommendations for Breeding Brood-rearing and Winter habitat He breaks down the recommendations by mesic and arid sites which he indicates should be defined on a local basis annual precipitation herbaceous understory and soils should be considered In other words Ecological Sites

Table 3 from Connelly et al (2000) is duplicated below

31

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

The Coates et al 2013 study was conducted in Mono County California on the Bi-state sage-grouse population This study did not measure sagebrush cover but instead focused on habitat use relative to distance from the lek This study found most use was within 5 km of the lek year round and that 75 km would encompass nearly all seasonal space used The farthest nesting distance from the lek was 85 km however the majority were within 5 km of the lek This study included both migratory and non-migratory populations These values are based off of 11878 radio-telemetry locations from 193 sag-grouse across 4 study sites during 2003-2009 This study did not study the impact of structures on lek use or nesting It provides empirical findings on seasonal space use of sage-grouse in relation to their lek sites and can be used as a decision support tool to help guide management actions The authors do caution however that care should be taken in applying these findings range wide as this research was conducted in Mono County CA on the bi-state population As noted by Casazza et al 2011 Mono County is more mesic than the rest of the Great Basin

26

Appendix B Literature Review Summary

27

28

Habitat Objectives

General Landscape Level Cover

gt 65 of the landscape in sagebrush cover Aldridge and Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence habitat based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17(2)508-526 T

This study was conducted in Alberta Canada The dominant shrub was silver sagebrush with a needleandthread junegrass blue grama and western wheatgrass understory The cover values estimated in this paper were based off a TM Landsat satellite image from July 2000 with a 1km2 moving window Pixel size 30m2 There were no indication that modeling results were field tested In all life stages Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found sage-grouse preferred areas of ldquomoderaterdquo sagebrush cover that was heterogeneous in its distribution The numerical value of ldquomoderaterdquo was not found within the report however in Aldridge (2005) thesis in the same study area the author reported sage-grouse selected for moderate sagebrush cover (3-9) with heterogeneous distribution for nesting The author further suggests survival would increase with an increase in sagebrush cover to 15 (Aldridge 2005)

Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

Blomberg et al 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 3(6)1-20

Blomberg et al 2012 studied the effects of climatic processes and disturbance on male sage-grouse populations They compared climatic effects among populations of leks near wildfires vs sagebrush dominated rangelands Their results showed that precipitation was the single most predictive variable for annual recruitment Leks impacted by exotic grasslands showed low and stable recruitment throughout the study while leks not impacted by exotic grasslands showed recruitment levels increased with increased annual precipitation This study combined cheatgrass (BRTE) dominated rangelands and crested wheatgrass (AGCR) seeded rangelands into the term exotic grasslands and did not differentiate between the two species of grass This study did not measure cover or density of the exotic grasslands instead they used GIS to quantify the spatial extent of exotic grasslands (BRTE and AGCR) created by wildfires and their distance from leks They did conclude that large-scale disturbance in their case wildfire and landscape conversion from sagebrush to exotic grassland (cheatgrass or crested wheatgrass) interacts with climatic variability and depresses vital rates They did NOT separate cheatgrass from crested wheatgrass and they did indicate sagebrush was minimal to non-existent in the converted areas Therefore is it the conversion to a particular grass cover type or the loss of sagebrush that is the driver in depression of vital rates Regardless the citation does not support Table 2-2 Habitat Objective of Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

29

Security Cover and Food (winter)

USGS (in prep A B C) requested from BLM on December 29 2016 BLM provided two recent publications and the following oral statement from BLM was provided concerning the ldquoin preprdquo publications Publications were requested of Dr Pete Coates via email He provided the following publications (Prochaska et al 2017 and Coates et al 2017) in regards to ldquoin prep Ardquo references regarding conifer encroachment however he ldquodoesnrsquot know what BLM is talking about in regards to in prep Crdquo This information was relayed to BLM in an email from Dr Coates

In any professional document it is not customary to use unpublished material as justification for conclusions or management decisions This indicates lack of scientific credibility and impartiality of the author of the report table

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

The effect of pinyon-juniper (PJ) encounters on survival was dependent on movement rate and differed among age class of sage-grouse Under high speed movements mortality risk increased as encountering PJ increased across all age classes of birds Slower speeds yielded similar adverse effects for young birds

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates et al (2017) identified predictable relationships between PJ cover and sage-grouse demography This paper provides response curves for decisions across different canopy cover classes and levels of productivity based on resistance and resilience (RampR) classes Additional refinement of this tool is warranted with field testing to assure accuracy of model predictions However this tool provides the basis for developing a more precise planning mechanism than the generalized Habitat Objectives for PJ cover presented in Table 2-2

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors reported that at large scales (79 ha and 2268 ha) areas encroached with PJ were avoided by sage grouse

Doherty et al 2008 Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development Journal of Wildlife Management

30

This study was conducted in Wyoming and Montana The shrub-steppe habitat was dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of bluebunch wheatgrass western wheatgrass blue grama and Japanese brome cheatgrass The sagebrush cover value was 760 (SE= 055) sagebrush cover intermixed with grassland Their herbaceous cover value was 191 (SE= 061) Cover values were measured from a satellite image taken in August 2003 and 2004 They collected ldquofield training pointsrdquo (n=7092) that were stratified by space and landowner access to classify their 5 habitat cover classes as sagebrush conifer grassland riparian and barren Sagebrush was sampled at a 900m2 pixel size The final data set contained 435 locations for building the model and 74 locations for testing the model

Lek Cover

Blomberg et al 2012 see review above

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 1 provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38 The report also states that the science finds that in general nests were found in shrubs having larger canopies and more ground and lateral cover as well as in stands with more shrub canopy cover than at random sites This finding indicates sage-grouse chose patches of habitat on the landscape that have higher than average shrub cover Furthermore the greatest nest success occurred in a mountain big sagebrush cover type where shrubs were 40-80cm in height (Gregg 1991) This location is also where grass height of greater than 7 inches occurring in stands of sagebrush 40-80 cm tall resulted in lesser nest predations rates than stands with lesser grass heights (Gregg et al 1994) NOTE GRASS HEIGHT OF 7rdquo IS CORRELATED TO A MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY Early brood rearing sites typically occur in more open stands of sagebrush (14 canopy cover) with gt15 canopy cover of grasses and forbs (Sveum et al 1998b Lyon 2000) Wallestad (1975) in Montana reported sage grouse during winter used sagebrush habitats with gt 20 canopy cover However Robertson (1991) indicated they used Wyoming big sagebrush habitats with average canopy coverage of 15 in SE ID Table 2 provides mean canopy cover values for winter habitat from studies completed in Colorado Idaho Montana and Oregon Canopy cover values range from 12-43 with no species indicated The Robertson (1991) study in SE Idaho was Wyoming big sagebrush with a reported canopy cover of 15 Table 3 provides Connellyrsquos recommendations for Breeding Brood-rearing and Winter habitat He breaks down the recommendations by mesic and arid sites which he indicates should be defined on a local basis annual precipitation herbaceous understory and soils should be considered In other words Ecological Sites

Table 3 from Connelly et al (2000) is duplicated below

31

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

The Coates et al 2013 study was conducted in Mono County California on the Bi-state sage-grouse population This study did not measure sagebrush cover but instead focused on habitat use relative to distance from the lek This study found most use was within 5 km of the lek year round and that 75 km would encompass nearly all seasonal space used The farthest nesting distance from the lek was 85 km however the majority were within 5 km of the lek This study included both migratory and non-migratory populations These values are based off of 11878 radio-telemetry locations from 193 sag-grouse across 4 study sites during 2003-2009 This study did not study the impact of structures on lek use or nesting It provides empirical findings on seasonal space use of sage-grouse in relation to their lek sites and can be used as a decision support tool to help guide management actions The authors do caution however that care should be taken in applying these findings range wide as this research was conducted in Mono County CA on the bi-state population As noted by Casazza et al 2011 Mono County is more mesic than the rest of the Great Basin

27

28

Habitat Objectives

General Landscape Level Cover

gt 65 of the landscape in sagebrush cover Aldridge and Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence habitat based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17(2)508-526 T

This study was conducted in Alberta Canada The dominant shrub was silver sagebrush with a needleandthread junegrass blue grama and western wheatgrass understory The cover values estimated in this paper were based off a TM Landsat satellite image from July 2000 with a 1km2 moving window Pixel size 30m2 There were no indication that modeling results were field tested In all life stages Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found sage-grouse preferred areas of ldquomoderaterdquo sagebrush cover that was heterogeneous in its distribution The numerical value of ldquomoderaterdquo was not found within the report however in Aldridge (2005) thesis in the same study area the author reported sage-grouse selected for moderate sagebrush cover (3-9) with heterogeneous distribution for nesting The author further suggests survival would increase with an increase in sagebrush cover to 15 (Aldridge 2005)

Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

Blomberg et al 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 3(6)1-20

Blomberg et al 2012 studied the effects of climatic processes and disturbance on male sage-grouse populations They compared climatic effects among populations of leks near wildfires vs sagebrush dominated rangelands Their results showed that precipitation was the single most predictive variable for annual recruitment Leks impacted by exotic grasslands showed low and stable recruitment throughout the study while leks not impacted by exotic grasslands showed recruitment levels increased with increased annual precipitation This study combined cheatgrass (BRTE) dominated rangelands and crested wheatgrass (AGCR) seeded rangelands into the term exotic grasslands and did not differentiate between the two species of grass This study did not measure cover or density of the exotic grasslands instead they used GIS to quantify the spatial extent of exotic grasslands (BRTE and AGCR) created by wildfires and their distance from leks They did conclude that large-scale disturbance in their case wildfire and landscape conversion from sagebrush to exotic grassland (cheatgrass or crested wheatgrass) interacts with climatic variability and depresses vital rates They did NOT separate cheatgrass from crested wheatgrass and they did indicate sagebrush was minimal to non-existent in the converted areas Therefore is it the conversion to a particular grass cover type or the loss of sagebrush that is the driver in depression of vital rates Regardless the citation does not support Table 2-2 Habitat Objective of Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

29

Security Cover and Food (winter)

USGS (in prep A B C) requested from BLM on December 29 2016 BLM provided two recent publications and the following oral statement from BLM was provided concerning the ldquoin preprdquo publications Publications were requested of Dr Pete Coates via email He provided the following publications (Prochaska et al 2017 and Coates et al 2017) in regards to ldquoin prep Ardquo references regarding conifer encroachment however he ldquodoesnrsquot know what BLM is talking about in regards to in prep Crdquo This information was relayed to BLM in an email from Dr Coates

In any professional document it is not customary to use unpublished material as justification for conclusions or management decisions This indicates lack of scientific credibility and impartiality of the author of the report table

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

The effect of pinyon-juniper (PJ) encounters on survival was dependent on movement rate and differed among age class of sage-grouse Under high speed movements mortality risk increased as encountering PJ increased across all age classes of birds Slower speeds yielded similar adverse effects for young birds

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates et al (2017) identified predictable relationships between PJ cover and sage-grouse demography This paper provides response curves for decisions across different canopy cover classes and levels of productivity based on resistance and resilience (RampR) classes Additional refinement of this tool is warranted with field testing to assure accuracy of model predictions However this tool provides the basis for developing a more precise planning mechanism than the generalized Habitat Objectives for PJ cover presented in Table 2-2

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors reported that at large scales (79 ha and 2268 ha) areas encroached with PJ were avoided by sage grouse

Doherty et al 2008 Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development Journal of Wildlife Management

30

This study was conducted in Wyoming and Montana The shrub-steppe habitat was dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of bluebunch wheatgrass western wheatgrass blue grama and Japanese brome cheatgrass The sagebrush cover value was 760 (SE= 055) sagebrush cover intermixed with grassland Their herbaceous cover value was 191 (SE= 061) Cover values were measured from a satellite image taken in August 2003 and 2004 They collected ldquofield training pointsrdquo (n=7092) that were stratified by space and landowner access to classify their 5 habitat cover classes as sagebrush conifer grassland riparian and barren Sagebrush was sampled at a 900m2 pixel size The final data set contained 435 locations for building the model and 74 locations for testing the model

Lek Cover

Blomberg et al 2012 see review above

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 1 provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38 The report also states that the science finds that in general nests were found in shrubs having larger canopies and more ground and lateral cover as well as in stands with more shrub canopy cover than at random sites This finding indicates sage-grouse chose patches of habitat on the landscape that have higher than average shrub cover Furthermore the greatest nest success occurred in a mountain big sagebrush cover type where shrubs were 40-80cm in height (Gregg 1991) This location is also where grass height of greater than 7 inches occurring in stands of sagebrush 40-80 cm tall resulted in lesser nest predations rates than stands with lesser grass heights (Gregg et al 1994) NOTE GRASS HEIGHT OF 7rdquo IS CORRELATED TO A MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY Early brood rearing sites typically occur in more open stands of sagebrush (14 canopy cover) with gt15 canopy cover of grasses and forbs (Sveum et al 1998b Lyon 2000) Wallestad (1975) in Montana reported sage grouse during winter used sagebrush habitats with gt 20 canopy cover However Robertson (1991) indicated they used Wyoming big sagebrush habitats with average canopy coverage of 15 in SE ID Table 2 provides mean canopy cover values for winter habitat from studies completed in Colorado Idaho Montana and Oregon Canopy cover values range from 12-43 with no species indicated The Robertson (1991) study in SE Idaho was Wyoming big sagebrush with a reported canopy cover of 15 Table 3 provides Connellyrsquos recommendations for Breeding Brood-rearing and Winter habitat He breaks down the recommendations by mesic and arid sites which he indicates should be defined on a local basis annual precipitation herbaceous understory and soils should be considered In other words Ecological Sites

Table 3 from Connelly et al (2000) is duplicated below

31

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

The Coates et al 2013 study was conducted in Mono County California on the Bi-state sage-grouse population This study did not measure sagebrush cover but instead focused on habitat use relative to distance from the lek This study found most use was within 5 km of the lek year round and that 75 km would encompass nearly all seasonal space used The farthest nesting distance from the lek was 85 km however the majority were within 5 km of the lek This study included both migratory and non-migratory populations These values are based off of 11878 radio-telemetry locations from 193 sag-grouse across 4 study sites during 2003-2009 This study did not study the impact of structures on lek use or nesting It provides empirical findings on seasonal space use of sage-grouse in relation to their lek sites and can be used as a decision support tool to help guide management actions The authors do caution however that care should be taken in applying these findings range wide as this research was conducted in Mono County CA on the bi-state population As noted by Casazza et al 2011 Mono County is more mesic than the rest of the Great Basin

28

Habitat Objectives

General Landscape Level Cover

gt 65 of the landscape in sagebrush cover Aldridge and Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence habitat based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17(2)508-526 T

This study was conducted in Alberta Canada The dominant shrub was silver sagebrush with a needleandthread junegrass blue grama and western wheatgrass understory The cover values estimated in this paper were based off a TM Landsat satellite image from July 2000 with a 1km2 moving window Pixel size 30m2 There were no indication that modeling results were field tested In all life stages Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found sage-grouse preferred areas of ldquomoderaterdquo sagebrush cover that was heterogeneous in its distribution The numerical value of ldquomoderaterdquo was not found within the report however in Aldridge (2005) thesis in the same study area the author reported sage-grouse selected for moderate sagebrush cover (3-9) with heterogeneous distribution for nesting The author further suggests survival would increase with an increase in sagebrush cover to 15 (Aldridge 2005)

Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

Blomberg et al 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 3(6)1-20

Blomberg et al 2012 studied the effects of climatic processes and disturbance on male sage-grouse populations They compared climatic effects among populations of leks near wildfires vs sagebrush dominated rangelands Their results showed that precipitation was the single most predictive variable for annual recruitment Leks impacted by exotic grasslands showed low and stable recruitment throughout the study while leks not impacted by exotic grasslands showed recruitment levels increased with increased annual precipitation This study combined cheatgrass (BRTE) dominated rangelands and crested wheatgrass (AGCR) seeded rangelands into the term exotic grasslands and did not differentiate between the two species of grass This study did not measure cover or density of the exotic grasslands instead they used GIS to quantify the spatial extent of exotic grasslands (BRTE and AGCR) created by wildfires and their distance from leks They did conclude that large-scale disturbance in their case wildfire and landscape conversion from sagebrush to exotic grassland (cheatgrass or crested wheatgrass) interacts with climatic variability and depresses vital rates They did NOT separate cheatgrass from crested wheatgrass and they did indicate sagebrush was minimal to non-existent in the converted areas Therefore is it the conversion to a particular grass cover type or the loss of sagebrush that is the driver in depression of vital rates Regardless the citation does not support Table 2-2 Habitat Objective of Annual Invasive Grasses lt 5 cover

29

Security Cover and Food (winter)

USGS (in prep A B C) requested from BLM on December 29 2016 BLM provided two recent publications and the following oral statement from BLM was provided concerning the ldquoin preprdquo publications Publications were requested of Dr Pete Coates via email He provided the following publications (Prochaska et al 2017 and Coates et al 2017) in regards to ldquoin prep Ardquo references regarding conifer encroachment however he ldquodoesnrsquot know what BLM is talking about in regards to in prep Crdquo This information was relayed to BLM in an email from Dr Coates

In any professional document it is not customary to use unpublished material as justification for conclusions or management decisions This indicates lack of scientific credibility and impartiality of the author of the report table

