Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are significant management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.”
Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts.
This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed nine needs (hereinafter, “Needs”) identified under the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs broadly focused on understanding sagebrush rangelands and population dynamics important for the conservation and management of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-reliant wildlife species. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (‘Next Steps’) were either addressed well, partially addressed or remain outstanding (in other words, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 333 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included:
development of biome-wide mapping techniques that provide regularly updated grassland and shrubland vegetation layers (Need 4); generation of spatially explicit greater sage-grouse habitat suitability and population models (Need 5); identification of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats (Need 6); identification of thresholds for the extent of threats, especially conifer expansion, above which greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species cannot persist (Need 8); and studies of sagebrush community dynamics as those relate to management and restoration of sagebrush rangelands (Need 9).
Needs addressed poorly included:
investigations of factors conducive and restrictive to greater sage-grouse movement patterns and population connectivity (Need 1); investigations of livestock and other large ungulate (for example, feral horse) grazing effects on greater sage-grouse populations and habitats (Need 2); identification of thresholds of disturbance (especially renewable energy developments) below which greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush reliant species are not impacted (Need 3); and studies of habitat relationships for sagebrush-reliant species other than greater sage-grouse, songbirds, and small mammals (Need 7).
The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.
For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit
For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
Multiply | By | To obtain |
Length | ||
---|---|---|
mile (mi) | 1.609 | kilometer (km) |
Area | ||
acre | 4,047 | square meter (m2) |
acre | 0.4047 | hectare (ha) |
acre | 0.4047 | square hectometer (hm2) |
Multiply | By | To obtain |
Length | ||
---|---|---|
kilometer (km) | 0.6214 | mile (mi) |
Area | ||
square meter (m2) | 0.0002471 | acre |
hectare (ha) | 2.471 | acre |
square hectometer (hm2) | 2.471 | acre |
Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
Geographic Information System
Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy
Light Detection and Ranging (remote sensing method)
WAFWA Sage-grouse Management Zone
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
Open-File Report
U.S. Geological Survey
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Stemming the cumulative loss and degradation of sagebrush (
Map showing the landscape cover of sagebrush-dominated ecological systems in the western United States (fig. 28 from
Figure 1. Map showing the landscape cover of sagebrush-dominated ecological systems in the western United States
Arresting downward trends in sagebrush ecosystems is complex owing to multiple and often interacting stressors, including conversion to agricultural crops or non-native perennial grasses (for example, crested wheatgrass [
Map showing large fire probability for the sagebrush biome in the western United States (fig. 34 from
Figure 2. Map showing large fire probability for the sagebrush biome in the western United States
The increasing frequency and impact of wildfires prompted the development of an enhanced strategy for addressing rangeland fire across sagebrush-dominated regions. A significant milestone in this effort was the drafting of the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (hereinafter IRFMS; U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI], 2015) following the issuance of Secretarial Order 3336. The IRFMS outlined coordinated, science-based approaches for improving the efficiency and efficacy of actions to better prevent and suppress rangeland fire and to improve efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of the sagebrush biome. Inherent in the IRFMS was the recognition that a strong science foundation was fundamental to successful rangeland fire prevention and suppression, and to management and restoration of sagebrush rangelands and wildlife populations reliant on those rangelands. Therefore, the IRFMS further called for the development of an Actionable Science Plan (hereinafter, Plan) that identified the priority science needed to inform another generation of management strategies and tools (
the collaborative identification of knowledge gaps by managers and researchers which, when filled, would break down barriers to successful implementation of management actions; and
a focus on the resultant priority science having “actionable” traits by:
immediately filling knowledge gaps;
directly informing management action aimed at protecting, conserving, or restoring sagebrush ecosystems; and
facilitating funding mechanisms for effective research and communication of results to management audiences.
Accordingly, needed science was identified by considering planning and prioritization efforts conducted in the previous 5 years by Federal and State agencies. The resulting comprehensive list was prioritized with engagement of the broader research and management communities. The 37 highest-priority science needs (hereinafter, Needs) identified through these efforts were then organized under five topics outlined in the IRFMS: (1) Fire, (2) Invasives (plant species), (3) Restoration, (4) Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, and (5) Climate and Weather. A multi-disciplinary team of experts developed narratives describing these highest-priority Needs and outlined a series of research objectives (hereinafter, Next Steps) to help guide the development of new knowledge, syntheses, and decision-support tools for addressing each Need.
