Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy Optimization
Project ID: 5445
Status: Current
Fiscal Year: 2022
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Eric Thacker
PM Agency: Utah State University
PM Office: Logan
Lead: Utah State University Extenstion Services
WRI Region: Statewide
Description:
The State of Utah has developed a compensatory mitigation program to market mitigation credits to offset greater sage-grouse habitat losses caused by development. Utah partner also desire new tools to optimize the ecological benefits and environmental services from WRI projects. This project will provide WRI public land managers and private landowners with tools to help plan and prioritize multi-benefit conservation projects that maximize project conservation benefits.
Location:
Utah's 11 Sage-grouse Management Area - 7.5 million acres. We will focus initially on pilot projects in the West Box Elder SGMA to develop a prioritization tool to guide conifer removal projects and in the Rich-Morgan-Summit SGMA on developing a tool to identify and optimize sage-grouse benefits on areas being grazed by domestic livestock under specialized grazing systems.
Project Need
Need For Project:
To encourage the creation and protection of sage-grouse habitats, the State of Utah has developed a Compensatory Mitigation Program (CMP). The CMP is managed by the Utah Department of Natural Resources. The goals of the CMP are to increase the space available to the species and enhance habitat-use by creating corridors and new habitats to offset the impacts of permanent developments in sage-grouse habitat in Utah. The CMP proposes to achieve this by providing opportunities for private landowners and others to create and market mitigation credits for increasing and protecting functional habitats. Currently, the CMP is proposing an exchange rate of 1 to 4; for every one acre of sage-grouse habitat lost through development. This equation does not take into account functional habitat quality. We will evaluate the HTPF concept as it relates to conifer removal projects in the Box Elder Sage-grouse Management Area (SGMA) in West Box Elder County in northwestern Utah. We will also evaluate the concept as it relates to specialized livestock grazing practices being implemented on Deseret Land and Livestock (200,000 acres) and the Three Creeks Allotment (145,000 acres) in the Rich-Morgan-Summit SGMA in northeastern Utah. These SGMA contain the state's largest sage-grouse populations and exhibit a mix of private and public lands that are managed for domestic livestock production. Sandford et al.( 2017) documented improved sage-grouse nest and brood success in areas where invasive conifers were removed from sagebrush habitats. Annually over 90,000 acres of sagebrush habitats range wide are encroached by conifers (Stiver et al. 2015). Dettenmaier (2018) and Dahlgren et al. (2016) reported higher sage-grouse vital rates on sagebrush rangelands managed under specialized grazing practices. Stoner et al (2020) reported the sage-grouse nest initiation is linked to peak NDVI. Specialized grazing practices may extend peak NDVI. Because over 80% of the currently occupied sage-grouse habitat is grazed by domestic livestock livestock, a better understanding of how climate, herbivory, and nest success are related would be beneficial to agriculture and wildlife. Concomitantly the development, and validation of planning tools that can prioritize conifer removal and livestock grazing management practices to optimize sage-grouse benefits and enhance functional habitat value on a landscape scale in a cost-effective manner are highly desirable.
Objectives:
We are proposing to develop and evaluate the Habitat Treatment Prioritization Framework (HTPF) to provide CMP administrators, private landowners, and land managers with an interactive tool to optimize sage-grouse conservation benefits and the accrual of potential mitigation credits and WRI project ecological services as relate to the planning and management of conifer removal projects and changes in livestock grazing management practices. Project Objectives: 1. Evaluation of the potential to use NDVI data to monitor changes in functional habitat quality and sage-grouse responses to specialized livestock grazing management and other land management practices. 2. Refinement of the HTPF to quantify and prioritize location-specific conifer and livestock grazing management treatment benefits for sage-grouse. 3. Development of an HTPF tool to prioritize location-specific conifer removal treatments and specialized livestock grazing management benefits for sage-grouse to maximize compensatory mitigation credits and other conservation benefits of WRI projects for creating functional habitat values.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Sage-grouse habitat in Utah is naturally-fragmented by topography. The encroachment of conifer trees, fire, and invasive weeds such as cheatgrass have been identified by the the state of Utah as sage-gourse conservation threats ( State of Utah 2013). Energy and urban development have exacerbated habitat loss and fragmentation. Research conducted by Utah State University has demonstrated that the many of Utah's sage-grouse populations are space-limited (Dahlgren et al. 2016). However, populations respond positively when new habitat is created (Dahlgren et al. 2006, Frey et al. 2013, Cook et al. 2017, Sandford et al. 2017, Dettnemaier 2018). These responses include immediate use of habitats and increased nest and brood success in areas where conifers have mechanically been removed (Frey et al. 2013, Cook et al. 2017, Sandford et al. 2017) and livestock grazing management has been improved (Dahlgren et al. 2016, Detternmaier 2018). Conifer encroachment into sagebrush habiats and improper livestock grazing of sagebrush rangelands have been identified as sage-grouse conservation threats (USFS 2013).