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

The effect of pinyon-juniper (PJ) encounters on survival was dependent on movement rate and differed among age class of sage-grouse Under high speed movements mortality risk increased as encountering PJ increased across all age classes of birds Slower speeds yielded similar adverse effects for young birds

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates et al (2017) identified predictable relationships between PJ cover and sage-grouse demography This paper provides response curves for decisions across different canopy cover classes and levels of productivity based on resistance and resilience (RampR) classes Additional refinement of this tool is warranted with field testing to assure accuracy of model predictions However this tool provides the basis for developing a more precise planning mechanism than the generalized Habitat Objectives for PJ cover presented in Table 2-2

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors reported that at large scales (79 ha and 2268 ha) areas encroached with PJ were avoided by sage grouse

Doherty et al 2008 Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development Journal of Wildlife Management

30

This study was conducted in Wyoming and Montana The shrub-steppe habitat was dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of bluebunch wheatgrass western wheatgrass blue grama and Japanese brome cheatgrass The sagebrush cover value was 760 (SE= 055) sagebrush cover intermixed with grassland Their herbaceous cover value was 191 (SE= 061) Cover values were measured from a satellite image taken in August 2003 and 2004 They collected ldquofield training pointsrdquo (n=7092) that were stratified by space and landowner access to classify their 5 habitat cover classes as sagebrush conifer grassland riparian and barren Sagebrush was sampled at a 900m2 pixel size The final data set contained 435 locations for building the model and 74 locations for testing the model

Lek Cover

Blomberg et al 2012 see review above

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 1 provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38 The report also states that the science finds that in general nests were found in shrubs having larger canopies and more ground and lateral cover as well as in stands with more shrub canopy cover than at random sites This finding indicates sage-grouse chose patches of habitat on the landscape that have higher than average shrub cover Furthermore the greatest nest success occurred in a mountain big sagebrush cover type where shrubs were 40-80cm in height (Gregg 1991) This location is also where grass height of greater than 7 inches occurring in stands of sagebrush 40-80 cm tall resulted in lesser nest predations rates than stands with lesser grass heights (Gregg et al 1994) NOTE GRASS HEIGHT OF 7rdquo IS CORRELATED TO A MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY Early brood rearing sites typically occur in more open stands of sagebrush (14 canopy cover) with gt15 canopy cover of grasses and forbs (Sveum et al 1998b Lyon 2000) Wallestad (1975) in Montana reported sage grouse during winter used sagebrush habitats with gt 20 canopy cover However Robertson (1991) indicated they used Wyoming big sagebrush habitats with average canopy coverage of 15 in SE ID Table 2 provides mean canopy cover values for winter habitat from studies completed in Colorado Idaho Montana and Oregon Canopy cover values range from 12-43 with no species indicated The Robertson (1991) study in SE Idaho was Wyoming big sagebrush with a reported canopy cover of 15 Table 3 provides Connellyrsquos recommendations for Breeding Brood-rearing and Winter habitat He breaks down the recommendations by mesic and arid sites which he indicates should be defined on a local basis annual precipitation herbaceous understory and soils should be considered In other words Ecological Sites

Table 3 from Connelly et al (2000) is duplicated below

31

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

The Coates et al 2013 study was conducted in Mono County California on the Bi-state sage-grouse population This study did not measure sagebrush cover but instead focused on habitat use relative to distance from the lek This study found most use was within 5 km of the lek year round and that 75 km would encompass nearly all seasonal space used The farthest nesting distance from the lek was 85 km however the majority were within 5 km of the lek This study included both migratory and non-migratory populations These values are based off of 11878 radio-telemetry locations from 193 sag-grouse across 4 study sites during 2003-2009 This study did not study the impact of structures on lek use or nesting It provides empirical findings on seasonal space use of sage-grouse in relation to their lek sites and can be used as a decision support tool to help guide management actions The authors do caution however that care should be taken in applying these findings range wide as this research was conducted in Mono County CA on the bi-state population As noted by Casazza et al 2011 Mono County is more mesic than the rest of the Great Basin

29

Security Cover and Food (winter)

USGS (in prep A B C) requested from BLM on December 29 2016 BLM provided two recent publications and the following oral statement from BLM was provided concerning the ldquoin preprdquo publications Publications were requested of Dr Pete Coates via email He provided the following publications (Prochaska et al 2017 and Coates et al 2017) in regards to ldquoin prep Ardquo references regarding conifer encroachment however he ldquodoesnrsquot know what BLM is talking about in regards to in prep Crdquo This information was relayed to BLM in an email from Dr Coates

In any professional document it is not customary to use unpublished material as justification for conclusions or management decisions This indicates lack of scientific credibility and impartiality of the author of the report table

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

The effect of pinyon-juniper (PJ) encounters on survival was dependent on movement rate and differed among age class of sage-grouse Under high speed movements mortality risk increased as encountering PJ increased across all age classes of birds Slower speeds yielded similar adverse effects for young birds

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates et al (2017) identified predictable relationships between PJ cover and sage-grouse demography This paper provides response curves for decisions across different canopy cover classes and levels of productivity based on resistance and resilience (RampR) classes Additional refinement of this tool is warranted with field testing to assure accuracy of model predictions However this tool provides the basis for developing a more precise planning mechanism than the generalized Habitat Objectives for PJ cover presented in Table 2-2

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors reported that at large scales (79 ha and 2268 ha) areas encroached with PJ were avoided by sage grouse

Doherty et al 2008 Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development Journal of Wildlife Management

30

This study was conducted in Wyoming and Montana The shrub-steppe habitat was dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of bluebunch wheatgrass western wheatgrass blue grama and Japanese brome cheatgrass The sagebrush cover value was 760 (SE= 055) sagebrush cover intermixed with grassland Their herbaceous cover value was 191 (SE= 061) Cover values were measured from a satellite image taken in August 2003 and 2004 They collected ldquofield training pointsrdquo (n=7092) that were stratified by space and landowner access to classify their 5 habitat cover classes as sagebrush conifer grassland riparian and barren Sagebrush was sampled at a 900m2 pixel size The final data set contained 435 locations for building the model and 74 locations for testing the model

Lek Cover

Blomberg et al 2012 see review above

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 1 provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38 The report also states that the science finds that in general nests were found in shrubs having larger canopies and more ground and lateral cover as well as in stands with more shrub canopy cover than at random sites This finding indicates sage-grouse chose patches of habitat on the landscape that have higher than average shrub cover Furthermore the greatest nest success occurred in a mountain big sagebrush cover type where shrubs were 40-80cm in height (Gregg 1991) This location is also where grass height of greater than 7 inches occurring in stands of sagebrush 40-80 cm tall resulted in lesser nest predations rates than stands with lesser grass heights (Gregg et al 1994) NOTE GRASS HEIGHT OF 7rdquo IS CORRELATED TO A MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY Early brood rearing sites typically occur in more open stands of sagebrush (14 canopy cover) with gt15 canopy cover of grasses and forbs (Sveum et al 1998b Lyon 2000) Wallestad (1975) in Montana reported sage grouse during winter used sagebrush habitats with gt 20 canopy cover However Robertson (1991) indicated they used Wyoming big sagebrush habitats with average canopy coverage of 15 in SE ID Table 2 provides mean canopy cover values for winter habitat from studies completed in Colorado Idaho Montana and Oregon Canopy cover values range from 12-43 with no species indicated The Robertson (1991) study in SE Idaho was Wyoming big sagebrush with a reported canopy cover of 15 Table 3 provides Connellyrsquos recommendations for Breeding Brood-rearing and Winter habitat He breaks down the recommendations by mesic and arid sites which he indicates should be defined on a local basis annual precipitation herbaceous understory and soils should be considered In other words Ecological Sites

Table 3 from Connelly et al (2000) is duplicated below

31

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

The Coates et al 2013 study was conducted in Mono County California on the Bi-state sage-grouse population This study did not measure sagebrush cover but instead focused on habitat use relative to distance from the lek This study found most use was within 5 km of the lek year round and that 75 km would encompass nearly all seasonal space used The farthest nesting distance from the lek was 85 km however the majority were within 5 km of the lek This study included both migratory and non-migratory populations These values are based off of 11878 radio-telemetry locations from 193 sag-grouse across 4 study sites during 2003-2009 This study did not study the impact of structures on lek use or nesting It provides empirical findings on seasonal space use of sage-grouse in relation to their lek sites and can be used as a decision support tool to help guide management actions The authors do caution however that care should be taken in applying these findings range wide as this research was conducted in Mono County CA on the bi-state population As noted by Casazza et al 2011 Mono County is more mesic than the rest of the Great Basin

30

This study was conducted in Wyoming and Montana The shrub-steppe habitat was dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of bluebunch wheatgrass western wheatgrass blue grama and Japanese brome cheatgrass The sagebrush cover value was 760 (SE= 055) sagebrush cover intermixed with grassland Their herbaceous cover value was 191 (SE= 061) Cover values were measured from a satellite image taken in August 2003 and 2004 They collected ldquofield training pointsrdquo (n=7092) that were stratified by space and landowner access to classify their 5 habitat cover classes as sagebrush conifer grassland riparian and barren Sagebrush was sampled at a 900m2 pixel size The final data set contained 435 locations for building the model and 74 locations for testing the model

Lek Cover

Blomberg et al 2012 see review above

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 1 provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38 The report also states that the science finds that in general nests were found in shrubs having larger canopies and more ground and lateral cover as well as in stands with more shrub canopy cover than at random sites This finding indicates sage-grouse chose patches of habitat on the landscape that have higher than average shrub cover Furthermore the greatest nest success occurred in a mountain big sagebrush cover type where shrubs were 40-80cm in height (Gregg 1991) This location is also where grass height of greater than 7 inches occurring in stands of sagebrush 40-80 cm tall resulted in lesser nest predations rates than stands with lesser grass heights (Gregg et al 1994) NOTE GRASS HEIGHT OF 7rdquo IS CORRELATED TO A MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY Early brood rearing sites typically occur in more open stands of sagebrush (14 canopy cover) with gt15 canopy cover of grasses and forbs (Sveum et al 1998b Lyon 2000) Wallestad (1975) in Montana reported sage grouse during winter used sagebrush habitats with gt 20 canopy cover However Robertson (1991) indicated they used Wyoming big sagebrush habitats with average canopy coverage of 15 in SE ID Table 2 provides mean canopy cover values for winter habitat from studies completed in Colorado Idaho Montana and Oregon Canopy cover values range from 12-43 with no species indicated The Robertson (1991) study in SE Idaho was Wyoming big sagebrush with a reported canopy cover of 15 Table 3 provides Connellyrsquos recommendations for Breeding Brood-rearing and Winter habitat He breaks down the recommendations by mesic and arid sites which he indicates should be defined on a local basis annual precipitation herbaceous understory and soils should be considered In other words Ecological Sites

Table 3 from Connelly et al (2000) is duplicated below

31

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

The Coates et al 2013 study was conducted in Mono County California on the Bi-state sage-grouse population This study did not measure sagebrush cover but instead focused on habitat use relative to distance from the lek This study found most use was within 5 km of the lek year round and that 75 km would encompass nearly all seasonal space used The farthest nesting distance from the lek was 85 km however the majority were within 5 km of the lek This study included both migratory and non-migratory populations These values are based off of 11878 radio-telemetry locations from 193 sag-grouse across 4 study sites during 2003-2009 This study did not study the impact of structures on lek use or nesting It provides empirical findings on seasonal space use of sage-grouse in relation to their lek sites and can be used as a decision support tool to help guide management actions The authors do caution however that care should be taken in applying these findings range wide as this research was conducted in Mono County CA on the bi-state population As noted by Casazza et al 2011 Mono County is more mesic than the rest of the Great Basin

31

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

The Coates et al 2013 study was conducted in Mono County California on the Bi-state sage-grouse population This study did not measure sagebrush cover but instead focused on habitat use relative to distance from the lek This study found most use was within 5 km of the lek year round and that 75 km would encompass nearly all seasonal space used The farthest nesting distance from the lek was 85 km however the majority were within 5 km of the lek This study included both migratory and non-migratory populations These values are based off of 11878 radio-telemetry locations from 193 sag-grouse across 4 study sites during 2003-2009 This study did not study the impact of structures on lek use or nesting It provides empirical findings on seasonal space use of sage-grouse in relation to their lek sites and can be used as a decision support tool to help guide management actions The authors do caution however that care should be taken in applying these findings range wide as this research was conducted in Mono County CA on the bi-state population As noted by Casazza et al 2011 Mono County is more mesic than the rest of the Great Basin

32

Nesting Sagebrush cover gt 20

Kolada et al 2009a Ecological factors influencing nest survival of GRSG in Mono County CA J of Wildlife Management 73(8)1341-1347 Management and Conservation Article Kolada et al 2009b Nest site selection by GRSG in Mono County CA J of Wildlife Management 73(8)1333-1340 Management and Conservation Article

Kolada et al 2009a they found sagebrush cover at immediate nest site (NS) was 288 with 43 total shrub cover They also measured two random sites the nest vicinity (NV between 50 and 200m from nest) and nest sub-area (SAR used a random coordinate generator) Within the nest vicinity sagebrush cover was 258 and in the nest sub-area 245 Herbaceous cover (perennial grasses and forbs) was measured using 4 uniformly spaced 20x50m plots along the transect (Daubenmire 1959) ldquoPercent forb cover was similar among NSs NVs and SARs 66 plusmn07 58 plusmn 07 and 72 plusmn 10 for the 3 site types respectivelyrdquo Height and cover of residual grasses did not factor into the selection of nest sites by sage grouse ldquoNest site locations had greater shrub cover than both classes of random sitesrdquo Shrub cover was greater than that reported for nest sites in other studies Out of the 72 females that were radio marked 25 produced gt1 nest used in the analysis They collected data from 302 vegetation sampling sites Authors acknowledge that Mono CA area may be more mesic than many other sage-grouse habitats Again this information implies results are Mono County specific

Kolada et al 2009b found increased cover of shrubs other than sagebrush increased nest survival This study found no association between residual grass height and nest success They found substantial variation in nest success between subareas the northernmost having the highest nest success and the southernmost having the lowest which was not a result of variation in vegetation variables They hypothesize that predation may be the cause of this variation since predation is the principal cause of nest failure They captured 72 females and estimated nest survival for 95 nests from 2003 to 2005 Sagebrush species was primary mountain big sagebrush Authors note that this area is more mesic than many other sage-grouse habitats Mountain big sagebrush was dominate with pockets of low sagebrush and Wyoming sagebrush Used line intercept for shrub canopy at the nest site One 20-m transect centered at the nest Daubenmire plots for percent cover of grasses (5) Authors found no support for an effect of sagebrush cover itself on daily nest survival Increased cover of shrubs other than sagebrush increased nest survival but authors failed to find an important effect of sagebrush cover on nest success The findings of this paper are not supportive of the Nesting Habitat objective of gt 20 sagebrush cover

Nesting Residual and live perennial grass cover (such as native bunchgrasses) is given as ge10 if shrub cover is lt25

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

33

The primary sagebrush species was identified as big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp) with some low sagebrush (A arbuscula) Native bunchgrasses and forbs identified as dominating the understory vegetation and cheatgrass was noted as present but uncommon however no vegetation measurements were made This study did not measure perennial grass cover

Coates P S and D J Delehanty 2010 Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators Journal of Wildlife Management 74240-248

This study was conducted in Elko County NV The primary shrubs were Basin big sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush They used the line intersect method to measure shrub cover They measured from 4 25m transects which intersected at the nest bowl (but did not measure shrubs more than once) They found an average 405 total shrub cover and 3173 sagebrush cover To measure herbaceous cover they used a 3 sided cover board and counted the number of squares at a distance of 2m from each side of the board that were le 50 visually obstructed (modified from Jones 1968) Measurements were conducted at 2 heights 25cm aboveground and 2m aboveground To estimate cover at the 50m scale they used the same technique at 16 random points within 25m of the nest and calculated the averages On average they found 7610 visual obstruction of understory vegetation at the nest and 565 visual obstruction at the 50-m scale and centered on nest To measure biomass of grass and forbs they clipped 16 micro-plots (05m2 per plot) within 25m of the nest bowl They collected annual production of herbaceous vegetation and reported an average of 308 g of grass per 05m2 The conclusion of this study was ldquothe interaction between raven abundance and day of incubation [was] the most parsimonious modelrdquo They monitored a total of 87 sage-grouse nests (n=55 with camera and n=32 with not camera) 37 nests were depredated 6 were abandoned and 44 were successful They did NOT measure herbaceous cover They did measure visual obstruction

Note Conversion of 308g of grass per 05m2 to lbs per acre yields an average of 54 lbs per acre The Loamy 8-10 025XY019NV ecological site (see Appendix C for model) in current potential condition produces on average 600 lbs per acre of total above ground biomass NRCS estimates 65 of the production is grass At 54 lbs per acre the sampling sites in this study suggest an area lacking understory bunchgrasses with significant shrub cover Likely a Shrub State

Kolada et al 2009a and 2009b were also cited for residual grass cover ge10 if shrub cover lt25 (see above for summary) These studies found that height and cover of residual grasses did not influence the selection or survival of sage-grouse nests

Nesting Annual Grass Cover lt 5

Lockyer et al 2015 Nest site selection and reproductive success of greater sage grouse in a fire affected habitat of Northwestern NV J of Wildlife Management 79(5)785-797