Conservation strategies depend on the consideration and application of the best available science, and on-going efforts to address gaps in that scientific knowledge, to achieve management success. While the state of the science has ostensibly advanced owing to substantial research investments since the Plan’s release in 2016, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is largely unknown. Several annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have made strides towards making results from research efforts in the sagebrush biome available and tractable for management audiences (for example,
The Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic in the Plan identified nine Needs focused on understanding components of the sagebrush biome and population dynamics related to the conservation and management of greater sage-grouse (
investigations of factors affecting sage-grouse movement patterns and population connectivity;
studies of the effects of ungulate grazing on sagebrush vegetation and sage-grouse populations;
assessments of the response of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species to surface disturbing activities (for example, energy development, conifer cover, wild fire);
development of enhanced approaches to mapping shrubland vegetation;
development of spatially explicit population models and seasonal habitat suitability models for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-associated species across the sagebrush biome; and
investigations of long-term dynamics of the sagebrush ecosystem as they relate to meeting specific management goals.
Map showing current and potential pre-settlement distribution of greater sage-grouse (
Figure 3. Map showing current and potential pre-settlement distribution of greater sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse in North America
This report details a literature review that quantified how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed nine Needs identified under the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic in the Plan. Five years was considered an adequate time period for implementation of science projects that coincided with or were inspired by the Plan and, as such, a suitably defined interval for completing this assessment and updating priority science and management needs. Our objective was to comprehensively summarize the scientific literature generated since the release of the Plan. Leveraging advances in bibliographic search-engine tools, we developed a quantitative “scorecard” to assess progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria. The scorecard informed summaries detailing how Next Steps were addressed in the literature as well as those that remain unresolved. The summaries are intended to provide information for stakeholder-driven efforts aimed at identifying the next set of science needs in a forthcoming updated version of the Plan.
We organized literature reviews on the five overarching topics included in the Plan (that is, [1] Fire, [2] Invasives (plant species), [3] Restoration, [4] Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, and [5] Climate and Weather). For the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic, we initially reviewed the sage-grouse literature that was included in broad searches and summarized by
Table 1. Search results for the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the terms searched, the number of unique articles resulting from that search, and general descriptions of each search
[
Search terms | Unique results | Comment |
greater sage-grouse | 238 | 2015–October 2019; broad search term captured in |
greater sage-grouse | 125 | October 2019–20; broad search term to capture papers in our timeframe not captured by |
sage-grouse | 154 | October 2019–20; broad search term to capture papers in our timeframe not captured by |
sagebrush AND remote sensing AND time series | 8 | 2015–20; Need 4; targeted search term |
sagebrush AND remote sensing AND land cover | 20 | 2015–20; Need 4; targeted search term |
sagebrush AND remote sensing AND mapping | 23 | 2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term |
juniper AND wildlife | 73 | 2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term |
pinyon juniper AND wildlife | 33 | 2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term |
sagebrush AND ungulate species | 17 | 2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term |
sagebrush AND insect species | 15 | 2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term |
sagebrush AND small mammal species | 18 | 2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term |
sagebrush AND reptile species | 7 | 2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term |
sagebrush obligate AND habitat suitability | 5 | 2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term |
sagebrush obligate AND mapping | 6 | 2015–20; Needs 7 and 8; targeted search term |
sagebrush habitats AND monitoring | 63 | 2015–20; Need 9; targeted search term |
We established how well Needs (that is, priority science required to inform the next generation of management strategies) listed in the Plan were addressed in the literature by independently “scoring” each Need from Next Steps (that is, science objectives required to address a Need) associated with the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic. Papers that were relevant to a Next Step were considered when scoring that Next Step. Our review approach initially focused on summaries provided in
Each Next Step was scored based on the relevant literature following a set of criteria (
Table 2. Criteria used to score Next Steps established for the Needs included in the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan
[Sagebrush,
Scoring description | Score |
Next Step addressed across the sagebrush range, or at the full spatial extent of the issue being investigated | 1.00 |
Next Step addressed and was scale independent (for example, literature summaries) | 1.00 |
Next Step partially addressed across the sagebrush range, or at the full spatial extent of the issue being investigated | 0.75 |
Next Step partially addressed and was scale independent | 0.75 |
Next Step addressed at the local or regional level | 0.50 |
Next Step partially addressed at the local or regional level | 0.25 |
Next Step not addressed | 0.00 |
Next Step could not be assessed through literature review approach used (for example, development of databases) | NA |
For each Need, we developed a summary of the Next Steps. Summaries were organized by Need and describe Next Steps or portions of a Next Step that had been ‘Addressed’ and those that had not (in other words, ‘Outstanding’) based on the details in the Next Steps rather than each Need in entirety. As such, descriptions of the research related to a given Next Step could be included in both the summaries of the science that had been Addressed as well as what remains Outstanding for a Need. These summaries provide details of how well specific science objectives established in the Plan were addressed and are important for evaluating the scores and informing the next set of science needs in the updated Plan.
