Production services provided by:

BLM National Science and Technology Center

Branch of Publishing Services

Copies available from:

BLM National Business Center

Printed Materials Distribution Service, BC-652

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, Colorado 80225-0047

Fax: 303-236-0845

E-mail: blm_ncs_pmds@blm.gov

TN 417

BLM/ST/ST-05/001+4400
By Mike “Sherm” Karl

Inventory and Monitoring Specialist

Bureau of Land Management

National Science and Technology Center

Denver, Colorado

Jon Sadowski

Wildlife Biologist

Bureau of Land Management

Vale District

Jordan Resource Area

Vale, Oregon

August 2005
Suggested citation:

Karl, M. and J. Sadowski. 2005. Assessing big sagebrush at multiple spatial scales: An example in

southeast Oregon. Technical Note 417. BLM/ST/ST-05/001+4400. Bureau of Land Management,

Denver, CO. 41 pp.
i

Jerry Taylor

Jim May (retired)

Geoff Middaugh

George Buckner

Doug Powell

Jack Wenderoth

Cynthia Tait

Marisa Meyer (now with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Steve Christensen

Tom Forre

Tom Miles

Jean Findley

Richard Mayberry

Bob Kindschy (retired)

Signe Sather-Blair

Terry Rich (now with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Mike Pellant

Allan Thomas (retired)

Judy Nelson (retired)

Erick Campbell (retired)

Susan Giannettino

Craig MacKinnon

Jon Bates (supplied photos)

Izaak Walton League

Monty Montgomery

Grouse, Inc.

Clait Braun

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Jack Connelly

Oregon State University

John Crawford

Richard Miller

iii

Determine Mid-Scale Geographic Management Area Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Make Fine-Scale Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Determine Fine-Scale, Pasture-Level Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Evaluate Achievement of Oregon’s Rangeland Health Standard 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Determine Site (Local, Within Pasture) Subclasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Subclasses for Class 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Subclasses for Class 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Subclasses for Class 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Subclasses for Class 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Subclasses for Class 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Summary of Assessment Steps and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

1

3

Sagebrush-obligate species such as sage-grouse

are being adversely affected by the decline in

acreage of sagebrush, by fragmentation in some

areas of existing sagebrush, and by the decline in

structural complexity (increasing homogeneity of

structure) of existing sagebrush. As a result of

these and other factors, seven petitions (as of

early December 2003; K. Kritz pers. comm. 2003)

have been submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service to include the sage-grouse on the Federal

endangered species list.

The BLM manages more acreage with big sagebrush than any other agency (Knick et al. 2003)

and is increasingly considered the foremost land

management agency in regard to conservation

and restoration of big sagebrush communities.

The BLM faces a challenge in assessing sagebrush

habitat because the risk factors for sagebrushobligate species operate across different spatial

scales and the habitat needs of some species

such as sage-grouse encompass multiple spatial

scales, so an assessment at any single spatial

scale does not fully characterize habitat conditions.

Consequently, the BLM is looking for innovative

ways to assess big sagebrush that will provide

the best habitat characterization and result in the

most effective management decisions.

evaluated using fine-scale (for example, pasture)

to site-scale (local, for example, range site or

ecological site) assessments, yet it is reported at

the allotment level. Although each BLM state

has at least one Standard that addresses native

plants or native plant communities, which would

encompass sagebrush, BLM has struggled to

develop ways to assess sagebrush for these

Standards. Some of the struggle is related to the

lack of measurable indicators associated with

these Standards that are focused on spatial

patterns of sagebrush across the landscape and

the structural complexity of sagebrush.