The study area was in the Virginia Mountains of northwestern NV Dominant overstory at lower elevations was Wyoming big sagebrush and rabbitbrush in higher elevations it was dominated by big sagebrush black sagebrush and low sagebrush with several other mountain shrubs species present (Coates at al 2011 describes vegetation at study site in detail) The site was

34

recovering from fire in 1999 They found abundance of cheatgrass was the single greatest micro-habitat feature distinguishing nests from random sites Total shrub cover at the nesting site showed more support than sagebrush alone At the macro habitat scale (617-ha 2470-ha and 15527-ha) the strongest support for selection of habitats was higher percentages of montane brush species indicating these locations were in the mountain big sagebrush ecosystem The best predictor of nest survival was horizontal cover (horizontally oriented vegetation from previous year) at the nest site Shrub canopy cover was also positively correlated to nest survival but did not find support for increase in survival with sagebrush only vs other shrubs They estimate ge40 shrub canopy cover could yield cumulative nest survival rates similar to other populations in the Great Basin

Nesting Total Shrub Cover gt30

Lockyer et al 2015 (see above for summary) Shrub canopy cover was positively correlated to nest survival but did not find support for increase in survival with sagebrush only vs other shrubs Total shrub cover at the nesting site showed more support for nest site selection than sagebrush alone The strongest support for selection of habitats was higher percentages of montane brush species indicating the research site was located in mountain big sagebrush

Coates and Delehanty 2010 (see above for summary) found 405 total shrub cover on average and found ldquoa 1 decrease in shrub cover increased the odds of raven predation by 75rdquo Cover was measured at the nest Also see notes on understory production and Shrub State

Kolada et al 2009a (see above for summary) found 43 average total shrub cover at nests and that nest sites had greater total shrub cover than random locations Note mountain big sagebrush ecosystems are more mesic than Wyoming or low sagebrush systems and often have a number of other shrubs such as snowberry or current within the shrub community This is not the case for other sagebrush biomes Authors note that random locations on the landscape had lower cover on average than nest site locations therefore cover measured at nest sites is not representative of the ecological potential of the sagebrush community at the landscape scale

BROOD-REARINGSUMMER Upland Habitats Cover

Brood-Rearing Sagebrush Cover 10 to 25

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 3 duplicated above provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38

35

Brood-Rearing Perennial grass cover and forbs gt 15 combined

Connelly et al (2000) The authors clearly state that local conditions should be considered when determining forb and perennial grass cover requirements (see footnote to Table 3 from Connelly et al 2000) The references reviewed by Connelly et al (2000) conducted their studies in locations generally considered more mesic than the Great Basin additionally the specific sagebrush habitat type will indicate different forb and grass capabilities

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Hagen et al (2007) also provides a review and meta-analysis of the research from areas outside of the Great Basin See comments on this paper under Residual Grass Height section below

Brood-Rearing Deep rooted perennial bunchgrass within 200 meters (522 ft) of riparian areas wet meadows Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors found sage grouse hens selected areas with average perennial forb cover of 443 +- 041 whereas random sites were found to average 269 +- 051 forb cover NOTE The Mono County CA area is a productive and unique region of the sagebrush biome primarily dominated by mountain big sagebrush and low sagebrush as noted by the authors Low sagebrush communities in areas with greater than 12 inches of annual precipitation are typically forb rich Utilizing this one study to set a perennial forb habitat objective for the Great Basin wide range of GRSG is not appropriate and ecologically not achievable in many sagebrush communities More research by MLRA and DRG is recommended

Brood-rearing Residual Grass Height

Given the recent published research (see report) all citations justifying a residual grass height requirement in Table 2-2 should be thoughtfully reconsidered Additionally the Casazza et al 2011 reference does not address residual grass height

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

36

Hagen et al (2007) provides a review and meta-data analysis of a number of studies from several western states (not including Nevada) They found female sage-grouse selected nest sites with generally more sagebrush cover and taller grass heights than random sites Total shrub cover had a larger effect size than sagebrush only Average sagebrush canopy cover for nesting was 2151 across studies (n=19) Total shrub cover for nesting was 2513 across studies (n=24) Additionally taller grasses were selected more so during early brood rearing than during late brood rearing The proximity of early brood rearing to nesting sites may have contributed to this result As broods mature tall stature grasses appeared to be less important Without revisiting each study included in Hagenrsquos meta-analysis it is not possible to determine whether or not sampling bias exists in regards to measurement timing of grass height however given recent revelations (Gibson et al 2016 Smith et al 2017 McConnell et a 2017) caution is warranted in excepting the results of this analysis Average grass height for nesting was 1977 cm (n=20)

Connelly et al 2000 is cited for perennial grass height (see References from Connelly et al 2000 in Sage grouse habitat references table) Height determined in mountain big sagebrush community (see summary above)

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Reference is cited for residual grass height requirement in Table 2-2 Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors did not include residual grass height in their study of habitat variables associated with brood success of Greater Sage-Grouse They did include visual obstruction and they found visual obstruction was NOT important to brood survival The important findings in this study relate to perennial forbs and meadow edge as predictors of brood survival (see comments under Upland Habitat Cover and Food Riparian and Meadow Habitat)

BROOD-REARINGSUMMER RiparianMeadow Habitats

Brood-rearing Upland and riparian perennial forb availability and species richness

Stiver SJ ET Rinkes DE Naugle PD Makela DA Nance and JW Karl eds 2015 Sage-Grouse habitat assessment framework A multiscale assessment tool Technical Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver Colorado

Stiver et al (2015) provide a review of literature on sage-grouse habitat research and recommendations for habitat guidelines This is not new research A table of preferred food forbs is provided on p 109

37

Ecological potential and current year climate will be important drivers of this habitat requirement

Brood-rearing Riparian areameadow interspersion with adjacent sagebrush

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) The authors did find that the density of meadow edge at the 79ha scale was related to brood success and that successful broods were associated with areas with higher number of plant species

Note Given the bias with vegetation sampling time periods that has recently come to light (Gibson et al 2016 Smith 2016 McConnell et al 2017) discussed in body of report it would be important to ascertain if habitat variables were measured at the same time for successful and unsuccessful broods This was not clear in the manuscript

WINTER

Winter Sagebrush cover gt 10 above snow depth

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Additionally the Wyoming big sagebrush communities are the primary winter habitats for sage grouse in the Great Basin The ecological potential of this sagebrush species needs to be considered by MLRA and DRG Line intercept data (see full report) suggests an average cover of 16 occurs in MLRA 25 without snow cover Additional research is needed in this area

Winter Sagebrush height gt 98 inches above the snow

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Sagebrush height in the Wyoming big sagebrush communities will vary by site potential Further research is needed in this area

USGS (in prep C) has not been provided See previous note concerning this citation

38

References

Aldridge C L and M S Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence Habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17508-526

Blomberg E J J S Sedinger M T Atamian and D V Nonne 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 31-20

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems Impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates P S and D J Delehanty 2010 Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators Journal of Wildlife Management 74240-248

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly J W K P Reese and M A Schroeder 2003 Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80 University of Idaho Moscow Idaho USA

Doherty K E D E Naugle B L Walker and J M Graham 2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development The Journal of Wildlife Management 72187-195

Gibson D E J Blomberg and J S Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11) 3621-3631

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Kolada E J J S Sedinger and M L Casazza 2009 Nest site selection by Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731333-1340

Kolada E J M L Casazza and J S Sedinger 2009 Ecological factors influencing nest survival of Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731341-1347

39

Lockyer Z B P S Coates M L Casazza S Espinosa and D J Delehanty 2015 Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada The Journal of Wildlife Management 79785-797

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

Smith JT 2016 Landscape to Local A Multi-Scale Evaluation of Voluntary Efforts to Reduce Fragmentation and Enhance Management of Rangelands for Sage-Grouse Theses Dissertations Professional Papers 10902 Scholar Works at University of Montana

Stiver S J E T Rinkes D E Naugle P D Makela D A Nance and J W Karl 2015 Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework a multiscale assessment tool Technicial Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver CO

40

Appendix C State and Transition Model Diagrams and AIM Plot Photos MLRA 25 NV

State and Transition Model Reports available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Note on Percent Shrub Foliar Cover Alive vs Dead values

Percent dead shrub cover values are included as notes next to the plot photos in this report to visualize some of the variation in live vs dead shrub cover In the AIM line point intercept protocol a foliar hit is counted as dead if the entire individual is dead or if the branch or twig that was hit appears to be dead In the AIM dataset dead shrub cover is expressed as a percent of total shrub foliar cover rather than as its own cover value Thus our shrub foliar cover values in this report often include ldquodeadrdquo cover that has been unaccounted for For example if you have 20 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover and 5 rabbitbrush foliar cover with no other shrub species you would have 25 shrub foliar cover Of this 25 foliar cover 10 of it is marked as dead While species of the dead individuals is attempted in the field we chose not to report dead shrubs by species here due to the uncertainty of this determination

Photos visually demonstrate the range of variability in plant communities

Low sagebrush

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 02 393 low sagebrush 06 DRPG 0 Idaho fescue 73 Sandberg bluegrass 93 mat forming forbs This plot had 135 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 191) This plot has some of the highest levels of mat forming forbs and very low deep rooted perennial grass cover Phase 31 in the Group 1 state and transition model Note 393 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 308 canopy cover

33

The primary sagebrush species was identified as big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp) with some low sagebrush (A arbuscula) Native bunchgrasses and forbs identified as dominating the understory vegetation and cheatgrass was noted as present but uncommon however no vegetation measurements were made This study did not measure perennial grass cover

Coates P S and D J Delehanty 2010 Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators Journal of Wildlife Management 74240-248

This study was conducted in Elko County NV The primary shrubs were Basin big sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush They used the line intersect method to measure shrub cover They measured from 4 25m transects which intersected at the nest bowl (but did not measure shrubs more than once) They found an average 405 total shrub cover and 3173 sagebrush cover To measure herbaceous cover they used a 3 sided cover board and counted the number of squares at a distance of 2m from each side of the board that were le 50 visually obstructed (modified from Jones 1968) Measurements were conducted at 2 heights 25cm aboveground and 2m aboveground To estimate cover at the 50m scale they used the same technique at 16 random points within 25m of the nest and calculated the averages On average they found 7610 visual obstruction of understory vegetation at the nest and 565 visual obstruction at the 50-m scale and centered on nest To measure biomass of grass and forbs they clipped 16 micro-plots (05m2 per plot) within 25m of the nest bowl They collected annual production of herbaceous vegetation and reported an average of 308 g of grass per 05m2 The conclusion of this study was ldquothe interaction between raven abundance and day of incubation [was] the most parsimonious modelrdquo They monitored a total of 87 sage-grouse nests (n=55 with camera and n=32 with not camera) 37 nests were depredated 6 were abandoned and 44 were successful They did NOT measure herbaceous cover They did measure visual obstruction

Note Conversion of 308g of grass per 05m2 to lbs per acre yields an average of 54 lbs per acre The Loamy 8-10 025XY019NV ecological site (see Appendix C for model) in current potential condition produces on average 600 lbs per acre of total above ground biomass NRCS estimates 65 of the production is grass At 54 lbs per acre the sampling sites in this study suggest an area lacking understory bunchgrasses with significant shrub cover Likely a Shrub State

Kolada et al 2009a and 2009b were also cited for residual grass cover ge10 if shrub cover lt25 (see above for summary) These studies found that height and cover of residual grasses did not influence the selection or survival of sage-grouse nests

Nesting Annual Grass Cover lt 5

Lockyer et al 2015 Nest site selection and reproductive success of greater sage grouse in a fire affected habitat of Northwestern NV J of Wildlife Management 79(5)785-797

The study area was in the Virginia Mountains of northwestern NV Dominant overstory at lower elevations was Wyoming big sagebrush and rabbitbrush in higher elevations it was dominated by big sagebrush black sagebrush and low sagebrush with several other mountain shrubs species present (Coates at al 2011 describes vegetation at study site in detail) The site was

34

recovering from fire in 1999 They found abundance of cheatgrass was the single greatest micro-habitat feature distinguishing nests from random sites Total shrub cover at the nesting site showed more support than sagebrush alone At the macro habitat scale (617-ha 2470-ha and 15527-ha) the strongest support for selection of habitats was higher percentages of montane brush species indicating these locations were in the mountain big sagebrush ecosystem The best predictor of nest survival was horizontal cover (horizontally oriented vegetation from previous year) at the nest site Shrub canopy cover was also positively correlated to nest survival but did not find support for increase in survival with sagebrush only vs other shrubs They estimate ge40 shrub canopy cover could yield cumulative nest survival rates similar to other populations in the Great Basin

Nesting Total Shrub Cover gt30

Lockyer et al 2015 (see above for summary) Shrub canopy cover was positively correlated to nest survival but did not find support for increase in survival with sagebrush only vs other shrubs Total shrub cover at the nesting site showed more support for nest site selection than sagebrush alone The strongest support for selection of habitats was higher percentages of montane brush species indicating the research site was located in mountain big sagebrush

Coates and Delehanty 2010 (see above for summary) found 405 total shrub cover on average and found ldquoa 1 decrease in shrub cover increased the odds of raven predation by 75rdquo Cover was measured at the nest Also see notes on understory production and Shrub State

Kolada et al 2009a (see above for summary) found 43 average total shrub cover at nests and that nest sites had greater total shrub cover than random locations Note mountain big sagebrush ecosystems are more mesic than Wyoming or low sagebrush systems and often have a number of other shrubs such as snowberry or current within the shrub community This is not the case for other sagebrush biomes Authors note that random locations on the landscape had lower cover on average than nest site locations therefore cover measured at nest sites is not representative of the ecological potential of the sagebrush community at the landscape scale

BROOD-REARINGSUMMER Upland Habitats Cover

Brood-Rearing Sagebrush Cover 10 to 25

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 3 duplicated above provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38

35

Brood-Rearing Perennial grass cover and forbs gt 15 combined

Connelly et al (2000) The authors clearly state that local conditions should be considered when determining forb and perennial grass cover requirements (see footnote to Table 3 from Connelly et al 2000) The references reviewed by Connelly et al (2000) conducted their studies in locations generally considered more mesic than the Great Basin additionally the specific sagebrush habitat type will indicate different forb and grass capabilities

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Hagen et al (2007) also provides a review and meta-analysis of the research from areas outside of the Great Basin See comments on this paper under Residual Grass Height section below

Brood-Rearing Deep rooted perennial bunchgrass within 200 meters (522 ft) of riparian areas wet meadows Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors found sage grouse hens selected areas with average perennial forb cover of 443 +- 041 whereas random sites were found to average 269 +- 051 forb cover NOTE The Mono County CA area is a productive and unique region of the sagebrush biome primarily dominated by mountain big sagebrush and low sagebrush as noted by the authors Low sagebrush communities in areas with greater than 12 inches of annual precipitation are typically forb rich Utilizing this one study to set a perennial forb habitat objective for the Great Basin wide range of GRSG is not appropriate and ecologically not achievable in many sagebrush communities More research by MLRA and DRG is recommended

Brood-rearing Residual Grass Height

Given the recent published research (see report) all citations justifying a residual grass height requirement in Table 2-2 should be thoughtfully reconsidered Additionally the Casazza et al 2011 reference does not address residual grass height

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

36

Hagen et al (2007) provides a review and meta-data analysis of a number of studies from several western states (not including Nevada) They found female sage-grouse selected nest sites with generally more sagebrush cover and taller grass heights than random sites Total shrub cover had a larger effect size than sagebrush only Average sagebrush canopy cover for nesting was 2151 across studies (n=19) Total shrub cover for nesting was 2513 across studies (n=24) Additionally taller grasses were selected more so during early brood rearing than during late brood rearing The proximity of early brood rearing to nesting sites may have contributed to this result As broods mature tall stature grasses appeared to be less important Without revisiting each study included in Hagenrsquos meta-analysis it is not possible to determine whether or not sampling bias exists in regards to measurement timing of grass height however given recent revelations (Gibson et al 2016 Smith et al 2017 McConnell et a 2017) caution is warranted in excepting the results of this analysis Average grass height for nesting was 1977 cm (n=20)

Connelly et al 2000 is cited for perennial grass height (see References from Connelly et al 2000 in Sage grouse habitat references table) Height determined in mountain big sagebrush community (see summary above)

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Reference is cited for residual grass height requirement in Table 2-2 Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors did not include residual grass height in their study of habitat variables associated with brood success of Greater Sage-Grouse They did include visual obstruction and they found visual obstruction was NOT important to brood survival The important findings in this study relate to perennial forbs and meadow edge as predictors of brood survival (see comments under Upland Habitat Cover and Food Riparian and Meadow Habitat)

BROOD-REARINGSUMMER RiparianMeadow Habitats

Brood-rearing Upland and riparian perennial forb availability and species richness

Stiver SJ ET Rinkes DE Naugle PD Makela DA Nance and JW Karl eds 2015 Sage-Grouse habitat assessment framework A multiscale assessment tool Technical Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver Colorado

Stiver et al (2015) provide a review of literature on sage-grouse habitat research and recommendations for habitat guidelines This is not new research A table of preferred food forbs is provided on p 109

37

Ecological potential and current year climate will be important drivers of this habitat requirement

Brood-rearing Riparian areameadow interspersion with adjacent sagebrush

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) The authors did find that the density of meadow edge at the 79ha scale was related to brood success and that successful broods were associated with areas with higher number of plant species