Research relevant to the science Needs identified in the Plan continues to be conducted and published. However, because we are not privy to all the research being conducted throughout the sagebrush biome, and we did not want to bias assessments to internal research efforts, products released after 2020 and interim updates of ongoing research were not discussed in this report. As such, the completion scores provided in this assessment are snapshots, and should be augmented with knowledge of newly published and ongoing research programs using the search and scoring methods described in this report when updating the Plan.
We reviewed 805 products that were identified by the literature searches conducted for the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic (
broad-scale studies of fine-resolution sage-grouse movements to understand how barriers may affect population performance and genetic structure (Need 1);
standardization of data collection protocols associated with studies of the impacts of livestock grazing on sage-grouse vital rates to allow synthetic analyses (Need 2);
investigations of the impacts of anthropogenic noise and the removal of infrastructure on sage-grouse individuals and populations (Need 3); and
development of management applications useful across seasons and the biome from products identifying sage-grouse seasonal habitats (Need 6).
Table 3. Priority science Needs detailed under the Sagebrush and Sage-grouse topic in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan establishing the completion score, and a summary of science objectives addressed and not addressed in the scientific literature published 2015–20
[Sagebrush,
Need | Score | Summary of 2015–20 literature |
0.38 | ||
0.14 | ||
0.25 | ||
0.83 | ||
0.75 | ||
0.57 | ||
0.25 | ||
0.50 | ||
0.75 |
The Needs that were addressed well (scores ≥0.67) included the development of biome-wide mapping techniques that can provide regularly updated grassland and shrubland vegetation layers (Need 4); the generation of spatially-explicit sage-grouse population models for use informing local scale management (primarily from lek count data) (Need 5); and studies of sagebrush community dynamics as those relate to management and restoration of sagebrush rangelands (Need 9). Estimates of percent change in biotic attributes of sagebrush rangelands (for example, sagebrush cover, invasive annual grass prevalence), fire perimeters and severity, and variability in mesic area productivity (NDVI) from the 1980s to present have been mapped range wide and techniques for regularly updating these range wide estimates have been established. A substantial number of studies conducted throughout the sagebrush biome have investigated the influence of multiple biotic and abiotic factors, at various spatial scales, on sage-grouse populations, habitat selection and habitat quality (see also Needs 3 and 6). These efforts included spatially-explicit integrated population models and individual-based simulation models that were used to investigate scenarios of locally-relevant management opportunities. Studies investigating relationships between different biotic and abiotic factors and changes in sagebrush vegetation communities have been conducted, and generalized restoration prioritization tools and approaches that are relevant range wide have been developed.
The Needs that were partially addressed (scores 0.50–0.66) included the identification of sage-grouse seasonal habitats (Need 6); and the identification of thresholds for the extent of threats, especially conifer expansion, above which sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species cannot persist (Need 8). A substantial number of studies conducted throughout the sagebrush biome have investigated sage-grouse seasonal habitat selection primarily at local and regional scales (see also Need 5). Numerous studies have investigated the response of sagebrush obligate and associated species, primarily sage-grouse, songbirds, and small mammals, to anthropogenic and natural disturbance factors across the sagebrush biome (see also Need 7).
A number of Needs were addressed poorly (scores
There were several Next Steps identified under the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic that were addressed poorly, even when the overall Need was well or partially addressed. Underlying causal mechanisms explaining population-level response of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species to anthropogenic infrastructure remain largely unknown (Needs 3 and 8). A range wide, coordinated assessment of sage-grouse seasonal habitat selection and demographic data with links to population viability has not been accomplished (Needs 5 and 6). Unified metrics suitable for quantifying sagebrush habitat suitability and quality for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species have not been developed, limiting the ability to evaluate the success of habitat conservation and restoration activities (Need 9).
The completion scores and summaries in this report provide the basis to identify new actionable science priorities that are needed to address the issues continuing to drive the loss, degradation, restoration, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats in the western United States. The resulting information can directly inform an update to the Plan, as well as other highly relevant science planning documents including, but not limited to: Parts 1 and 2 of the Science Framework (
We extend particular thanks to Zachary Bowen and Anne Kinsinger, U.S. Geological Survey. Report drafts were thoughtfully reviewed by Dave R. Edmunds and Seth J. Dettenmaier, U.S. Geological Survey.