To build the bridge between assessments and

management decisions and to address spatial

patterns and structural complexity, the BLM

developed a multiple-scale approach to assessment and management for the Proposed

Southeastern Oregon Resource Management

Plan (SEORMP) and Final Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) (USDI, BLM 2001). The multiplescale assessment approach is relatively new in

the BLM, but in its Strategic Plan for fiscal years

2000-2005 (USDI, BLM 2000) the agency states

its commitment to a comprehensive resource

assessment strategy that integrates assessment

needs over multiple scales. While past assessments
4

operates. The rangeland health assessment
5

pastures and GMAs are incorporated into BLM

wildlife management objectives for purely 

practical and administrative reasons. These

administrative boundaries and the existing vegetation conditions within them can be considered

randomly sized and shaped puzzle pieces that

join to complete a landscape.

Create Canopy Cover

Classes

The sagebrush assessment hinges primarily on

the spatial extent and patterning of five canopy

cover classes, each having either a grassland

and interested publics about basic wildlife

needs. In this case, there was value in simply

explaining that as BLM endeavors to manage

for wildlife communities over a large area, the

proportion and arrangement of grassland and

shrubland have an influence on wildlife 

community diversity.

When applied at the pasture level, these canopy

cover classes can be summarized and subsequently aggregated to the GMA level and higher

for broad characterization of the degree of

habitat connectivity, fragmentation, and quality.

Pasture-level evaluations in the SEORMP use the

proportion of grasslands and shrublands as part

Table 1. Spatial scales included in the sagebrush assessment and the approximate area 

covered at each scale.

General Spatial Scale Definitions Approximate Area

Scale Levels Used in Example Covered (Acres)

Broad-Scale ICBEMP 145 million

Mid-Scale SEORMP-FEIS 4.6 million

Louse Canyon GMA 0.52 million

Fine-Scale Pasture Less than 2,000 to 88,000

Site- or Local-Scale Ecological Site Variable, yet typically smaller than pasture
6

not apply metrics to define early-, mid-, and

late-structural shrub characteristics (Ralph

Anderson 2002, pers. comm.), meaning they did

not specify exactly how tall a shrub should be

or how much volume a shrub should occupy in

order for it to be considered mature. However,

their intent was to distinguish between young

the habitat requirements of wildlife species that

rely primarily on sagebrush. Native or nonnative

class 1 rangelands can be a wildlife issue of

concern if they occupy extensive tracts of land

within a GMA. Depending on ecological site

potential and past and present use, grass and

forb cover can be highly variable. Locations where

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

crested wheatgrass

grassland

big sagebrush

early-structural

shrubland

A Relationship Between Plant Community Structural Complexity 

and Wildlife Species Presence

Combined Number of Wildlife Species

 that Breed and Feed

big sagebrush

mid-structural

shrubland

big sagebrush

late-structural

shrubland

Figure 1. Increasing structural complexity of big sagebrush shrublands compared with crested

wheatgrass grassland shows an increase in the number of wildlife species that breed

and feed for selected vegetation types in southeast Oregon. Some species were counted

twice (once for breeding and once for feeding). Adapted from Maser et al. (1984).
7

Figure 4. An example

of class 1, late-seral

vegetation dominated

by native grasses and

forbs. Photo was 

taken where wildfire

occurred prior to the

1980s.

Photo taken by Jon

Sadowski.
8

Class 3: Greater than 5 Percent to 

15 Percent Sagebrush Canopy Cover

(Shrubland)

Rangelands that exhibit a predominantly

shrubland aspect are characteristic of this class

(Figure 6). The 10 to 15 percent sagebrush

canopy cover range is capable of supporting

many of the habitat needs of wildlife species

that rely primarily on sagebrush and associated

understory herbaceous species. Connelly et al.

(2000) reported that sage-grouse in Oregon

and Idaho select winter habitat with sagebrush

canopy cover as low as 12 to 15 percent, generally measured above snow level. Hanf et al.

(1994) reported that winter habitat selected by

female sage-grouse in central Oregon was

dominated by mountain big sagebrush and low

sagebrush, with canopy cover ranging from 12 to

16 percent. In addition, unpublished surveys from

BLM’s Vale District suggested that sagebrushobligate songbirds began to reoccupy crested

wheatgrass seedings when the sagebrush canopy

cover exceeded 5 percent. In Nevada, crested

wheatgrass seedings with sagebrush canopy

cover of about 10 percent provided structural

complexity sufficient to sustain a greater diversity

of grassland-nesting and shrubland-nesting

nongame birds than unconverted sagebrush,

monocultural crested wheatgrass, or crested

wheatgrass in poor condition (McAdoo et al.