Note Given the bias with vegetation sampling time periods that has recently come to light (Gibson et al 2016 Smith 2016 McConnell et al 2017) discussed in body of report it would be important to ascertain if habitat variables were measured at the same time for successful and unsuccessful broods This was not clear in the manuscript

WINTER

Winter Sagebrush cover gt 10 above snow depth

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Additionally the Wyoming big sagebrush communities are the primary winter habitats for sage grouse in the Great Basin The ecological potential of this sagebrush species needs to be considered by MLRA and DRG Line intercept data (see full report) suggests an average cover of 16 occurs in MLRA 25 without snow cover Additional research is needed in this area

Winter Sagebrush height gt 98 inches above the snow

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Sagebrush height in the Wyoming big sagebrush communities will vary by site potential Further research is needed in this area

USGS (in prep C) has not been provided See previous note concerning this citation

38

References

Aldridge C L and M S Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence Habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17508-526

Blomberg E J J S Sedinger M T Atamian and D V Nonne 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 31-20

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems Impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates P S and D J Delehanty 2010 Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators Journal of Wildlife Management 74240-248

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly J W K P Reese and M A Schroeder 2003 Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80 University of Idaho Moscow Idaho USA

Doherty K E D E Naugle B L Walker and J M Graham 2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development The Journal of Wildlife Management 72187-195

Gibson D E J Blomberg and J S Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11) 3621-3631

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Kolada E J J S Sedinger and M L Casazza 2009 Nest site selection by Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731333-1340

Kolada E J M L Casazza and J S Sedinger 2009 Ecological factors influencing nest survival of Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731341-1347

39

Lockyer Z B P S Coates M L Casazza S Espinosa and D J Delehanty 2015 Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada The Journal of Wildlife Management 79785-797

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

Smith JT 2016 Landscape to Local A Multi-Scale Evaluation of Voluntary Efforts to Reduce Fragmentation and Enhance Management of Rangelands for Sage-Grouse Theses Dissertations Professional Papers 10902 Scholar Works at University of Montana

Stiver S J E T Rinkes D E Naugle P D Makela D A Nance and J W Karl 2015 Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework a multiscale assessment tool Technicial Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver CO

40

Appendix C State and Transition Model Diagrams and AIM Plot Photos MLRA 25 NV

State and Transition Model Reports available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Note on Percent Shrub Foliar Cover Alive vs Dead values

Percent dead shrub cover values are included as notes next to the plot photos in this report to visualize some of the variation in live vs dead shrub cover In the AIM line point intercept protocol a foliar hit is counted as dead if the entire individual is dead or if the branch or twig that was hit appears to be dead In the AIM dataset dead shrub cover is expressed as a percent of total shrub foliar cover rather than as its own cover value Thus our shrub foliar cover values in this report often include ldquodeadrdquo cover that has been unaccounted for For example if you have 20 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover and 5 rabbitbrush foliar cover with no other shrub species you would have 25 shrub foliar cover Of this 25 foliar cover 10 of it is marked as dead While species of the dead individuals is attempted in the field we chose not to report dead shrubs by species here due to the uncertainty of this determination

Photos visually demonstrate the range of variability in plant communities

Low sagebrush

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 02 393 low sagebrush 06 DRPG 0 Idaho fescue 73 Sandberg bluegrass 93 mat forming forbs This plot had 135 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 191) This plot has some of the highest levels of mat forming forbs and very low deep rooted perennial grass cover Phase 31 in the Group 1 state and transition model Note 393 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 308 canopy cover

34

recovering from fire in 1999 They found abundance of cheatgrass was the single greatest micro-habitat feature distinguishing nests from random sites Total shrub cover at the nesting site showed more support than sagebrush alone At the macro habitat scale (617-ha 2470-ha and 15527-ha) the strongest support for selection of habitats was higher percentages of montane brush species indicating these locations were in the mountain big sagebrush ecosystem The best predictor of nest survival was horizontal cover (horizontally oriented vegetation from previous year) at the nest site Shrub canopy cover was also positively correlated to nest survival but did not find support for increase in survival with sagebrush only vs other shrubs They estimate ge40 shrub canopy cover could yield cumulative nest survival rates similar to other populations in the Great Basin

Nesting Total Shrub Cover gt30

Lockyer et al 2015 (see above for summary) Shrub canopy cover was positively correlated to nest survival but did not find support for increase in survival with sagebrush only vs other shrubs Total shrub cover at the nesting site showed more support for nest site selection than sagebrush alone The strongest support for selection of habitats was higher percentages of montane brush species indicating the research site was located in mountain big sagebrush

Coates and Delehanty 2010 (see above for summary) found 405 total shrub cover on average and found ldquoa 1 decrease in shrub cover increased the odds of raven predation by 75rdquo Cover was measured at the nest Also see notes on understory production and Shrub State

Kolada et al 2009a (see above for summary) found 43 average total shrub cover at nests and that nest sites had greater total shrub cover than random locations Note mountain big sagebrush ecosystems are more mesic than Wyoming or low sagebrush systems and often have a number of other shrubs such as snowberry or current within the shrub community This is not the case for other sagebrush biomes Authors note that random locations on the landscape had lower cover on average than nest site locations therefore cover measured at nest sites is not representative of the ecological potential of the sagebrush community at the landscape scale

BROOD-REARINGSUMMER Upland Habitats Cover

Brood-Rearing Sagebrush Cover 10 to 25

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly et al 2000 is a summary article of other scientists work Table 3 duplicated above provides sagebrush cover and height values reported by a range of authors on studies from Colorado Idaho Montana Oregon Washington and Wyoming Methods of measurement of vegetation are not reported nor are the specific sagebrush species Average canopy cover values range from 15-38

35

Brood-Rearing Perennial grass cover and forbs gt 15 combined

Connelly et al (2000) The authors clearly state that local conditions should be considered when determining forb and perennial grass cover requirements (see footnote to Table 3 from Connelly et al 2000) The references reviewed by Connelly et al (2000) conducted their studies in locations generally considered more mesic than the Great Basin additionally the specific sagebrush habitat type will indicate different forb and grass capabilities

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Hagen et al (2007) also provides a review and meta-analysis of the research from areas outside of the Great Basin See comments on this paper under Residual Grass Height section below

Brood-Rearing Deep rooted perennial bunchgrass within 200 meters (522 ft) of riparian areas wet meadows Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors found sage grouse hens selected areas with average perennial forb cover of 443 +- 041 whereas random sites were found to average 269 +- 051 forb cover NOTE The Mono County CA area is a productive and unique region of the sagebrush biome primarily dominated by mountain big sagebrush and low sagebrush as noted by the authors Low sagebrush communities in areas with greater than 12 inches of annual precipitation are typically forb rich Utilizing this one study to set a perennial forb habitat objective for the Great Basin wide range of GRSG is not appropriate and ecologically not achievable in many sagebrush communities More research by MLRA and DRG is recommended

Brood-rearing Residual Grass Height

Given the recent published research (see report) all citations justifying a residual grass height requirement in Table 2-2 should be thoughtfully reconsidered Additionally the Casazza et al 2011 reference does not address residual grass height

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

36

Hagen et al (2007) provides a review and meta-data analysis of a number of studies from several western states (not including Nevada) They found female sage-grouse selected nest sites with generally more sagebrush cover and taller grass heights than random sites Total shrub cover had a larger effect size than sagebrush only Average sagebrush canopy cover for nesting was 2151 across studies (n=19) Total shrub cover for nesting was 2513 across studies (n=24) Additionally taller grasses were selected more so during early brood rearing than during late brood rearing The proximity of early brood rearing to nesting sites may have contributed to this result As broods mature tall stature grasses appeared to be less important Without revisiting each study included in Hagenrsquos meta-analysis it is not possible to determine whether or not sampling bias exists in regards to measurement timing of grass height however given recent revelations (Gibson et al 2016 Smith et al 2017 McConnell et a 2017) caution is warranted in excepting the results of this analysis Average grass height for nesting was 1977 cm (n=20)

Connelly et al 2000 is cited for perennial grass height (see References from Connelly et al 2000 in Sage grouse habitat references table) Height determined in mountain big sagebrush community (see summary above)

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Reference is cited for residual grass height requirement in Table 2-2 Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors did not include residual grass height in their study of habitat variables associated with brood success of Greater Sage-Grouse They did include visual obstruction and they found visual obstruction was NOT important to brood survival The important findings in this study relate to perennial forbs and meadow edge as predictors of brood survival (see comments under Upland Habitat Cover and Food Riparian and Meadow Habitat)

BROOD-REARINGSUMMER RiparianMeadow Habitats

Brood-rearing Upland and riparian perennial forb availability and species richness

Stiver SJ ET Rinkes DE Naugle PD Makela DA Nance and JW Karl eds 2015 Sage-Grouse habitat assessment framework A multiscale assessment tool Technical Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver Colorado

Stiver et al (2015) provide a review of literature on sage-grouse habitat research and recommendations for habitat guidelines This is not new research A table of preferred food forbs is provided on p 109

37

Ecological potential and current year climate will be important drivers of this habitat requirement

Brood-rearing Riparian areameadow interspersion with adjacent sagebrush

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) The authors did find that the density of meadow edge at the 79ha scale was related to brood success and that successful broods were associated with areas with higher number of plant species

Note Given the bias with vegetation sampling time periods that has recently come to light (Gibson et al 2016 Smith 2016 McConnell et al 2017) discussed in body of report it would be important to ascertain if habitat variables were measured at the same time for successful and unsuccessful broods This was not clear in the manuscript

WINTER

Winter Sagebrush cover gt 10 above snow depth

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Additionally the Wyoming big sagebrush communities are the primary winter habitats for sage grouse in the Great Basin The ecological potential of this sagebrush species needs to be considered by MLRA and DRG Line intercept data (see full report) suggests an average cover of 16 occurs in MLRA 25 without snow cover Additional research is needed in this area

Winter Sagebrush height gt 98 inches above the snow

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Sagebrush height in the Wyoming big sagebrush communities will vary by site potential Further research is needed in this area

USGS (in prep C) has not been provided See previous note concerning this citation

38

References

Aldridge C L and M S Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence Habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17508-526

Blomberg E J J S Sedinger M T Atamian and D V Nonne 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 31-20

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems Impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates P S and D J Delehanty 2010 Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators Journal of Wildlife Management 74240-248

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly J W K P Reese and M A Schroeder 2003 Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80 University of Idaho Moscow Idaho USA

Doherty K E D E Naugle B L Walker and J M Graham 2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development The Journal of Wildlife Management 72187-195

Gibson D E J Blomberg and J S Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11) 3621-3631

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Kolada E J J S Sedinger and M L Casazza 2009 Nest site selection by Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731333-1340

Kolada E J M L Casazza and J S Sedinger 2009 Ecological factors influencing nest survival of Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731341-1347

39

Lockyer Z B P S Coates M L Casazza S Espinosa and D J Delehanty 2015 Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada The Journal of Wildlife Management 79785-797

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

Smith JT 2016 Landscape to Local A Multi-Scale Evaluation of Voluntary Efforts to Reduce Fragmentation and Enhance Management of Rangelands for Sage-Grouse Theses Dissertations Professional Papers 10902 Scholar Works at University of Montana

Stiver S J E T Rinkes D E Naugle P D Makela D A Nance and J W Karl 2015 Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework a multiscale assessment tool Technicial Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver CO

40

Appendix C State and Transition Model Diagrams and AIM Plot Photos MLRA 25 NV

State and Transition Model Reports available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Note on Percent Shrub Foliar Cover Alive vs Dead values

Percent dead shrub cover values are included as notes next to the plot photos in this report to visualize some of the variation in live vs dead shrub cover In the AIM line point intercept protocol a foliar hit is counted as dead if the entire individual is dead or if the branch or twig that was hit appears to be dead In the AIM dataset dead shrub cover is expressed as a percent of total shrub foliar cover rather than as its own cover value Thus our shrub foliar cover values in this report often include ldquodeadrdquo cover that has been unaccounted for For example if you have 20 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover and 5 rabbitbrush foliar cover with no other shrub species you would have 25 shrub foliar cover Of this 25 foliar cover 10 of it is marked as dead While species of the dead individuals is attempted in the field we chose not to report dead shrubs by species here due to the uncertainty of this determination

Photos visually demonstrate the range of variability in plant communities

Low sagebrush

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 02 393 low sagebrush 06 DRPG 0 Idaho fescue 73 Sandberg bluegrass 93 mat forming forbs This plot had 135 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 191) This plot has some of the highest levels of mat forming forbs and very low deep rooted perennial grass cover Phase 31 in the Group 1 state and transition model Note 393 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 308 canopy cover

35

Brood-Rearing Perennial grass cover and forbs gt 15 combined

Connelly et al (2000) The authors clearly state that local conditions should be considered when determining forb and perennial grass cover requirements (see footnote to Table 3 from Connelly et al 2000) The references reviewed by Connelly et al (2000) conducted their studies in locations generally considered more mesic than the Great Basin additionally the specific sagebrush habitat type will indicate different forb and grass capabilities

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Hagen et al (2007) also provides a review and meta-analysis of the research from areas outside of the Great Basin See comments on this paper under Residual Grass Height section below

Brood-Rearing Deep rooted perennial bunchgrass within 200 meters (522 ft) of riparian areas wet meadows Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors found sage grouse hens selected areas with average perennial forb cover of 443 +- 041 whereas random sites were found to average 269 +- 051 forb cover NOTE The Mono County CA area is a productive and unique region of the sagebrush biome primarily dominated by mountain big sagebrush and low sagebrush as noted by the authors Low sagebrush communities in areas with greater than 12 inches of annual precipitation are typically forb rich Utilizing this one study to set a perennial forb habitat objective for the Great Basin wide range of GRSG is not appropriate and ecologically not achievable in many sagebrush communities More research by MLRA and DRG is recommended

Brood-rearing Residual Grass Height

Given the recent published research (see report) all citations justifying a residual grass height requirement in Table 2-2 should be thoughtfully reconsidered Additionally the Casazza et al 2011 reference does not address residual grass height

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

36

Hagen et al (2007) provides a review and meta-data analysis of a number of studies from several western states (not including Nevada) They found female sage-grouse selected nest sites with generally more sagebrush cover and taller grass heights than random sites Total shrub cover had a larger effect size than sagebrush only Average sagebrush canopy cover for nesting was 2151 across studies (n=19) Total shrub cover for nesting was 2513 across studies (n=24) Additionally taller grasses were selected more so during early brood rearing than during late brood rearing The proximity of early brood rearing to nesting sites may have contributed to this result As broods mature tall stature grasses appeared to be less important Without revisiting each study included in Hagenrsquos meta-analysis it is not possible to determine whether or not sampling bias exists in regards to measurement timing of grass height however given recent revelations (Gibson et al 2016 Smith et al 2017 McConnell et a 2017) caution is warranted in excepting the results of this analysis Average grass height for nesting was 1977 cm (n=20)

Connelly et al 2000 is cited for perennial grass height (see References from Connelly et al 2000 in Sage grouse habitat references table) Height determined in mountain big sagebrush community (see summary above)

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Reference is cited for residual grass height requirement in Table 2-2 Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors did not include residual grass height in their study of habitat variables associated with brood success of Greater Sage-Grouse They did include visual obstruction and they found visual obstruction was NOT important to brood survival The important findings in this study relate to perennial forbs and meadow edge as predictors of brood survival (see comments under Upland Habitat Cover and Food Riparian and Meadow Habitat)

BROOD-REARINGSUMMER RiparianMeadow Habitats

Brood-rearing Upland and riparian perennial forb availability and species richness

Stiver SJ ET Rinkes DE Naugle PD Makela DA Nance and JW Karl eds 2015 Sage-Grouse habitat assessment framework A multiscale assessment tool Technical Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver Colorado

Stiver et al (2015) provide a review of literature on sage-grouse habitat research and recommendations for habitat guidelines This is not new research A table of preferred food forbs is provided on p 109

37

Ecological potential and current year climate will be important drivers of this habitat requirement

Brood-rearing Riparian areameadow interspersion with adjacent sagebrush

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) The authors did find that the density of meadow edge at the 79ha scale was related to brood success and that successful broods were associated with areas with higher number of plant species

Note Given the bias with vegetation sampling time periods that has recently come to light (Gibson et al 2016 Smith 2016 McConnell et al 2017) discussed in body of report it would be important to ascertain if habitat variables were measured at the same time for successful and unsuccessful broods This was not clear in the manuscript

WINTER

Winter Sagebrush cover gt 10 above snow depth

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Additionally the Wyoming big sagebrush communities are the primary winter habitats for sage grouse in the Great Basin The ecological potential of this sagebrush species needs to be considered by MLRA and DRG Line intercept data (see full report) suggests an average cover of 16 occurs in MLRA 25 without snow cover Additional research is needed in this area

Winter Sagebrush height gt 98 inches above the snow

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Sagebrush height in the Wyoming big sagebrush communities will vary by site potential Further research is needed in this area

USGS (in prep C) has not been provided See previous note concerning this citation

38

References

Aldridge C L and M S Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence Habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17508-526

Blomberg E J J S Sedinger M T Atamian and D V Nonne 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 31-20

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems Impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates P S and D J Delehanty 2010 Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators Journal of Wildlife Management 74240-248

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly J W K P Reese and M A Schroeder 2003 Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80 University of Idaho Moscow Idaho USA

Doherty K E D E Naugle B L Walker and J M Graham 2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development The Journal of Wildlife Management 72187-195