Relation To Management Plan:
In 2019 the Conservation of Greater Sage-grouse in Utah (Plan) was published (State of Utah 2013). In January 2019, Governor Herbert signed an Executive Order (EO) to implement the Plan. The Governor credited the CBCP for conducting the baseline research and community involvement essential to building the Plan. Since 1996, the Utah's partners have restored over 500,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat and protected over 94% of the state's sage-grouse populations on 7.5 million acres in 11 sage-grouse management areas. Most of the funding for these projects has come through a competitive grants program call the Water Restoration Initiative (WRI). The WRI incorporates a ranking process designed to fund projects which provide the greatest benefits (Clark et al. 2017). In 1996, Utah State University Extension (EXT) initiated a long-term collaboration with the UDWR to develop a community-based conservation (CBCP) adaptive resources management local working group (LWG) process throughout Utah to begin addressing localized threats to sage-grouse. in 2019, the Bureau of Land Management released an amended Resource Management Plan (RMP) which reflected the science used to develop the Utah Plan and the need form better information to prioritize management actions.
Fire / Fuels:
Completion of this project will also identify priority areas for wild fire protection and restoration.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Preliminary research suggest the removal of conifers that are encroaching into sagebrush habitats and improved livestock grazing management will restore water tables, improve surface water flows, and water quality. Completion of this project will also identify priority areas to create and better manage mesic areas for sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species.
Compliance:
Completion of the this project will provide new information to support NEPA documentation to support WRI conifer treatments, Utah Plan and BLM RMP requirements.
Methods:
Under this project, we collect and analyze additional data obtained from female sage-grouse radio-marked with global positioning system (GPS) transmitters which will all us to expand the HTPF to include multiple seasons (e.g., breeding, brooding, late summer, winter) and vital rates simultaneously. The GPS transmitters record up to nine locations a day, 24-7 allowing us remotely monitor marked birds to determine survival rates, seasonal movement patterns and overall population viability in response to management. We will deploy additional GPS and VHF transmitters in 2021-2022 on Desert Land and Livestock and the Three Creek Allotment to augment the current GPS and VHF radio-marked birds. These data will allow us to better understand the entire life cycle of radio marked sage-grouse within SGMA and the birds responses to livestock grazing management. . The protocols for capturing, radio-marking, and monitoring sage-grouse have been reviewed and approved by USU Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. We are also assessing changes in vegetation quality across space and time by estimating the Instantaneous Rate of Green-up (IRG), a metric derived from a time series of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) satellite data. Changes in NDVI across the study area will be correlated with grazing dates, livestock stocking rates, frequency of use, periods of rest, temperature, precipitation, sage-grouse nest initiation rates, nest hatch dates, brood movements, and brood success rates. We will assess how green-up rate, order, and duration differs with respect to grazing management and annual climatic conditions. We will then evaluate differences in sage-grouse behavior and reproduction with observed difference in NDVI in each study area.
Monitoring:
We will track the WRI project ranking process to see if HPFT projects are prioritized for funding.
Partners:
Our target audiences include CMP administrators, private landowners, UDWR, BLM, USFS, NRCS, and USFWS biologists, range conservationist, administrators, LWG stakeholders, congressional staffers, elected officials, Utah Governor's Office and related cabinet members, commodity organizations, industry, and environmental organizations.