Objective detailed in a Next Step that was addressed in the literature published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020
The recurrence of fire in a given area over time
A shared vision among researchers and managers of priority science required to fill knowledge gaps and inform the next generation of management strategies and tools
Science objectives (in other words, new research, syntheses, and tools) required to address a Need
Science or research goals detailed as Next Steps in the Plan
Objective detailed in a Next Step that was not addressed in the literature published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020
IRFMS Actionable Science Plan (Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team, 2016)
Relative measure of the level of progress towards addressing the Next Steps established in a Need
One of five science themes identified in the Plan relevant to the management of sagebrush ecosystems
The literature in this appendix is organized by Need and Next Step. Needs are defined as a shared vision among researchers and managers of priority science required to fill knowledge gaps and inform the next generation of management strategies and tools. Next Steps are defined as science objectives (that is, new research, syntheses, and tools) required to address a Need. Next Steps scored as 0.00 in
Investigate sage-grouse movement patterns, the habitat characteristics that are conducive, restrictive, or preventive to those movements, and the genetic structure of populations to help inform management practices to improve or maintain connections.
Compile and integrate disparate GPS tracking datasets to relate fine-scale movement patterns of sage-grouse relative to landscape characteristics, and identify variation in environmental resistance and barriers between seasonal habitats and between populations across the sage-grouse range.
Initiate studies using high-frequency, fine-resolution GPS data to link sage-grouse movement processes to habitat conditions and anthropogenic features across the landscape.
Expand studies done with genetic data collected from lek sites that provide broad-scale patterns of range-wide population connectivity, including use of single nucleotide polymorphisms and other advanced genetic and genomic techniques.
Use fine-scale genetic data from individual sage-grouse to investigate how movement barriers impact population performance and genetic structure at local scales.
Complete a range-wide genetic analysis to provide the first comprehensive assessment of sage-grouse genetic connectivity.
Develop new technology that allows for acquisition of movement data with increased frequency and resolution and reduced sage-grouse mortality.
Not addressed.
Investigate landscape factors that explain regional variation in movement patterns across different spatial scales using genetic and telemetry data.
Not addressed.
Complete studies of sage-grouse movements relative to habitat conditions and human features across the landscape using high-frequency, fine-resolution GPS data to understand how movement barriers affect population performance and genetic structure.
Not addressed.
Conduct a series of large-scale, replicated grazing studies that address how different livestock species, grazing systems, disturbance histories, and other environmental conditions affect sage-grouse habitat.
Identify numerous study sites and initiate monitoring within pastures and plots at those sites that have different and explicit grazing treatments, documenting the past grazing regime at those study pastures and plots to experimentally link the timing and intensity of livestock grazing to sage-grouse demographics and population trends.
Identify or refine detailed protocols for monitoring sage-grouse vital rates and estimating local grazing intensity that would be used at replicate study sites so that data from numerous sites and States can contribute to synthetic analyses.
Not addressed.
Conduct an assessment of feral horse and burro impacts on local vegetation and sage-grouse habitat selection, vital rates, and population trends. If done in conjunction with analysis of effects of livestock grazing, this would facilitate analyses of interactive effects.
Develop a synthesis of grazing effects on sage-grouse habitat condition.
Coordinate the collection of consistent range-wide geospatial information documenting grazing timing and intensity at the allotment and pasture level to facilitate large-scale analyses of grazing information.
NA.
Develop long-term replicated grazing studies across the sagebrush ecosystem and within different ecological sites across the range of sage-grouse to better understand the different effects of grazing on sage-grouse habitat selection, vital rates, and population trends.
Implement consistent sampling at many sites in multiple states to ensure that results are rigorous and applicable throughout the sage-grouse range.
Not addressed.
Evaluate effect of extended rest from grazing after a restoration seeding (beyond the typical 2 years) on restoration success, including root growth development and at what point plants are established to the point of tolerating grazing by livestock or feral horses and burros.
Identify thresholds beyond which effects on sage-grouse behavior, population response(s), or habitat use are minimized relative to different types of disturbances and related activities, for example, effects of wildfire, energy development, and other surface-disturbing activities.
Assess the relative influence of predators and infrastructure on sage-grouse behaviors and population dynamics, including distinction of altered sage-grouse behavior (avoidance) from direct impacts (mortality).