Gibson D E J Blomberg and J S Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11) 3621-3631

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Kolada E J J S Sedinger and M L Casazza 2009 Nest site selection by Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731333-1340

Kolada E J M L Casazza and J S Sedinger 2009 Ecological factors influencing nest survival of Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731341-1347

39

Lockyer Z B P S Coates M L Casazza S Espinosa and D J Delehanty 2015 Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada The Journal of Wildlife Management 79785-797

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

Smith JT 2016 Landscape to Local A Multi-Scale Evaluation of Voluntary Efforts to Reduce Fragmentation and Enhance Management of Rangelands for Sage-Grouse Theses Dissertations Professional Papers 10902 Scholar Works at University of Montana

Stiver S J E T Rinkes D E Naugle P D Makela D A Nance and J W Karl 2015 Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework a multiscale assessment tool Technicial Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver CO

40

Appendix C State and Transition Model Diagrams and AIM Plot Photos MLRA 25 NV

State and Transition Model Reports available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Note on Percent Shrub Foliar Cover Alive vs Dead values

Percent dead shrub cover values are included as notes next to the plot photos in this report to visualize some of the variation in live vs dead shrub cover In the AIM line point intercept protocol a foliar hit is counted as dead if the entire individual is dead or if the branch or twig that was hit appears to be dead In the AIM dataset dead shrub cover is expressed as a percent of total shrub foliar cover rather than as its own cover value Thus our shrub foliar cover values in this report often include ldquodeadrdquo cover that has been unaccounted for For example if you have 20 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover and 5 rabbitbrush foliar cover with no other shrub species you would have 25 shrub foliar cover Of this 25 foliar cover 10 of it is marked as dead While species of the dead individuals is attempted in the field we chose not to report dead shrubs by species here due to the uncertainty of this determination

Photos visually demonstrate the range of variability in plant communities

Low sagebrush

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 02 393 low sagebrush 06 DRPG 0 Idaho fescue 73 Sandberg bluegrass 93 mat forming forbs This plot had 135 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 191) This plot has some of the highest levels of mat forming forbs and very low deep rooted perennial grass cover Phase 31 in the Group 1 state and transition model Note 393 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 308 canopy cover

36

Hagen et al (2007) provides a review and meta-data analysis of a number of studies from several western states (not including Nevada) They found female sage-grouse selected nest sites with generally more sagebrush cover and taller grass heights than random sites Total shrub cover had a larger effect size than sagebrush only Average sagebrush canopy cover for nesting was 2151 across studies (n=19) Total shrub cover for nesting was 2513 across studies (n=24) Additionally taller grasses were selected more so during early brood rearing than during late brood rearing The proximity of early brood rearing to nesting sites may have contributed to this result As broods mature tall stature grasses appeared to be less important Without revisiting each study included in Hagenrsquos meta-analysis it is not possible to determine whether or not sampling bias exists in regards to measurement timing of grass height however given recent revelations (Gibson et al 2016 Smith et al 2017 McConnell et a 2017) caution is warranted in excepting the results of this analysis Average grass height for nesting was 1977 cm (n=20)

Connelly et al 2000 is cited for perennial grass height (see References from Connelly et al 2000 in Sage grouse habitat references table) Height determined in mountain big sagebrush community (see summary above)

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Reference is cited for residual grass height requirement in Table 2-2 Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) Area was predominately mountain big sagebrush interspersed with low sagebrush Authors did not include residual grass height in their study of habitat variables associated with brood success of Greater Sage-Grouse They did include visual obstruction and they found visual obstruction was NOT important to brood survival The important findings in this study relate to perennial forbs and meadow edge as predictors of brood survival (see comments under Upland Habitat Cover and Food Riparian and Meadow Habitat)

BROOD-REARINGSUMMER RiparianMeadow Habitats

Brood-rearing Upland and riparian perennial forb availability and species richness

Stiver SJ ET Rinkes DE Naugle PD Makela DA Nance and JW Karl eds 2015 Sage-Grouse habitat assessment framework A multiscale assessment tool Technical Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver Colorado

Stiver et al (2015) provide a review of literature on sage-grouse habitat research and recommendations for habitat guidelines This is not new research A table of preferred food forbs is provided on p 109

37

Ecological potential and current year climate will be important drivers of this habitat requirement

Brood-rearing Riparian areameadow interspersion with adjacent sagebrush

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) The authors did find that the density of meadow edge at the 79ha scale was related to brood success and that successful broods were associated with areas with higher number of plant species

Note Given the bias with vegetation sampling time periods that has recently come to light (Gibson et al 2016 Smith 2016 McConnell et al 2017) discussed in body of report it would be important to ascertain if habitat variables were measured at the same time for successful and unsuccessful broods This was not clear in the manuscript

WINTER

Winter Sagebrush cover gt 10 above snow depth

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Additionally the Wyoming big sagebrush communities are the primary winter habitats for sage grouse in the Great Basin The ecological potential of this sagebrush species needs to be considered by MLRA and DRG Line intercept data (see full report) suggests an average cover of 16 occurs in MLRA 25 without snow cover Additional research is needed in this area

Winter Sagebrush height gt 98 inches above the snow

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Sagebrush height in the Wyoming big sagebrush communities will vary by site potential Further research is needed in this area

USGS (in prep C) has not been provided See previous note concerning this citation

38

References

Aldridge C L and M S Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence Habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17508-526

Blomberg E J J S Sedinger M T Atamian and D V Nonne 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 31-20

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems Impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates P S and D J Delehanty 2010 Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators Journal of Wildlife Management 74240-248

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly J W K P Reese and M A Schroeder 2003 Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80 University of Idaho Moscow Idaho USA

Doherty K E D E Naugle B L Walker and J M Graham 2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development The Journal of Wildlife Management 72187-195

Gibson D E J Blomberg and J S Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11) 3621-3631

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Kolada E J J S Sedinger and M L Casazza 2009 Nest site selection by Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731333-1340

Kolada E J M L Casazza and J S Sedinger 2009 Ecological factors influencing nest survival of Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731341-1347

39

Lockyer Z B P S Coates M L Casazza S Espinosa and D J Delehanty 2015 Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada The Journal of Wildlife Management 79785-797

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

Smith JT 2016 Landscape to Local A Multi-Scale Evaluation of Voluntary Efforts to Reduce Fragmentation and Enhance Management of Rangelands for Sage-Grouse Theses Dissertations Professional Papers 10902 Scholar Works at University of Montana

Stiver S J E T Rinkes D E Naugle P D Makela D A Nance and J W Karl 2015 Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework a multiscale assessment tool Technicial Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver CO

40

Appendix C State and Transition Model Diagrams and AIM Plot Photos MLRA 25 NV

State and Transition Model Reports available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Note on Percent Shrub Foliar Cover Alive vs Dead values

Percent dead shrub cover values are included as notes next to the plot photos in this report to visualize some of the variation in live vs dead shrub cover In the AIM line point intercept protocol a foliar hit is counted as dead if the entire individual is dead or if the branch or twig that was hit appears to be dead In the AIM dataset dead shrub cover is expressed as a percent of total shrub foliar cover rather than as its own cover value Thus our shrub foliar cover values in this report often include ldquodeadrdquo cover that has been unaccounted for For example if you have 20 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover and 5 rabbitbrush foliar cover with no other shrub species you would have 25 shrub foliar cover Of this 25 foliar cover 10 of it is marked as dead While species of the dead individuals is attempted in the field we chose not to report dead shrubs by species here due to the uncertainty of this determination

Photos visually demonstrate the range of variability in plant communities

Low sagebrush

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 02 393 low sagebrush 06 DRPG 0 Idaho fescue 73 Sandberg bluegrass 93 mat forming forbs This plot had 135 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 191) This plot has some of the highest levels of mat forming forbs and very low deep rooted perennial grass cover Phase 31 in the Group 1 state and transition model Note 393 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 308 canopy cover

37

Ecological potential and current year climate will be important drivers of this habitat requirement

Brood-rearing Riparian areameadow interspersion with adjacent sagebrush

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Study was conducted in Mono County CA Authors acknowledge the areas studied have relatively more mesic sites and higher annual precipitation (average = 1417 in) where sage grouse occur in Mono County than where they occur in other areas within the Great Basin which is the core of sage grouse distribution (p163-164) The authors did find that the density of meadow edge at the 79ha scale was related to brood success and that successful broods were associated with areas with higher number of plant species

Note Given the bias with vegetation sampling time periods that has recently come to light (Gibson et al 2016 Smith 2016 McConnell et al 2017) discussed in body of report it would be important to ascertain if habitat variables were measured at the same time for successful and unsuccessful broods This was not clear in the manuscript

WINTER

Winter Sagebrush cover gt 10 above snow depth

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Additionally the Wyoming big sagebrush communities are the primary winter habitats for sage grouse in the Great Basin The ecological potential of this sagebrush species needs to be considered by MLRA and DRG Line intercept data (see full report) suggests an average cover of 16 occurs in MLRA 25 without snow cover Additional research is needed in this area

Winter Sagebrush height gt 98 inches above the snow

Connelly et al (2000) has been previously reviewed Sagebrush height in the Wyoming big sagebrush communities will vary by site potential Further research is needed in this area

USGS (in prep C) has not been provided See previous note concerning this citation

38

References

Aldridge C L and M S Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence Habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17508-526

Blomberg E J J S Sedinger M T Atamian and D V Nonne 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 31-20

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems Impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates P S and D J Delehanty 2010 Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators Journal of Wildlife Management 74240-248

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly J W K P Reese and M A Schroeder 2003 Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80 University of Idaho Moscow Idaho USA

Doherty K E D E Naugle B L Walker and J M Graham 2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development The Journal of Wildlife Management 72187-195

Gibson D E J Blomberg and J S Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11) 3621-3631

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Kolada E J J S Sedinger and M L Casazza 2009 Nest site selection by Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731333-1340

Kolada E J M L Casazza and J S Sedinger 2009 Ecological factors influencing nest survival of Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731341-1347

39

Lockyer Z B P S Coates M L Casazza S Espinosa and D J Delehanty 2015 Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada The Journal of Wildlife Management 79785-797

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

Smith JT 2016 Landscape to Local A Multi-Scale Evaluation of Voluntary Efforts to Reduce Fragmentation and Enhance Management of Rangelands for Sage-Grouse Theses Dissertations Professional Papers 10902 Scholar Works at University of Montana

Stiver S J E T Rinkes D E Naugle P D Makela D A Nance and J W Karl 2015 Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework a multiscale assessment tool Technicial Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver CO

40

Appendix C State and Transition Model Diagrams and AIM Plot Photos MLRA 25 NV

State and Transition Model Reports available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Note on Percent Shrub Foliar Cover Alive vs Dead values

Percent dead shrub cover values are included as notes next to the plot photos in this report to visualize some of the variation in live vs dead shrub cover In the AIM line point intercept protocol a foliar hit is counted as dead if the entire individual is dead or if the branch or twig that was hit appears to be dead In the AIM dataset dead shrub cover is expressed as a percent of total shrub foliar cover rather than as its own cover value Thus our shrub foliar cover values in this report often include ldquodeadrdquo cover that has been unaccounted for For example if you have 20 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover and 5 rabbitbrush foliar cover with no other shrub species you would have 25 shrub foliar cover Of this 25 foliar cover 10 of it is marked as dead While species of the dead individuals is attempted in the field we chose not to report dead shrubs by species here due to the uncertainty of this determination

Photos visually demonstrate the range of variability in plant communities

Low sagebrush

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 02 393 low sagebrush 06 DRPG 0 Idaho fescue 73 Sandberg bluegrass 93 mat forming forbs This plot had 135 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 191) This plot has some of the highest levels of mat forming forbs and very low deep rooted perennial grass cover Phase 31 in the Group 1 state and transition model Note 393 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 308 canopy cover

38

References

Aldridge C L and M S Boyce 2007 Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence Habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse Ecological Applications 17508-526

Blomberg E J J S Sedinger M T Atamian and D V Nonne 2012 Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations Ecosphere 31-20

Casazza M L P S Coates and C T Overton 2011 Linking habitat selection to brood success in greater sage-grouse In M K Sandercock K Martin and G Segelbacher (editors) Ecology Conservation and Management of Grouse University of California Press Berkeley Pp 151-167

Coates P S B G Prochaska M A Ricca K B Gustafson P Ziegler M L Casazza 2017 Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems Impacts distribution and survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Rangeland Ecology and Management 7025-38

Coates P S and D J Delehanty 2010 Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to microhabitat factors and predators Journal of Wildlife Management 74240-248

Coates P S ML Casazza EJ Blomberg SC Gardner SP Espinosa JL Yee L Wiechman and BJ Halstead 2013 Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal space use relative to Leks Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush ecosystems The J of Wildlife Management 77(8)1598-1609

Connelly J W M A Schroeder A R Sands and C E Braun 2000 Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats Wildlife Society Bulletin 28967-985

Connelly J W K P Reese and M A Schroeder 2003 Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats and Populations College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80 University of Idaho Moscow Idaho USA

Doherty K E D E Naugle B L Walker and J M Graham 2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development The Journal of Wildlife Management 72187-195

Gibson D E J Blomberg and J S Sedinger 2016 Evaluating vegetation effects on animal demographics the role of plant phenology and sampling bias Ecology and Evolution 6(11) 3621-3631

Hagen C A J W Connelly and M A Schroeder 2007 A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats Wildlife Biology 1342-50

Kolada E J J S Sedinger and M L Casazza 2009 Nest site selection by Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731333-1340

Kolada E J M L Casazza and J S Sedinger 2009 Ecological factors influencing nest survival of Greater sage-grouse in Mono County California Journal of Wildlife Management 731341-1347

39

Lockyer Z B P S Coates M L Casazza S Espinosa and D J Delehanty 2015 Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada The Journal of Wildlife Management 79785-797

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

Smith JT 2016 Landscape to Local A Multi-Scale Evaluation of Voluntary Efforts to Reduce Fragmentation and Enhance Management of Rangelands for Sage-Grouse Theses Dissertations Professional Papers 10902 Scholar Works at University of Montana

Stiver S J E T Rinkes D E Naugle P D Makela D A Nance and J W Karl 2015 Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework a multiscale assessment tool Technicial Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver CO

40

Appendix C State and Transition Model Diagrams and AIM Plot Photos MLRA 25 NV

State and Transition Model Reports available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Note on Percent Shrub Foliar Cover Alive vs Dead values

Percent dead shrub cover values are included as notes next to the plot photos in this report to visualize some of the variation in live vs dead shrub cover In the AIM line point intercept protocol a foliar hit is counted as dead if the entire individual is dead or if the branch or twig that was hit appears to be dead In the AIM dataset dead shrub cover is expressed as a percent of total shrub foliar cover rather than as its own cover value Thus our shrub foliar cover values in this report often include ldquodeadrdquo cover that has been unaccounted for For example if you have 20 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover and 5 rabbitbrush foliar cover with no other shrub species you would have 25 shrub foliar cover Of this 25 foliar cover 10 of it is marked as dead While species of the dead individuals is attempted in the field we chose not to report dead shrubs by species here due to the uncertainty of this determination

Photos visually demonstrate the range of variability in plant communities

Low sagebrush

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 02 393 low sagebrush 06 DRPG 0 Idaho fescue 73 Sandberg bluegrass 93 mat forming forbs This plot had 135 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 191) This plot has some of the highest levels of mat forming forbs and very low deep rooted perennial grass cover Phase 31 in the Group 1 state and transition model Note 393 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 308 canopy cover

39

Lockyer Z B P S Coates M L Casazza S Espinosa and D J Delehanty 2015 Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada The Journal of Wildlife Management 79785-797

McConnell MD AP Monroe LW Burger Jr J A Martin 2017 Timing of nest vegetation measurement may obscure adaptive significance of nest-site characteristics A simulation study Ecology and Evolution 71259-1270

Prochaska B G PS Coates MA Ricca ML Casazza K B Gustafson and J M Hull 2017 Encounters with Pinyon-Juniper influence riskier movements in Greater Sage-Grouse across the Great Basin Rangeland Ecology and Management 7039-49

Smith JT 2016 Landscape to Local A Multi-Scale Evaluation of Voluntary Efforts to Reduce Fragmentation and Enhance Management of Rangelands for Sage-Grouse Theses Dissertations Professional Papers 10902 Scholar Works at University of Montana

Stiver S J E T Rinkes D E Naugle P D Makela D A Nance and J W Karl 2015 Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework a multiscale assessment tool Technicial Reference 6710-1 Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Denver CO

40

Appendix C State and Transition Model Diagrams and AIM Plot Photos MLRA 25 NV

State and Transition Model Reports available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Note on Percent Shrub Foliar Cover Alive vs Dead values

Percent dead shrub cover values are included as notes next to the plot photos in this report to visualize some of the variation in live vs dead shrub cover In the AIM line point intercept protocol a foliar hit is counted as dead if the entire individual is dead or if the branch or twig that was hit appears to be dead In the AIM dataset dead shrub cover is expressed as a percent of total shrub foliar cover rather than as its own cover value Thus our shrub foliar cover values in this report often include ldquodeadrdquo cover that has been unaccounted for For example if you have 20 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover and 5 rabbitbrush foliar cover with no other shrub species you would have 25 shrub foliar cover Of this 25 foliar cover 10 of it is marked as dead While species of the dead individuals is attempted in the field we chose not to report dead shrubs by species here due to the uncertainty of this determination