Future Management:
The HPFT will modify the CMP mitigation exchange ratio to ensure projects completed in areas identified to yield immediate conservation benefits will ranked higher in the WRI process. We will track the WRI project ranking process to see if HPFT projects are prioritized for funding. Completion of this project will provide new information regarding sage-grouse behavioral responses to the presence of cattle and the effects of livestock grazing on the vegetation composition and structure of these important ecosystems. This research will provide land managers, both private and public, with the information to better understand the relationship between rangeland cattle grazing and sage-grouse and how NDVI can be used to guide and evaluate management projects.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Anticipated outputs and outcomes: We anticipate the HPFT will become the accepted standard used by WRI and other partners to prioritize conifer removal projects. The HTPF would give land managers and landowners a defensible science-based tool to increase persistence across Utah's sage-grouse range. As more GPS data becomes available regarding sage-grouse responses (i.e., vital rates and seasonal movements) to other landscape management actions such as the development of mesic areas or prescribed livestock grazing, the HTPF could provide managers similar predictive capabilities for these activities.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$250,000.00 $0.00 $250,000.00 $55,000.00 $305,000.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Other admin fee/10 % overhead $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Other Refurbish GPS transmitters, purchase new VHF transmitters, deploy transmitters, download and analysis GPS data $20,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 2022
Personal Services (seasonal employee) post-doc fellow, technicians and graduate students to deploy GPS transmitter and monitor sage-grouse, analyze data, develop and evaluate prioritization tools. Benefits for Post Doc, graduate student tuition $125,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 2022
Personal Services (permanent employee) faculty and staff to analyze data and prepare publications, webinars and conduct training to implement the tool $55,000.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 2022
Contractual Services statistical consultant to assist in analyzing and reporting data $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2022
Other development of Habitat Treatment Prioritization Framework (HTPF) app $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2022
Motor Pool travel and per diem for field work and HTPF training $15,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2022
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$350,020.00 $0.00 $350,020.00 $80,000.00 $430,020.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
BLM (Sage Grouse) A096 $125,000 came in Mod 3 $100,000 - Mod 5 - Re-ob $25k -rf $70,564.90 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Utah State University (USU) overhead/admin fee of 10% $0.00 $0.00 $25,000.00 2022
BLM (Sage Grouse) A096 $125,000 Mod 3 $100,000 - Mod 5 - Re-ob $25k - rf $100k - Mod 9 $88,709.28 $0.00 $0.00 2023
BLM (Sage Grouse) $0.00 $0.00 $55,000.00 2022
BLM (Sage Grouse) A096 $65,725.82 - Mod 5 $100k - Mod 9 $25k - RF $36,675.56 $0.00 $0.00 2024
BLM (Sage Grouse) A096 Extension ASAP 1738 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2025
BLM Fuels (West Desert) A087 Extension ASAP 1731 $54,070.26 $0.00 $0.00 2025
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Annual and Perennial Non-timber Crops Low
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Data Gaps - Future Effects of Greater Temperature Variability under Climate Change NA
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Habitats
Habitat
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Very High
Project Comments
Comment 01/20/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
I really applaud the good intentions here. Everything about assessment, evaluation, integration with other plans, and satisfying societal wants, I like. We do need that stuff. However, I am also having some concerns. If we try to "maximize" public-lands management for only (sage-grouse + fuels + grazing) interests, other interests are going to get traded off. I would rather begin the landscape & programmatic assessments by comparing the observed and expected vegetative expression on the landscape, and measuring the difference (this is what we treat). Then see how well the program steers its treatments to fixing the (obs-exp) problems. "Well" has a variety of likely metrics - cost, speed, success rates (e.g. seeding failures), etc.
Comment 01/20/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
The point of all this is to start with shared, scientifically-derived, objective FACTS. Without that, we risk - as we are *already* seeing to an increasing extent - arguments about whether or not we should or should not remove this or that patch of PJ, etc. Whereas if we can agree that e.g. this half-million acre patch of Utah has X many acres of sagebrush BioPhysical Setting that's occupied by more juniper than we know it should, well that's how many acres we should treat. Exactly which acres to treat first, next, or later, and how big the patches ought to be, and what sort of adjacency or matrix values and objectives (deer thermal & escape cover, pinyon-jay or ferruginous hawk habitat, livestock shade trees, etc etc) - all this is details that would need sorting out. And I see your tool as helping to providing THAT need. But not the need I identified.
Comment 01/20/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
This is obviously something requiring deeper and also higher-echelon discussion. Not gonna be finalized at the regional level, but it does need some discussion there, and everywhere else.
Comment 01/06/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Terry - I am assuming that this should actually be an FY2022 proposal instead of FY2021. FY2022 starts July 1, 2021. If that is the case please update your proposal FY22. Thanks.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
N/A
Project Map
N/A