Expand on the work of Blickley and others (2012) by building into study designs assessments of effects of different types of noise (industrial, recreational, and road noises in sagebrush landscapes) and by including variations in volume and distance across large geographic areas and over multiple sage-grouse populations.
Not addressed.
Investigate the impacts of noise on sage-grouse nesting females, nest success, and brood and chick survival.
Not addressed.
Evaluate impacts of wind turbines and associated infrastructure on sage-grouse habitat use, seasonal survival, nesting, and brood-rearing success rates.
Determine the effects of conifer removal relative to removal of anthropogenic tall structures, considering demonstrable effects on habitat use. Address in these studies how predators respond to treatments, including raptors, canids, corvids, and rodents.
Determine the response of sage-grouse to removal of infrastructure, including sage-grouse demography, population size of sage-grouse, and habitat characteristics.
Assess development scenarios to improve siting and density of future project development to decrease impacts of sage-grouse populations (for example, concentrated and clustered development versus diffuse development).
Assess the indirect effects of land use activities (density and distribution) and potential covariates on sagebrush habitats.
Develop next-generation mapping techniques to provide regular interval updates and continue to enhance grassland and shrubland vegetation mapping (for example, every 2–5 years).
Complete a baseline sagebrush ecosystem-wide characterization of shrub and grass components for the entire sagebrush ecosystem.
Conduct an ecosystem-wide analysis of sagebrush change back in time to 1983 from the baseline using the Landsat archive and ancillary data (for example, fire data).
Further explore how to integrate ground sampling and monitoring using remote sensing to synergistically advance monitoring applications (for example, machine learning and approaches using big data).
Using Landsat change trends, develop scenario maps of the future showing how sagebrush ecosystem could change based on expected climate, fire, and other change agents.
Explore new mapping technologies that synergistically merge multiple new technologies and data to provide higher spatial, structural, and thematic resolution maps than now possible and that cover larger areas.
Explore new technologies to map the location of sagebrush subspecies in more detail.
Develop spatially explicit sage-grouse population models that incorporate biological processes and habitat dynamics and investigate scenarios that reflect local management possibilities (options, opportunities, and obstacles).
Coordinate and establish sage-grouse telemetry study sites across the species’ range to collect consistent sage-grouse demographic rate information for use in development of a range-wide integrated population model and scenario modeling. This information will also help establish links between sage-grouse population change, protective measures, conservation efforts, restoration actions, and effectiveness of metrics for habitat monitoring.
Not addressed. See Needs 3 and 6 for local and regional habitat selection and demographic studies.
Synthesize existing data and literature about population ecology of sage-grouse, as well as habitat associations related to demographic rates. This synthesis should include information about specific sage-grouse life stages (for example, nesting, brood-rearing, wintering) while assessing vital rates and specific habitat needs across different ecoregions that sage-grouse inhabit.
Convene a multi-agency working group to develop the metrics and process for completing a range-wide framework for an integrated population model that can predict or explain sage-grouse population performance relative to management decisions.
NA.
Develop a range-wide integrated population model that incorporates landscape-scale environmental, disturbance, and climate information to provide reliable estimates of sage-grouse population size, population performance, and models that can explain variation in population size and performance across multiple spatial scales.
Use a spatially explicit simulation modeling environment to link data and models with vital rate and movement information. These models will allow for the evaluation of how multiple interacting management actions and changes in land use and resource condition affect local and regional populations. This biologically realistic and mechanistic approach to evaluating the population responses across life stages will aid in identifying effective alternative management actions impacting sage-grouse distribution, abundance, and persistence.
Develop an online interface to facilitate access by State and Federal agencies to the range-wide integrated population model to inform sage-grouse management actions.
NA.
Identify seasonal habitats for sage-grouse across their entire range.
Compile and summarize habitat objectives from land use plans across the range of sage-grouse, and summarize literature to develop regional functional responses that link site-scale habitat objectives to fine- or mid-scale shrub map products, which will be used for seasonal habitat models range-wide.
Collect existing telemetry data throughout the sage-grouse range and evaluate threshold-based seasonal habitat maps to evaluate sage-grouse resource selection models.
Develop empirically based seasonal habitat models for sage-grouse range-wide using existing telemetry data and new data collected as part of a multi-partner population and habitat monitoring framework.
Develop approaches to apply habitat objectives to shrub map products that allow the development of thresholded seasonal habitat models (several methods being pursued).