Photos visually demonstrate the range of variability in plant communities

Low sagebrush

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 02 393 low sagebrush 06 DRPG 0 Idaho fescue 73 Sandberg bluegrass 93 mat forming forbs This plot had 135 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 191) This plot has some of the highest levels of mat forming forbs and very low deep rooted perennial grass cover Phase 31 in the Group 1 state and transition model Note 393 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 308 canopy cover

40

Appendix C State and Transition Model Diagrams and AIM Plot Photos MLRA 25 NV

State and Transition Model Reports available at httpwwwcabnrunreduresourcesMLRAaspx

Note on Percent Shrub Foliar Cover Alive vs Dead values

Percent dead shrub cover values are included as notes next to the plot photos in this report to visualize some of the variation in live vs dead shrub cover In the AIM line point intercept protocol a foliar hit is counted as dead if the entire individual is dead or if the branch or twig that was hit appears to be dead In the AIM dataset dead shrub cover is expressed as a percent of total shrub foliar cover rather than as its own cover value Thus our shrub foliar cover values in this report often include ldquodeadrdquo cover that has been unaccounted for For example if you have 20 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover and 5 rabbitbrush foliar cover with no other shrub species you would have 25 shrub foliar cover Of this 25 foliar cover 10 of it is marked as dead While species of the dead individuals is attempted in the field we chose not to report dead shrubs by species here due to the uncertainty of this determination

Photos visually demonstrate the range of variability in plant communities

Low sagebrush

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 02 393 low sagebrush 06 DRPG 0 Idaho fescue 73 Sandberg bluegrass 93 mat forming forbs This plot had 135 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 191) This plot has some of the highest levels of mat forming forbs and very low deep rooted perennial grass cover Phase 31 in the Group 1 state and transition model Note 393 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 308 canopy cover

41

2015 EKDO Town Creek 03 253 low sagebrush 45 DRPG (squirreltail and bluebunch wheatgrass) 0 Idaho fescue 6 Sandberg bluegrass 53 mat forming forbs 13 cheatgrass 45 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 257) This site is in Group 1 phase 23 (at-risk) Note 253 foliar cover of low sagebrush converts to 198 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Taylor Canyon 02 227 low sagebrush 106 DRPG (6 Idaho fescue 33 squirreltail) 16 Sandberg bluegrass 13 mat forming forbs (including bur buttercup) 0 cheatgrass 35 dead shrub cover (MLRA 25 Plot 250) This site is in group 2 phase 23 because it has heavy shrub cover and an increase in mule-ears (2) which are indicative of historical inappropriate grazing Note 227 low sagebrush foliar cover converts to 178 canopy cover

42

2015 EKDO Bishop Flat 01 273 low sagebrush 16 DRPG (147 squirreltail) 106 Sandberg bluegrass 0 Idaho fescue 33 mat forming forbs 4 other perennial forbs 4 cheatgrass 49 dead shrub cover (Plot 33) This site is in phase 21 or 22 because of the amount of dead shrub cover and the dominance of bottlebrush squirreltail Squirreltail is intermediate in rooting depth between bluebunch wheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass Shrub decadence could be due to the effects of drought Note 273 low sagebrush foliar cover converts to 214 low sagebrush canopy cover

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 03 26 low sagebrush 22 DRPG (16 Idaho fescue 46 bluebunch wheatgrass) 5 Sandberg bluegrass 06 mat forming forbs 67 dead shrub cover (192) This site is in Reference Condition phase 13 in Group 2 because it has intact Idaho fescue and no invasive annual grasses Note 26 low sagebrush foliar cover converts to 204 low sagebrush canopy cover

43

2015 EKDO Trout Creek 01 227 low sagebrush 106 DRPG (all bluebunch wheatgrass) 12 Sandberg bluegrass 93 cheatgrass 19 mat forming forbs 113 dead shrub cover (258) This site is in phase 23 in Group 1 because sagebrush is on the upper end of ecological site capacity native bunchgrass cover is less than expected in 21 Sandberg bluegrass is greater than expected for 21 and cheatgrass is increasing Note 227 foliar cover converts to 178 canopy cover

44

MLRA 25

Group 1

Claypan 10-12

025XY018NV

41Cheatgrass mustards bur buttercup etc dominate Sandberg bluegrasssquirreltail may still be presentPerennial forbs may still be presentErosion may be significant

Annual State 40 Shrub State 3031 (at risk)

Low sagebrush dominatesRabbitbrush may increaseSandberg bluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-natives species may be present

32Sandberg bluegrass dominatesAnnual non-native species may be present but are not dominantLow sagebrush minor componentSprouting shrubs increase

31a 32a

Eroded State 50

51Low sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate overstorySandberg bluegrass andor annual non-native species dominate understorySoils actively eroding bare ground significantly increased excessive frost-heaving pedestalling

T2A T2B

T3A

T4A

T3B

Reference State 10

11Low sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass co-dominate

12 Bluebunch wheatgrass Thurberrsquos needlegrass and squirreltail dominate Low sagebrush reduced

13 Low sagebrush dominatesPerennial understory is reduced

11a

12a

11b

Current Potential State 20

23 (at risk)Low sagebrush and rabbitbrush increaseBluebunch wheatgrass and needlegrasses decreaseSandberg bluegrass andor mat forming forbs may increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Low sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass co-dominateAnnual non-native species present

22 Bluebunch wheatgrass squirreltail and other perennial grasses dominate Low sagebrush reducedAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21a

22a

21b

T1A

13b

23b

13a

23a

24Low sagebrush reducedNative bunchgrasses may decreaseAnnual non-native species increase and may be sub-dominant (dependent on aspect)

24b22b24a

21c

45

MLRA 25

Group 2

Claypan 12-16

025XY017NV

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominate

13Low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass increases

Shrub State 30

31Decadent low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceSandberg bluegrass increasesRabbitbrush may increaseMule-ears andor balsamroot may be present to increasingAnnual non-natives species may be present but are not dominant

32 (At Risk)Sandberg bluegrass dominatesRabbitbrush may be sproutingIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceMule-ears may be significant component Low sagebrush traceAnnual non-natives may be present

T2A

T2C

T3B

12 Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass dominateLow sagebrush reducedForbs stable to increasing

11a12a

11b

Current Potential State 2022

Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominate Low sagebrush reducedAnnual non-natives may be presentPerennial forbs may increase or dominate for a few years

21Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominateAnnual non-natives may be present but are not dominant

23 (At Risk)Low sagebrush dominatesMule-ears and mat forming forbs increasePerennial bunchgrasses reducedSandberg bluegrass increases Annual non-natives may be present

21a

22a

21b

T1A

Annual State 50

51 Cheatgrass mustards andor bur buttercup dominateSandberg bluegrass may be presentBare ground highly variablePerennial forbs may be presentTrace seeded species may be present

23b

13a

23a

13b

31a 32a

Forb State 40

41Mule-ears balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateLow sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B R4A

T3A

24 (At Risk)Annual non-native species increase and may be sub-dominant (dependent on aspect)Low sagebrush reducedNative perennial bunchgrasses may be reduced

22b24b24a

21c

46

Wyoming big sagebrush

The Wyoming big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 4 This DRG is defined by a dominance of Wyoming big sagebrush and generally bluebunch wheatgrass

The Wyoming big sagebrush dataset had the largest number of plots at N=50 Wyoming big sagebrush plots in the Nevada AIM dataset for MLRA 25 have an average of 37 deep-rooted perennial grass cover (DRPG) Percent cover of DRPG ranges from 0 to 87 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 0 to 348 with a mean of 92 During analysis it became clear that the Wyoming big sagebrush sites that had DRPG cover over 87 should be omitted from this analysis for the following reasons they were in a different disturbance response group or they had recently burned Sites with high cover of needle and thread grass fall into DRG 5 which has an ashy soil and high productivity compared to group 4 so these sites were removed

From the AIM data we can see photos of the range of variability in this plant community

2015 WMDO Little Owyhee 06 Foliar Cover Wyoming big sagebrush 30 lt7 DRPG (squirreltail) 362 dead shrub branches (MLRA 25 Plot 154) Shrub state 30 community phase 31 with a squirreltail understory Although the NV ESD team discussed in detail the need to update the Loamy 8-10 ES to reflect squirreltail as a current potential dominant understory component in this MLRA to-date that has not occurred therefore Wyoming big sagebrush ndash squirreltail communities are considered degraded from current potential This plot has excessive sagebrush cover and reduced lacking bluebunch wheatgrass or Indian ricegrass cover Note 30 foliar cover of Wyoming sagebrush converts to 265 canopy cover

47

2012 EKDO Dorsey 03 347 ARTRW8 (5 dead branches) 60 (Squirreltail with lt 1 Idaho fescue) 18 Sandberg bluegrass cheatgrass lt1 (MLRA 25 Plot 91) Shrub State 31 Note 347 Wyoming sagebrush foliar converts to 306 canopy cover

2012 WMDO Spring Creek 04 173 Wyoming big sagebrush (258 dead branches) 113 DRPG (Squirreltail and Bluebunch wheatgrass) 240 Sandberg bluegrass 127 cheatgrass (MLRA 25 234) Phase 23 at risk Excessive cheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass cover along with rabbitbrush and sagebrush indicates a site at risk of transition to Annual State with fire or Shrub State with inappropriate grazing Note 173 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 153 canopy cover

48

2015 EKDO Cotant Seeding 01 133 ARTRW8 799 DRPG (55 HECO26 2 ELEL5) 66 POSE 26 BRTE (79) This site is in Phase 21 because of the codominance of perennial grasses and shrubs Note 133 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 117 canopy cover

49

These two sites were excluded from the final analysis because they have recently burned and have no shrub cover but are displayed here to illustrate the maximum level of grass cover seen in this sagebrush community type in MLRA 25

2012 EKDO Devils Gate 02 33 Wyoming big sagebrush 160 DRPG (147 Squirreltail 13 Idaho fescue) 133 Sandberg bluegrass (MLRA 25 Plot 89) 127 BRTE This site is in phase 22 because it recently burned and has some cheatgrass Note 33 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover converts to 29 canopy cover

2015 EKDO Mexican Field 02 4 Wyoming big sagebrush 66 Rubber rabbitbrush 22 DRPG (87 bluebunch wheatgrass 66 needleandthread grass 13 Indian ricegrass 47 squirreltail) 13 Sandberg bluegrass 0 BRTE This site would fall into the Reference State 12 Note 4 Wyoming sagebrush converts to 35 canopy cover

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

42

2015 EKDO Bishop Flat 01 273 low sagebrush 16 DRPG (147 squirreltail) 106 Sandberg bluegrass 0 Idaho fescue 33 mat forming forbs 4 other perennial forbs 4 cheatgrass 49 dead shrub cover (Plot 33) This site is in phase 21 or 22 because of the amount of dead shrub cover and the dominance of bottlebrush squirreltail Squirreltail is intermediate in rooting depth between bluebunch wheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass Shrub decadence could be due to the effects of drought Note 273 low sagebrush foliar cover converts to 214 low sagebrush canopy cover

2013 EKDO North Four Mile 03 26 low sagebrush 22 DRPG (16 Idaho fescue 46 bluebunch wheatgrass) 5 Sandberg bluegrass 06 mat forming forbs 67 dead shrub cover (192) This site is in Reference Condition phase 13 in Group 2 because it has intact Idaho fescue and no invasive annual grasses Note 26 low sagebrush foliar cover converts to 204 low sagebrush canopy cover

43

2015 EKDO Trout Creek 01 227 low sagebrush 106 DRPG (all bluebunch wheatgrass) 12 Sandberg bluegrass 93 cheatgrass 19 mat forming forbs 113 dead shrub cover (258) This site is in phase 23 in Group 1 because sagebrush is on the upper end of ecological site capacity native bunchgrass cover is less than expected in 21 Sandberg bluegrass is greater than expected for 21 and cheatgrass is increasing Note 227 foliar cover converts to 178 canopy cover

44

MLRA 25

Group 1

Claypan 10-12

025XY018NV

41Cheatgrass mustards bur buttercup etc dominate Sandberg bluegrasssquirreltail may still be presentPerennial forbs may still be presentErosion may be significant

Annual State 40 Shrub State 3031 (at risk)

Low sagebrush dominatesRabbitbrush may increaseSandberg bluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-natives species may be present

32Sandberg bluegrass dominatesAnnual non-native species may be present but are not dominantLow sagebrush minor componentSprouting shrubs increase

31a 32a

Eroded State 50

51Low sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate overstorySandberg bluegrass andor annual non-native species dominate understorySoils actively eroding bare ground significantly increased excessive frost-heaving pedestalling

T2A T2B

T3A

T4A

T3B

Reference State 10

11Low sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass co-dominate

12 Bluebunch wheatgrass Thurberrsquos needlegrass and squirreltail dominate Low sagebrush reduced

13 Low sagebrush dominatesPerennial understory is reduced

11a

12a

11b

Current Potential State 20

23 (at risk)Low sagebrush and rabbitbrush increaseBluebunch wheatgrass and needlegrasses decreaseSandberg bluegrass andor mat forming forbs may increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Low sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass co-dominateAnnual non-native species present

22 Bluebunch wheatgrass squirreltail and other perennial grasses dominate Low sagebrush reducedAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21a

22a

21b

T1A

13b

23b

13a

23a

24Low sagebrush reducedNative bunchgrasses may decreaseAnnual non-native species increase and may be sub-dominant (dependent on aspect)

24b22b24a

21c

45

MLRA 25

Group 2

Claypan 12-16

025XY017NV

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominate

13Low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass increases

Shrub State 30

31Decadent low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceSandberg bluegrass increasesRabbitbrush may increaseMule-ears andor balsamroot may be present to increasingAnnual non-natives species may be present but are not dominant

32 (At Risk)Sandberg bluegrass dominatesRabbitbrush may be sproutingIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceMule-ears may be significant component Low sagebrush traceAnnual non-natives may be present

T2A

T2C

T3B

12 Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass dominateLow sagebrush reducedForbs stable to increasing

11a12a

11b

Current Potential State 2022

Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominate Low sagebrush reducedAnnual non-natives may be presentPerennial forbs may increase or dominate for a few years

21Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominateAnnual non-natives may be present but are not dominant

23 (At Risk)Low sagebrush dominatesMule-ears and mat forming forbs increasePerennial bunchgrasses reducedSandberg bluegrass increases Annual non-natives may be present

21a

22a

21b

T1A

Annual State 50

51 Cheatgrass mustards andor bur buttercup dominateSandberg bluegrass may be presentBare ground highly variablePerennial forbs may be presentTrace seeded species may be present

23b

13a

23a

13b

31a 32a

Forb State 40

41Mule-ears balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateLow sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B R4A

T3A

24 (At Risk)Annual non-native species increase and may be sub-dominant (dependent on aspect)Low sagebrush reducedNative perennial bunchgrasses may be reduced

22b24b24a

21c

46

Wyoming big sagebrush

The Wyoming big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 4 This DRG is defined by a dominance of Wyoming big sagebrush and generally bluebunch wheatgrass

The Wyoming big sagebrush dataset had the largest number of plots at N=50 Wyoming big sagebrush plots in the Nevada AIM dataset for MLRA 25 have an average of 37 deep-rooted perennial grass cover (DRPG) Percent cover of DRPG ranges from 0 to 87 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 0 to 348 with a mean of 92 During analysis it became clear that the Wyoming big sagebrush sites that had DRPG cover over 87 should be omitted from this analysis for the following reasons they were in a different disturbance response group or they had recently burned Sites with high cover of needle and thread grass fall into DRG 5 which has an ashy soil and high productivity compared to group 4 so these sites were removed

From the AIM data we can see photos of the range of variability in this plant community

2015 WMDO Little Owyhee 06 Foliar Cover Wyoming big sagebrush 30 lt7 DRPG (squirreltail) 362 dead shrub branches (MLRA 25 Plot 154) Shrub state 30 community phase 31 with a squirreltail understory Although the NV ESD team discussed in detail the need to update the Loamy 8-10 ES to reflect squirreltail as a current potential dominant understory component in this MLRA to-date that has not occurred therefore Wyoming big sagebrush ndash squirreltail communities are considered degraded from current potential This plot has excessive sagebrush cover and reduced lacking bluebunch wheatgrass or Indian ricegrass cover Note 30 foliar cover of Wyoming sagebrush converts to 265 canopy cover

47

2012 EKDO Dorsey 03 347 ARTRW8 (5 dead branches) 60 (Squirreltail with lt 1 Idaho fescue) 18 Sandberg bluegrass cheatgrass lt1 (MLRA 25 Plot 91) Shrub State 31 Note 347 Wyoming sagebrush foliar converts to 306 canopy cover

2012 WMDO Spring Creek 04 173 Wyoming big sagebrush (258 dead branches) 113 DRPG (Squirreltail and Bluebunch wheatgrass) 240 Sandberg bluegrass 127 cheatgrass (MLRA 25 234) Phase 23 at risk Excessive cheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass cover along with rabbitbrush and sagebrush indicates a site at risk of transition to Annual State with fire or Shrub State with inappropriate grazing Note 173 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 153 canopy cover

48

2015 EKDO Cotant Seeding 01 133 ARTRW8 799 DRPG (55 HECO26 2 ELEL5) 66 POSE 26 BRTE (79) This site is in Phase 21 because of the codominance of perennial grasses and shrubs Note 133 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 117 canopy cover