1989). Depending on ecological site potential

and past and present use, grass and forb cover

can be highly variable.
9

y py py 

sagebrush and associated understory herbaceous

Figure 7. An example

of class 4, mid-seral

vegetation dominated

by Wyoming big 

sagebrush. Photo

depicts relatively lowstature Wyoming big

sagebrush on a xeric

site (8- to 10-inch 

precipitation zone).

Photo taken by Jon

Sadowski.
10

Photo taken by Jon

Sadowski.

Make Mid-Scale

Assessments 

Place Mid-Scale Conditions in the

Context of Broad-Scale Findings

How should BLM manage sagebrush—

particularly the Wyoming, basin, and mountain

subspecies of big sagebrush—to best achieve

the habitat needs of a diverse assemblage of

wildlife species, including sage grouse, and

forage demands for livestock? This planning

issue surfaced during the scoping phase of the

SEORMP for the combined Jordan and Malheur

Resource Areas of the Vale District (Figure 9).

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW) submitted a formal letter to BLM, dated

October 30, 1995, expressing concern about

management of sagebrush habitats. Specifically,

ODFW was seeking clarity in the SEORMP about

how BLM would address sagebrush habitat

fragmentation, prescribed fire, and monitoring

methods used to determine accomplishment of

the goals and prescriptions in the SEORMP.

The concerns of ODFW and a wide variety of other

members of the public regarding sagebrush habitats

were prompted by the following circumstances:

1. A substantial amount of habitat disturbance

had already occurred within the planning area.

According to Heady and Bartolome’s (1977)
11

forage species, and to build over 2,000 miles

(3,300 km) of fence, 1,600 water developments,

and 463 miles (741 km) of pipeline.”

2. Subsequent to the Vale Rangeland

Rehabilitation Program, there have been

nearly 30 years of additional impacts to

rangelands from disturbances such as wildfires, prescribed fires, chemical treatments, and

seedings. In the SEORMP area, an increase in

wildfire incidence attributable to cheatgrass

prevalence was not a notable issue in the

past but now is of great concern.

3. National Fire Plan objectives to reduce fuel

loading could potentially exacerbate fragmentation and further diminish habitats for populations of wildlife at risk in the West. Most

professional resource managers and interested

publics will agree that fire plays an important

role in ecosystem function, but the amount of

fire disturbance that would be desirable can

be a source of intense debate.

4. Re-treatment of seedings to restore forage

production where it has declined has been a

standard operating procedure.

of vegetation, were summarized to show that

of the approximately 4.6 million acres within

the SEORMP area, 3.49 million acres, or nearly

76 percent, either support or have the potential

to support big sagebrush vegetation. Table 2

lists all the vegetation types found within the

entire SEORMP area as well as those found in

the Jordan Resource Area, which constitutes

1.92 million acres of the SEORMP. It also highlights those vegetation types that support or

have the potential to support big sagebrush.

Not only were big sagebrush vegetation types a

concern at the SEORMP level, they were also a

concern at the broader scale of the Interior

Columbia Basin (Hann et al. 1997; USDA, FS

and USDI, BLM 2000; Wisdom et al. 2000). The

following broad-scale findings regarding sagebrush vegetation helped set the context for

development of mid-scale sagebrush objectives

for the SEORMP area:

1. The big sagebrush cover type (including

Wyoming and basin subspecies) could be

found in 24.54 percent of the ICBEMP area

historically (mid-1800s) and is found in 

16.43 percent currently, which represents a
12

Figure 10. Spatial portrayal of areas burned between 1980 and 2002 and vegetation

manipulation treatments applied (for example, seedings and chemical brush

control) between 1957 and 2002 in the Jordan Resource Area of BLM’s Vale

District.
13

declined from 21.98 percent historically to

20.86 percent currently, which represents a

5.10 percent decline (Hann et al. 1997).