Integrate seasonal habitat models into a large spatially explicit population-viability modeling approach that encompasses the range of sage-grouse.
Develop spatially explicit simulations to evaluate the effects of land use change (energy development, climate-induced habitat changes, fires, restoration, etc.) on sage-grouse seasonal habitat, and thus population viability.
Use results from studies in Next Step 6f to support multiple management applications across spatial and management hierarchies.
NA.
Develop a modeling process to enable frequent updates of seasonal models to account for habitat lost due to fire and other disturbance, and gained through conservation and restoration actions.
NA.
Develop sagebrush ecosystem-wide models identifying conditions necessary to support sagebrush-associated species, other than sage-grouse, using an individual species approach or species groups when necessary.
Update existing expert opinion and habitat suitability models using current land-cover and human-disturbance mapping products.
Develop empirically based models for those species where suitable and sufficient data exist.
Initiate data collection to develop the information necessary to model those sagebrush-associated species that lack sufficient existing data to develop models.
Conduct a comprehensive review and synthesis of available information for sagebrush-obligate and associated species to identify information that can inform modeling efforts.
Develop standard monitoring strategies and protocols for priority species lacking current baseline habitat information.
Identify and resolve information gaps for sagebrush-obligates and ecosystem management.
Develop empirical models for sagebrush-associated species as data become available.
Develop decision-support tools to inform management actions for individual or groups of sagebrush-associated species.
Develop thresholds for the extent and magnitude of a threat (for example, cover of pinyon and juniper, density of oil and gas wells, road density, etc.) above which the habitat can no longer support sagebrush-obligate species.
Assess efficacy of current management strategies for conservation of sagebrush-obligates, and identify recommended changes using this information.
Initiate additional research on the effects of habitat management and modification on pinyon-juniper associated species, such as the juniper titmouse (
Develop or refine monitoring protocols and initiate systematic monitoring for sagebrush-obligates and other sagebrush-associated species to develop data necessary for evaluation of thresholds established for sage-grouse conservation.
Conduct a comprehensive review of data and literature for sagebrush-obligate species to identify types of responses to various disturbance factors and habitat change, the magnitude of those responses, and the underlying mechanisms.
Evaluate the responses of sagebrush-obligate species relative to various disturbance factors and habitat change and the magnitude of those responses, and determine the underlying causal mechanisms for those responses.
Continue research to identify habitat needs, connectivity, vital rates, etc. of sagebrush-obligate and sagebrush associated species.
NA.
Conduct long-term monitoring to assess development of community structure, community function, dynamics in native seedings, as well as suitability of resulting communities in meeting specific management goals, such as sage-grouse habitat restoration.
Identify and assess a standardized set of monitoring indicators and protocols, and evaluate their success for measuring efforts to meet habitat conservation and restoration goals.
Develop high-quality geospatial information for environmental and human disturbance metrics including soil characteristics, temperature, precipitation, and infrastructure.
Develop and assess new monitoring methods to improve monitoring efficiency (for example, use of tablets and other devices, photo points, remote sensing, and LiDAR).
Use radio-telemetry and spatially explicit simulation (population) modeling to evaluate the potential gains and losses of sage-grouse associated with alternative sagebrush restoration approaches.
Use long-term temporally stamped sagebrush mapping products currently being developed (See Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse Science Need 4) to construct temporal data series of changes in sagebrush vegetation components (1984–2016) for evaluation of the time to recovery of sagebrush vegetation given the various treatments, disturbances, and restoration practices.
Develop decision-support tools to enable managers to evaluate potential outcomes of planned treatments using information about similar treatments conducted under equivalent environmental conditions, including pre-treatment vegetation, ecological site, weather, and disturbance.
Complete evaluation of monitoring indicators and adopt those that provide clear information to detect community structure and function, evaluate success of management treatments, and detect habitat changes critical to sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species.
Use improved soil maps, maps and models of topography and climate, and information about post-disturbance vegetation response to refine and describe community responses to treatments across environmental gradients.
Develop a set of long-term monitoring sites across the sagebrush ecosystem, stratified by ecological site conditions, resistance and resilience, and other environmental characteristics to facilitate evaluation of long-term community dynamics.
Work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to complete and improve soil surveys and maps for public lands across the West.
NA.
Publishing support provided by the Science Publishing Network,
Denver Publishing Service Center
Tacoma Publishing Service Center
For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the
Director, USGS Colorado Water Science Center
Box 25046, Mail Stop 415
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-4882
Or visit the Colorado Water Science Center website at