49

These two sites were excluded from the final analysis because they have recently burned and have no shrub cover but are displayed here to illustrate the maximum level of grass cover seen in this sagebrush community type in MLRA 25

2012 EKDO Devils Gate 02 33 Wyoming big sagebrush 160 DRPG (147 Squirreltail 13 Idaho fescue) 133 Sandberg bluegrass (MLRA 25 Plot 89) 127 BRTE This site is in phase 22 because it recently burned and has some cheatgrass Note 33 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover converts to 29 canopy cover

2015 EKDO Mexican Field 02 4 Wyoming big sagebrush 66 Rubber rabbitbrush 22 DRPG (87 bluebunch wheatgrass 66 needleandthread grass 13 Indian ricegrass 47 squirreltail) 13 Sandberg bluegrass 0 BRTE This site would fall into the Reference State 12 Note 4 Wyoming sagebrush converts to 35 canopy cover

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

43

2015 EKDO Trout Creek 01 227 low sagebrush 106 DRPG (all bluebunch wheatgrass) 12 Sandberg bluegrass 93 cheatgrass 19 mat forming forbs 113 dead shrub cover (258) This site is in phase 23 in Group 1 because sagebrush is on the upper end of ecological site capacity native bunchgrass cover is less than expected in 21 Sandberg bluegrass is greater than expected for 21 and cheatgrass is increasing Note 227 foliar cover converts to 178 canopy cover

44

MLRA 25

Group 1

Claypan 10-12

025XY018NV

41Cheatgrass mustards bur buttercup etc dominate Sandberg bluegrasssquirreltail may still be presentPerennial forbs may still be presentErosion may be significant

Annual State 40 Shrub State 3031 (at risk)

Low sagebrush dominatesRabbitbrush may increaseSandberg bluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-natives species may be present

32Sandberg bluegrass dominatesAnnual non-native species may be present but are not dominantLow sagebrush minor componentSprouting shrubs increase

31a 32a

Eroded State 50

51Low sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate overstorySandberg bluegrass andor annual non-native species dominate understorySoils actively eroding bare ground significantly increased excessive frost-heaving pedestalling

T2A T2B

T3A

T4A

T3B

Reference State 10

11Low sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass co-dominate

12 Bluebunch wheatgrass Thurberrsquos needlegrass and squirreltail dominate Low sagebrush reduced

13 Low sagebrush dominatesPerennial understory is reduced

11a

12a

11b

Current Potential State 20

23 (at risk)Low sagebrush and rabbitbrush increaseBluebunch wheatgrass and needlegrasses decreaseSandberg bluegrass andor mat forming forbs may increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Low sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass co-dominateAnnual non-native species present

22 Bluebunch wheatgrass squirreltail and other perennial grasses dominate Low sagebrush reducedAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21a

22a

21b

T1A

13b

23b

13a

23a

24Low sagebrush reducedNative bunchgrasses may decreaseAnnual non-native species increase and may be sub-dominant (dependent on aspect)

24b22b24a

21c

45

MLRA 25

Group 2

Claypan 12-16

025XY017NV

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominate

13Low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass increases

Shrub State 30

31Decadent low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceSandberg bluegrass increasesRabbitbrush may increaseMule-ears andor balsamroot may be present to increasingAnnual non-natives species may be present but are not dominant

32 (At Risk)Sandberg bluegrass dominatesRabbitbrush may be sproutingIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceMule-ears may be significant component Low sagebrush traceAnnual non-natives may be present

T2A

T2C

T3B

12 Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass dominateLow sagebrush reducedForbs stable to increasing

11a12a

11b

Current Potential State 2022

Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominate Low sagebrush reducedAnnual non-natives may be presentPerennial forbs may increase or dominate for a few years

21Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominateAnnual non-natives may be present but are not dominant

23 (At Risk)Low sagebrush dominatesMule-ears and mat forming forbs increasePerennial bunchgrasses reducedSandberg bluegrass increases Annual non-natives may be present

21a

22a

21b

T1A

Annual State 50

51 Cheatgrass mustards andor bur buttercup dominateSandberg bluegrass may be presentBare ground highly variablePerennial forbs may be presentTrace seeded species may be present

23b

13a

23a

13b

31a 32a

Forb State 40

41Mule-ears balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateLow sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B R4A

T3A

24 (At Risk)Annual non-native species increase and may be sub-dominant (dependent on aspect)Low sagebrush reducedNative perennial bunchgrasses may be reduced

22b24b24a

21c

46

Wyoming big sagebrush

The Wyoming big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 4 This DRG is defined by a dominance of Wyoming big sagebrush and generally bluebunch wheatgrass

The Wyoming big sagebrush dataset had the largest number of plots at N=50 Wyoming big sagebrush plots in the Nevada AIM dataset for MLRA 25 have an average of 37 deep-rooted perennial grass cover (DRPG) Percent cover of DRPG ranges from 0 to 87 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 0 to 348 with a mean of 92 During analysis it became clear that the Wyoming big sagebrush sites that had DRPG cover over 87 should be omitted from this analysis for the following reasons they were in a different disturbance response group or they had recently burned Sites with high cover of needle and thread grass fall into DRG 5 which has an ashy soil and high productivity compared to group 4 so these sites were removed

From the AIM data we can see photos of the range of variability in this plant community

2015 WMDO Little Owyhee 06 Foliar Cover Wyoming big sagebrush 30 lt7 DRPG (squirreltail) 362 dead shrub branches (MLRA 25 Plot 154) Shrub state 30 community phase 31 with a squirreltail understory Although the NV ESD team discussed in detail the need to update the Loamy 8-10 ES to reflect squirreltail as a current potential dominant understory component in this MLRA to-date that has not occurred therefore Wyoming big sagebrush ndash squirreltail communities are considered degraded from current potential This plot has excessive sagebrush cover and reduced lacking bluebunch wheatgrass or Indian ricegrass cover Note 30 foliar cover of Wyoming sagebrush converts to 265 canopy cover

47

2012 EKDO Dorsey 03 347 ARTRW8 (5 dead branches) 60 (Squirreltail with lt 1 Idaho fescue) 18 Sandberg bluegrass cheatgrass lt1 (MLRA 25 Plot 91) Shrub State 31 Note 347 Wyoming sagebrush foliar converts to 306 canopy cover

2012 WMDO Spring Creek 04 173 Wyoming big sagebrush (258 dead branches) 113 DRPG (Squirreltail and Bluebunch wheatgrass) 240 Sandberg bluegrass 127 cheatgrass (MLRA 25 234) Phase 23 at risk Excessive cheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass cover along with rabbitbrush and sagebrush indicates a site at risk of transition to Annual State with fire or Shrub State with inappropriate grazing Note 173 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 153 canopy cover

48

2015 EKDO Cotant Seeding 01 133 ARTRW8 799 DRPG (55 HECO26 2 ELEL5) 66 POSE 26 BRTE (79) This site is in Phase 21 because of the codominance of perennial grasses and shrubs Note 133 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 117 canopy cover

49

These two sites were excluded from the final analysis because they have recently burned and have no shrub cover but are displayed here to illustrate the maximum level of grass cover seen in this sagebrush community type in MLRA 25

2012 EKDO Devils Gate 02 33 Wyoming big sagebrush 160 DRPG (147 Squirreltail 13 Idaho fescue) 133 Sandberg bluegrass (MLRA 25 Plot 89) 127 BRTE This site is in phase 22 because it recently burned and has some cheatgrass Note 33 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover converts to 29 canopy cover

2015 EKDO Mexican Field 02 4 Wyoming big sagebrush 66 Rubber rabbitbrush 22 DRPG (87 bluebunch wheatgrass 66 needleandthread grass 13 Indian ricegrass 47 squirreltail) 13 Sandberg bluegrass 0 BRTE This site would fall into the Reference State 12 Note 4 Wyoming sagebrush converts to 35 canopy cover

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

44

MLRA 25

Group 1

Claypan 10-12

025XY018NV

41Cheatgrass mustards bur buttercup etc dominate Sandberg bluegrasssquirreltail may still be presentPerennial forbs may still be presentErosion may be significant

Annual State 40 Shrub State 3031 (at risk)

Low sagebrush dominatesRabbitbrush may increaseSandberg bluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-natives species may be present

32Sandberg bluegrass dominatesAnnual non-native species may be present but are not dominantLow sagebrush minor componentSprouting shrubs increase

31a 32a

Eroded State 50

51Low sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate overstorySandberg bluegrass andor annual non-native species dominate understorySoils actively eroding bare ground significantly increased excessive frost-heaving pedestalling

T2A T2B

T3A

T4A

T3B

Reference State 10

11Low sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass co-dominate

12 Bluebunch wheatgrass Thurberrsquos needlegrass and squirreltail dominate Low sagebrush reduced

13 Low sagebrush dominatesPerennial understory is reduced

11a

12a

11b

Current Potential State 20

23 (at risk)Low sagebrush and rabbitbrush increaseBluebunch wheatgrass and needlegrasses decreaseSandberg bluegrass andor mat forming forbs may increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Low sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass co-dominateAnnual non-native species present

22 Bluebunch wheatgrass squirreltail and other perennial grasses dominate Low sagebrush reducedAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21a

22a

21b

T1A

13b

23b

13a

23a

24Low sagebrush reducedNative bunchgrasses may decreaseAnnual non-native species increase and may be sub-dominant (dependent on aspect)

24b22b24a

21c

45

MLRA 25

Group 2

Claypan 12-16

025XY017NV

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominate

13Low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass increases

Shrub State 30

31Decadent low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceSandberg bluegrass increasesRabbitbrush may increaseMule-ears andor balsamroot may be present to increasingAnnual non-natives species may be present but are not dominant

32 (At Risk)Sandberg bluegrass dominatesRabbitbrush may be sproutingIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceMule-ears may be significant component Low sagebrush traceAnnual non-natives may be present

T2A

T2C

T3B

12 Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass dominateLow sagebrush reducedForbs stable to increasing

11a12a

11b

Current Potential State 2022

Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominate Low sagebrush reducedAnnual non-natives may be presentPerennial forbs may increase or dominate for a few years

21Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominateAnnual non-natives may be present but are not dominant

23 (At Risk)Low sagebrush dominatesMule-ears and mat forming forbs increasePerennial bunchgrasses reducedSandberg bluegrass increases Annual non-natives may be present

21a

22a

21b

T1A

Annual State 50

51 Cheatgrass mustards andor bur buttercup dominateSandberg bluegrass may be presentBare ground highly variablePerennial forbs may be presentTrace seeded species may be present

23b

13a

23a

13b

31a 32a

Forb State 40

41Mule-ears balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateLow sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B R4A

T3A

24 (At Risk)Annual non-native species increase and may be sub-dominant (dependent on aspect)Low sagebrush reducedNative perennial bunchgrasses may be reduced

22b24b24a

21c

46

Wyoming big sagebrush

The Wyoming big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 4 This DRG is defined by a dominance of Wyoming big sagebrush and generally bluebunch wheatgrass

The Wyoming big sagebrush dataset had the largest number of plots at N=50 Wyoming big sagebrush plots in the Nevada AIM dataset for MLRA 25 have an average of 37 deep-rooted perennial grass cover (DRPG) Percent cover of DRPG ranges from 0 to 87 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 0 to 348 with a mean of 92 During analysis it became clear that the Wyoming big sagebrush sites that had DRPG cover over 87 should be omitted from this analysis for the following reasons they were in a different disturbance response group or they had recently burned Sites with high cover of needle and thread grass fall into DRG 5 which has an ashy soil and high productivity compared to group 4 so these sites were removed

From the AIM data we can see photos of the range of variability in this plant community

2015 WMDO Little Owyhee 06 Foliar Cover Wyoming big sagebrush 30 lt7 DRPG (squirreltail) 362 dead shrub branches (MLRA 25 Plot 154) Shrub state 30 community phase 31 with a squirreltail understory Although the NV ESD team discussed in detail the need to update the Loamy 8-10 ES to reflect squirreltail as a current potential dominant understory component in this MLRA to-date that has not occurred therefore Wyoming big sagebrush ndash squirreltail communities are considered degraded from current potential This plot has excessive sagebrush cover and reduced lacking bluebunch wheatgrass or Indian ricegrass cover Note 30 foliar cover of Wyoming sagebrush converts to 265 canopy cover

47

2012 EKDO Dorsey 03 347 ARTRW8 (5 dead branches) 60 (Squirreltail with lt 1 Idaho fescue) 18 Sandberg bluegrass cheatgrass lt1 (MLRA 25 Plot 91) Shrub State 31 Note 347 Wyoming sagebrush foliar converts to 306 canopy cover

2012 WMDO Spring Creek 04 173 Wyoming big sagebrush (258 dead branches) 113 DRPG (Squirreltail and Bluebunch wheatgrass) 240 Sandberg bluegrass 127 cheatgrass (MLRA 25 234) Phase 23 at risk Excessive cheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass cover along with rabbitbrush and sagebrush indicates a site at risk of transition to Annual State with fire or Shrub State with inappropriate grazing Note 173 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 153 canopy cover

48

2015 EKDO Cotant Seeding 01 133 ARTRW8 799 DRPG (55 HECO26 2 ELEL5) 66 POSE 26 BRTE (79) This site is in Phase 21 because of the codominance of perennial grasses and shrubs Note 133 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 117 canopy cover

49

These two sites were excluded from the final analysis because they have recently burned and have no shrub cover but are displayed here to illustrate the maximum level of grass cover seen in this sagebrush community type in MLRA 25

2012 EKDO Devils Gate 02 33 Wyoming big sagebrush 160 DRPG (147 Squirreltail 13 Idaho fescue) 133 Sandberg bluegrass (MLRA 25 Plot 89) 127 BRTE This site is in phase 22 because it recently burned and has some cheatgrass Note 33 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover converts to 29 canopy cover

2015 EKDO Mexican Field 02 4 Wyoming big sagebrush 66 Rubber rabbitbrush 22 DRPG (87 bluebunch wheatgrass 66 needleandthread grass 13 Indian ricegrass 47 squirreltail) 13 Sandberg bluegrass 0 BRTE This site would fall into the Reference State 12 Note 4 Wyoming sagebrush converts to 35 canopy cover

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

45

MLRA 25

Group 2

Claypan 12-16

025XY017NV

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominate

13Low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass increases

Shrub State 30

31Decadent low sagebrush dominatesIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceSandberg bluegrass increasesRabbitbrush may increaseMule-ears andor balsamroot may be present to increasingAnnual non-natives species may be present but are not dominant

32 (At Risk)Sandberg bluegrass dominatesRabbitbrush may be sproutingIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass traceMule-ears may be significant component Low sagebrush traceAnnual non-natives may be present

T2A

T2C

T3B

12 Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass dominateLow sagebrush reducedForbs stable to increasing

11a12a

11b

Current Potential State 2022

Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominate Low sagebrush reducedAnnual non-natives may be presentPerennial forbs may increase or dominate for a few years

21Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and low sagebrush dominateAnnual non-natives may be present but are not dominant

23 (At Risk)Low sagebrush dominatesMule-ears and mat forming forbs increasePerennial bunchgrasses reducedSandberg bluegrass increases Annual non-natives may be present

21a

22a

21b

T1A

Annual State 50

51 Cheatgrass mustards andor bur buttercup dominateSandberg bluegrass may be presentBare ground highly variablePerennial forbs may be presentTrace seeded species may be present

23b

13a

23a

13b

31a 32a

Forb State 40

41Mule-ears balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateLow sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B R4A

T3A

24 (At Risk)Annual non-native species increase and may be sub-dominant (dependent on aspect)Low sagebrush reducedNative perennial bunchgrasses may be reduced

22b24b24a

21c

46

Wyoming big sagebrush

The Wyoming big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 4 This DRG is defined by a dominance of Wyoming big sagebrush and generally bluebunch wheatgrass

The Wyoming big sagebrush dataset had the largest number of plots at N=50 Wyoming big sagebrush plots in the Nevada AIM dataset for MLRA 25 have an average of 37 deep-rooted perennial grass cover (DRPG) Percent cover of DRPG ranges from 0 to 87 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 0 to 348 with a mean of 92 During analysis it became clear that the Wyoming big sagebrush sites that had DRPG cover over 87 should be omitted from this analysis for the following reasons they were in a different disturbance response group or they had recently burned Sites with high cover of needle and thread grass fall into DRG 5 which has an ashy soil and high productivity compared to group 4 so these sites were removed

From the AIM data we can see photos of the range of variability in this plant community

2015 WMDO Little Owyhee 06 Foliar Cover Wyoming big sagebrush 30 lt7 DRPG (squirreltail) 362 dead shrub branches (MLRA 25 Plot 154) Shrub state 30 community phase 31 with a squirreltail understory Although the NV ESD team discussed in detail the need to update the Loamy 8-10 ES to reflect squirreltail as a current potential dominant understory component in this MLRA to-date that has not occurred therefore Wyoming big sagebrush ndash squirreltail communities are considered degraded from current potential This plot has excessive sagebrush cover and reduced lacking bluebunch wheatgrass or Indian ricegrass cover Note 30 foliar cover of Wyoming sagebrush converts to 265 canopy cover

47

2012 EKDO Dorsey 03 347 ARTRW8 (5 dead branches) 60 (Squirreltail with lt 1 Idaho fescue) 18 Sandberg bluegrass cheatgrass lt1 (MLRA 25 Plot 91) Shrub State 31 Note 347 Wyoming sagebrush foliar converts to 306 canopy cover