area and time (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Table 2. Vegetation types and plant species found in the Jordan Resource Area and the entire

SEORMP. Acreages for the highlighted vegetation types are those that support big sagebrush (Wyoming, basin, or mountain) at the present time or have the potential to support

big sagebrush at some time along successional trajectories for the ecological sites. Vegetation

types are listed in order from greatest extent of the SEORMP area to least extent.

Vegetation Type List of Associated Plant Species Acres in Jordan Acres in 

Resource SEORMP

Area (%) Area (%)

Big western juniper, Wyoming big sagebrush, basin 1,160,363 2,044,240

Sagebrush/Perennial big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, antelope (44.9) (44.5)

Grassland bitterbrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue,

Thurber’s needlegrass, Indian ricegrass, needle 

and thread grass, Sandberg bluegrass, basin 

wildrye, bottlebrush squirreltail, arrowleaf 

balsamroot, phlox

Low western juniper, low sagebrush, bluebunch 333,927 458,787

Sagebrush/Grassland wheatgrass, Thurber needlegrass, Idaho fescue, (12.9) (10.0)

cheatgrass, biscuitroot, Sandberg bluegrass

Big Sagebrush/Annual western juniper, big sagebrush, cheatgrass, 197,643 440,117

Grassland tumblemustard, clasping pepperweed, foxtail (7.6) (9.6)

barley, Sandberg bluegrass
14

phlox (0.7)

Quaking Aspen quaking aspen, western juniper, big sagebrush, 32,742 32,742

antelope bitterbrush, common snowberry, western (1.3) (0.7)

chokecherry, bitter cherry, bluebunch wheatgrass,

Idaho fescue, needlegrass, mountain brome

Black black sagebrush, shadscale saltbush, bottlebrush 32,062 32,062

Sagebrush/Grassland squirreltail, Sandberg bluegrass, cheatgrass (1.2) (0.7)

Mountain mountain mahogany, antelope bitterbrush, 11,729 21,586

Shrub/Grassland common snowberry, western chokecherry, bitter (0.5) (0.5)

cherry, bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue,

needlegrass, mountain brome

Forested ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, western 0 7,121

juniper, quaking aspen, big sagebrush, antelope (0.2)

bitterbrush, common snowberry, rabbitbrush,

bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue 

Western Juniper/ western juniper, big sagebrush, antelope 0 6,343

Big Sagebrush bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, (0.1)

Thurber’s needlegrass, Idaho fescue, cheatgrass

Western Juniper/ western juniper, low sagebrush, bluebunch 3,684 5,194

Low Sagebrush wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Thurber’s needlegrass, (0.1) (0.1)

Sandberg bluegrass, cheatgrass 

Silver Sagebrush/ silver sagebrush, creeping wildrye, Sandberg 593 2,968

Grassland bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, cheatgrass (trace) (0.1)

Vegetation Types that Support or Have the Potential to Support 1,923,695 3,491,314

Big Sagebrush (74.4) (76.0)

TOTAL 2,585,647 4,597,718

1 Most of the annual grassland acreage has the potential to support big sagebrush; however, some unknown amount of acreage

probably has the potential to support salt desert shrub/grassland.
15

yg

comes, from 90 percent or more shrubland down

to 50 percent or less shrubland, were analyzed in

the EIS for comparative purposes.

The 70-percent level represents a conservative

minimum target of acres supporting class 3, 4, or

5 sagebrush at any given time. Not going below

the 70-percent level represents a conservation

focus for sagebrush vegetation, so that at least

that much sagebrush is retained at any given

time across the Jordan Resource Area and the

SEORMP area. If grassland increases and

approaches the 30-percent maximum, there is no

longer a legal basis in the SEORMP for additional

land treatments that would decrease shrubland

further. The cumulative effects analysis in the EIS

would no longer be valid and a plan amendment

or new EIS would be required. This fact underscores the need for frequent updating of land

treatment and wildfire impact area information.