2012 WMDO Spring Creek 04 173 Wyoming big sagebrush (258 dead branches) 113 DRPG (Squirreltail and Bluebunch wheatgrass) 240 Sandberg bluegrass 127 cheatgrass (MLRA 25 234) Phase 23 at risk Excessive cheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass cover along with rabbitbrush and sagebrush indicates a site at risk of transition to Annual State with fire or Shrub State with inappropriate grazing Note 173 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 153 canopy cover

48

2015 EKDO Cotant Seeding 01 133 ARTRW8 799 DRPG (55 HECO26 2 ELEL5) 66 POSE 26 BRTE (79) This site is in Phase 21 because of the codominance of perennial grasses and shrubs Note 133 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 117 canopy cover

49

These two sites were excluded from the final analysis because they have recently burned and have no shrub cover but are displayed here to illustrate the maximum level of grass cover seen in this sagebrush community type in MLRA 25

2012 EKDO Devils Gate 02 33 Wyoming big sagebrush 160 DRPG (147 Squirreltail 13 Idaho fescue) 133 Sandberg bluegrass (MLRA 25 Plot 89) 127 BRTE This site is in phase 22 because it recently burned and has some cheatgrass Note 33 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover converts to 29 canopy cover

2015 EKDO Mexican Field 02 4 Wyoming big sagebrush 66 Rubber rabbitbrush 22 DRPG (87 bluebunch wheatgrass 66 needleandthread grass 13 Indian ricegrass 47 squirreltail) 13 Sandberg bluegrass 0 BRTE This site would fall into the Reference State 12 Note 4 Wyoming sagebrush converts to 35 canopy cover

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

46

Wyoming big sagebrush

The Wyoming big sagebrush data in the AIM dataset are considered to be in DRG 4 This DRG is defined by a dominance of Wyoming big sagebrush and generally bluebunch wheatgrass

The Wyoming big sagebrush dataset had the largest number of plots at N=50 Wyoming big sagebrush plots in the Nevada AIM dataset for MLRA 25 have an average of 37 deep-rooted perennial grass cover (DRPG) Percent cover of DRPG ranges from 0 to 87 Sandberg bluegrass cover ranged from 0 to 348 with a mean of 92 During analysis it became clear that the Wyoming big sagebrush sites that had DRPG cover over 87 should be omitted from this analysis for the following reasons they were in a different disturbance response group or they had recently burned Sites with high cover of needle and thread grass fall into DRG 5 which has an ashy soil and high productivity compared to group 4 so these sites were removed

From the AIM data we can see photos of the range of variability in this plant community

2015 WMDO Little Owyhee 06 Foliar Cover Wyoming big sagebrush 30 lt7 DRPG (squirreltail) 362 dead shrub branches (MLRA 25 Plot 154) Shrub state 30 community phase 31 with a squirreltail understory Although the NV ESD team discussed in detail the need to update the Loamy 8-10 ES to reflect squirreltail as a current potential dominant understory component in this MLRA to-date that has not occurred therefore Wyoming big sagebrush ndash squirreltail communities are considered degraded from current potential This plot has excessive sagebrush cover and reduced lacking bluebunch wheatgrass or Indian ricegrass cover Note 30 foliar cover of Wyoming sagebrush converts to 265 canopy cover

47

2012 EKDO Dorsey 03 347 ARTRW8 (5 dead branches) 60 (Squirreltail with lt 1 Idaho fescue) 18 Sandberg bluegrass cheatgrass lt1 (MLRA 25 Plot 91) Shrub State 31 Note 347 Wyoming sagebrush foliar converts to 306 canopy cover

2012 WMDO Spring Creek 04 173 Wyoming big sagebrush (258 dead branches) 113 DRPG (Squirreltail and Bluebunch wheatgrass) 240 Sandberg bluegrass 127 cheatgrass (MLRA 25 234) Phase 23 at risk Excessive cheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass cover along with rabbitbrush and sagebrush indicates a site at risk of transition to Annual State with fire or Shrub State with inappropriate grazing Note 173 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 153 canopy cover

48

2015 EKDO Cotant Seeding 01 133 ARTRW8 799 DRPG (55 HECO26 2 ELEL5) 66 POSE 26 BRTE (79) This site is in Phase 21 because of the codominance of perennial grasses and shrubs Note 133 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 117 canopy cover

49

These two sites were excluded from the final analysis because they have recently burned and have no shrub cover but are displayed here to illustrate the maximum level of grass cover seen in this sagebrush community type in MLRA 25

2012 EKDO Devils Gate 02 33 Wyoming big sagebrush 160 DRPG (147 Squirreltail 13 Idaho fescue) 133 Sandberg bluegrass (MLRA 25 Plot 89) 127 BRTE This site is in phase 22 because it recently burned and has some cheatgrass Note 33 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover converts to 29 canopy cover

2015 EKDO Mexican Field 02 4 Wyoming big sagebrush 66 Rubber rabbitbrush 22 DRPG (87 bluebunch wheatgrass 66 needleandthread grass 13 Indian ricegrass 47 squirreltail) 13 Sandberg bluegrass 0 BRTE This site would fall into the Reference State 12 Note 4 Wyoming sagebrush converts to 35 canopy cover

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

47

2012 EKDO Dorsey 03 347 ARTRW8 (5 dead branches) 60 (Squirreltail with lt 1 Idaho fescue) 18 Sandberg bluegrass cheatgrass lt1 (MLRA 25 Plot 91) Shrub State 31 Note 347 Wyoming sagebrush foliar converts to 306 canopy cover

2012 WMDO Spring Creek 04 173 Wyoming big sagebrush (258 dead branches) 113 DRPG (Squirreltail and Bluebunch wheatgrass) 240 Sandberg bluegrass 127 cheatgrass (MLRA 25 234) Phase 23 at risk Excessive cheatgrass and Sandberg bluegrass cover along with rabbitbrush and sagebrush indicates a site at risk of transition to Annual State with fire or Shrub State with inappropriate grazing Note 173 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 153 canopy cover

48

2015 EKDO Cotant Seeding 01 133 ARTRW8 799 DRPG (55 HECO26 2 ELEL5) 66 POSE 26 BRTE (79) This site is in Phase 21 because of the codominance of perennial grasses and shrubs Note 133 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 117 canopy cover

49

These two sites were excluded from the final analysis because they have recently burned and have no shrub cover but are displayed here to illustrate the maximum level of grass cover seen in this sagebrush community type in MLRA 25

2012 EKDO Devils Gate 02 33 Wyoming big sagebrush 160 DRPG (147 Squirreltail 13 Idaho fescue) 133 Sandberg bluegrass (MLRA 25 Plot 89) 127 BRTE This site is in phase 22 because it recently burned and has some cheatgrass Note 33 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover converts to 29 canopy cover

2015 EKDO Mexican Field 02 4 Wyoming big sagebrush 66 Rubber rabbitbrush 22 DRPG (87 bluebunch wheatgrass 66 needleandthread grass 13 Indian ricegrass 47 squirreltail) 13 Sandberg bluegrass 0 BRTE This site would fall into the Reference State 12 Note 4 Wyoming sagebrush converts to 35 canopy cover

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

48

2015 EKDO Cotant Seeding 01 133 ARTRW8 799 DRPG (55 HECO26 2 ELEL5) 66 POSE 26 BRTE (79) This site is in Phase 21 because of the codominance of perennial grasses and shrubs Note 133 foliar cover of Wyoming big sagebrush converts to 117 canopy cover

49

These two sites were excluded from the final analysis because they have recently burned and have no shrub cover but are displayed here to illustrate the maximum level of grass cover seen in this sagebrush community type in MLRA 25

2012 EKDO Devils Gate 02 33 Wyoming big sagebrush 160 DRPG (147 Squirreltail 13 Idaho fescue) 133 Sandberg bluegrass (MLRA 25 Plot 89) 127 BRTE This site is in phase 22 because it recently burned and has some cheatgrass Note 33 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover converts to 29 canopy cover

2015 EKDO Mexican Field 02 4 Wyoming big sagebrush 66 Rubber rabbitbrush 22 DRPG (87 bluebunch wheatgrass 66 needleandthread grass 13 Indian ricegrass 47 squirreltail) 13 Sandberg bluegrass 0 BRTE This site would fall into the Reference State 12 Note 4 Wyoming sagebrush converts to 35 canopy cover

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

49

These two sites were excluded from the final analysis because they have recently burned and have no shrub cover but are displayed here to illustrate the maximum level of grass cover seen in this sagebrush community type in MLRA 25

2012 EKDO Devils Gate 02 33 Wyoming big sagebrush 160 DRPG (147 Squirreltail 13 Idaho fescue) 133 Sandberg bluegrass (MLRA 25 Plot 89) 127 BRTE This site is in phase 22 because it recently burned and has some cheatgrass Note 33 Wyoming big sagebrush foliar cover converts to 29 canopy cover

2015 EKDO Mexican Field 02 4 Wyoming big sagebrush 66 Rubber rabbitbrush 22 DRPG (87 bluebunch wheatgrass 66 needleandthread grass 13 Indian ricegrass 47 squirreltail) 13 Sandberg bluegrass 0 BRTE This site would fall into the Reference State 12 Note 4 Wyoming sagebrush converts to 35 canopy cover

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

50

MLRA 25

Group 4

Loamy 8-10

025XY019NV

Current Potential State 2022

Wyoming big sagebrush patchyThurberrsquos needlegrass and other perennial grasses dominateAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominateAnnual non-native species present

23 (At Risk)Wyoming big sagebrush increasesThurberrsquos needlegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseSandberg bluegrass and squirreltail increaseAnnual non-native species stable to increasingJuniper may be present

21a22a

21b23a

Shrub State 30

31Wyoming big sagebrushrabbitbrush Sandberg bluegrass dominates understoryJuniper may be present Annual non-native species presentUnderstory may be sparseBare ground increases

32 Sandberg bluegrass dominates Annual non-native species presentSagebrush or rabbitbrush may be present

31a 32a

T2AT2B

R3B

T3A

R3A

Annual State 4042

Annual non-native species dominateSagebrush andor rabbitbrush presentSeeded species may be present

41Annual non-native species dominateSeeded species may be present

41a

42a

R4A

52 Wyoming sagebrush increasesCrested wheatgrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species present

51Crested wheatgrassforage kochia or other seeded species dominateWyoming sagebrush may be presentAnnual non-natives present

53 (At Risk)Wyoming sagebrush increasesAnnual non-native species increasing Crested wheatgrass decreasesJuniper may be present

51a

52a

52b

Seeded State 50

Tree State 60

61Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives present to increasingSagebrush and deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses decadentdeclining

62Juniper trees dominate overstoryAnnual non-natives dominant understorySagebrush perennial bunchgrass present in trace amountsBare ground may be significant

61a

T6A

T1A

Reference State 10

11Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberrsquos needlegrassBluebunch wheatgrass dominate

13Wyoming big sagebrush increasesPerennial understory is reduced

12Thurberrsquos needlegrass Bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateWyoming big sagebrush may be present

11a12a

11b13a

13b

T3B

T5A

T5B53a

23b

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

51

Mountain big sagebrush

2015 EKDO Mori 03 Highest DRPG cover of all ARTRV sites 255 ARTRV 473 DRPG (43 FEID) 33 BRTE (184) This site would be in phase 21 because of the small amount of cheatgrass cover This site has the highest level of DRPG cover of all sites analyzed Note 255 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 242 canopy cover

2013 EKDO Tuscarora 05 193 ARTRVARTRW8 (41 dead branches) 113 DRPG 40 POSE 13 BRTE (264) This site would be in phase 23 because of the low DRPG cover high Sandberg bluegrass cover and small amount of cheatgrass cover Shrub decadence may be due to damage from Aroga moth Note 193 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 183 canopy cover

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

52

2014 EKDO Midas 01 153 ARTRV 12 BRTE 37 POSE 06 DRPG 12 BRTE (177) This site would be in phase 31 because of the loss of deep-rooted native perennial grasses and the high levels of Sandberg bluegrass and cheatgrass The functional group of DRPGs has been lost from this site Note 153 mountain sagebrush cover converts to 145 canopy cover

2012 EKDO Beaver Creek 04 373 ARTRV (37 dead branches) 73 SYOR 12 DRPG (93 PSSP6) 27 POSE 27 BRTE This site would be in phase 23 because of the high shrub cover Note 373 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush converts to 353 canopy cover

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

53

2014 EKDO Bullhead 08 This site has 20 DRPG cover (PSSP6) 41 POSE cover and 18 BRTE cover This site would be in community phase 24 because the cheatgrass cover makes this site at risk of transitioning to an Annual State with another wildfire This plot was not included in the data analysis due to lack of shrub cover

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

54

MLRA 25

Group 6

Loamy Slope 12-16

025XY012NV

T1A

T2AT2C

T3B

T6B

R3A

T3C

T2D

R6A

Tree State 60

61Utah juniper and or pinyon co-dominate with mountain big sagebrushDeep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses present but decliningSandbergrsquos bluegrass increasingAnnual non-natives species present or co-dominant in understoryInterspace bareground significant

Shrub State 30

31Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseBluegrass dominates understoryAnnual non-native species are presentPinyon and juniper may be present

32Bluegrass dominates siteAnnual non-native species are presentSnowberry andor rabbitbrush may be sproutingSagebrush trace

31a

32a

Reference State 10

11Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass mountain big sagebrush dominate

13Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs dominatePerennial understory is reduced

12Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial bunchgrasses dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced

13b

11a12a

11b13a

Annual State 5052

Mountain big sagebrush andor rabbitbrush dominate Annual non-natives likely cheatgrass dominate understory Understory may be sparse

51 Cheatgrass andor tansy mustard dominate site

51a

52a

Forb State 4041

Mulersquos ear balsamroot or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush likely presentPerennial bunchgrasses may be presentBluegrass may be stable to increasingAnnual non-native species may be stable to increasing

T2B

Current Potential State 20 22Idaho fescue bluebunch wheatgrass and other perennial grasses dominateMountain big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush reducedSnowberry and rabbitbrush may be sproutingAnnual non-native species stable to increasing

21Idaho fescue and mountain big sagebrush dominateAnnual non-native species presentSmooth bromenon-native perennial bunchgrasses may be present

23 (At Risk)Mountain big sagebrush and other shrubs increaseIdaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass decreaseBluegrass may be increasingAnnualperennial non-native species may be presentPinyon and juniper may be present

21a22a

21b

23b

R6B

T3A

62Utah juniper and or pinyon dominate Mountain big sagebrush minor componentUnderstory is severely reduced invasives presentBareground interspaces large and connectedPedestalling sheet erosion may be significant

61a

R4A

23a

24Lupine or other perennial forbs dominateMountain big sagebrush reduced Snowberry may be sprouting Perennial bunchgrasses are presentAnnualperennial non-native species may be present

23c

24a

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C

55

Data limitations and issues

Blue Basin 05 has ~10 DRPG and ~23 ARAR8hellipa high amount of grass for this site but the transect crosses through two ecological sites one with low sagebrush and one with big sagebrush as evidenced by the photo There might be a lot more plots like this in the AIM dataset

One of the mountain big sagebrush plots had 58 foliar cover of mountain big sagebrush and 70 shrub cover overall however this site was excluded from analysis because it was an outlier in terms of shrub cover and had a pachic soil (mollic epipedon gt50cm) according to soil pit notes which puts it into a different disturbance response group Plots like these emphasize the importance of the soil notes associated with these plots Soil color texture and horizon depths allow us to make much better conclusions about ecological site information

• Nevada MLRA 25 Rangeland Ecological Potential_Stringham
• • Introduction
  • Ecological Potential
  • Ecological Potential by Major Land Resource Area
  • Figure 2 Average monthly precipitation for Elko and Tuscarora NV located in MLRA 25 and Winnemucca and Imlay NV located in MLRA 24 based on 1981-2010 normals Western Regional Climate Center
  • Development of Habitat Guidelines based on Ecological Potential of Sagebrush Communities by MLRA
  • Wyoming big sagebrush Disturbance Response Group 4 MLRA 25
  • Nevada AIM Data Analysis 2011-2015
  • Comparison of Continuous Line Intercept and Line Point Intercept measurements of Shrub Cover
  • Data Analysis of MLRA 25 Nevada AIM dataset
  • Shrub Cover vs Grass Cover and Environmental Variables Defining the Ecological Potential of MLRA 25 Low Wyoming and Mountain Big Sagebrush Rangelands
  • Wyoming big sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Low sagebrush community Ecological potential in MLRA 25 NV
  • Mountain big sagebrush Ecological potential in MLRA 25
  • National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment Data
  • Summary Sagebrush Cover
  • Conclusion Ecological Potential
  • Residual Grass Height Deep rooted perennial bunchgrasses vs Sandberg bluegrass
  • • Table 8 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the low sagebrush Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush DRGs in MLRA 25 2014-15
    • • Averages by Year Wyoming big sagebrush
      • • Table 9 BLM Nevada AIM average residual grass height for deep rooted perennial bunchgrass and Sandberg bluegrass within the Wyoming big sagebrush (DRG4) community in MLRA 24 for 2014 and 2015
        • • Appendix A Maps of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for MLRA 25
          • • MLRA25_GHMA
            • MLRA25_allHabitat
            • Appendix B Lit Review Summary
            • Appendix C