In essence then, staying right at the 70-percent

level is not the interpretation that should be

Identify Mid-Scale Geographic

Management Areas

The Jordan Resource Area portion of the

SEORMP area was divided into eight GMAs

(Figure 11). The GMAs were artificial constructs,

each containing from one to several allotments,

that served as expedient administrative units

within which to assess progress towards

Standards for Rangeland Health. Additionally,

GMAs conformed to the recommendation in

BLM’s Rangeland Health Standards Handbook

(USDI, BLM 2001) to conduct rangeland health

standard assessments at a watershed level,

which is the fifth unit of the Hydrologic Unit

Hierarchy, ranging in size between 40,000 and

250,000 acres, (Federal Geographic Data

Committee, Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data

2004), or for groups of contiguous watersheds

(USDI, BLM 2001). GMAs range in size from

about 175,000 acres to 530,000 acres (Table 3).
16

Figure 11. Boundaries of eight Geographic Management Areas within the Jordan Resource Area of

BLM’s Vale District in southeast Oregon.
17

Determine Mid-Scale Geographic

Management Area Objectives

Sagebrush canopy cover in classes 3, 4, and 5

should be present in a variety of spatial arrangements (for example, at a landscape level and with

connectivity present) to support the life history

requirements of sage-grouse and other wildlife

species that use sagebrush habitats. There should

be a nearly contiguous core of sagebrush and

associated understory herbaceous species that is

composed of several large blocks, as well as

some other patch arrangements such as islands,

corridors, and mosaic patterns. Each of these

patterns has significance to wildlife within 

geographic areas. The sagebrush canopy cover

should show some mix of height and age classes but the overall emphasis should be on the

presence of sagebrush in a late structural status

as shown in Figure 1 (Maser et al. 1984).

Big sagebrush objectives were determined for

each GMA (Table 4) on the basis of factors such

as: 1) presence of sage-grouse and their various

life history needs; 2) existing native sagebrush

RATTLESNAKE Albisu-Alcorta, Echave, Eiguren, 211,224

Gilbert, Sherburn, Ten Mile Upland Watershed, Riparian, Wildlife

COW CREEK Antelope Individual, Bogus Creek, 251,674

Danner Individual, East Cow Creek, Upland Watershed, W&S,

Eiguren Individual, Miller Individual, WSAs, ACEC, Riparian,

Morcum, Oliver, Rome Individual, Recreation, Weeds, Wildlife

Skinner Individual, West Cow Creek 

BARREN VALLEY Bowden Hills, Coyote Lake, Barren Valley, 440,613

Black Hill, Jackies Butte West, Crooked Upland Watershed, WSAs,

Creek, Sheepheads Recreation, Weeds, Riparian,

Wild Horses, Wildlife, Sensitive Species
18

that have not crossed a threshold to a degraded

state (this way of stating things comes from

state-and-transition models available within

ecological site descriptions; see Habich 2001).

Herbaceous Understory on Seeded Rangeland:

Herbaceous understory species should include

one or more adapted forb species.

Evaluate Achievement of Oregon’s

Rangeland Health Standard 5

Oregon BLM’s Standards for Rangeland Health

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

were approved for immediate implementation in

August 1997 by Secretary of the Interior Bruce

Babbitt. There are five standards. Standard 5

pertains to native, threatened and endangered,

and locally important species, and it states:

“Habitats support healthy, productive and

diverse populations and communities of native

plants and animals (including special status

species and species of local importance) 

appropriate to soil, climate and landform.”

The rationale and intent of this standard are

that Federal agencies are mandated to protect

Cow Creek30

Barren Valley 80

1

Areas highly fragmented by wildfire disturbance or seedings

(see Figures 10 and 11). Saddle Butte experienced a wildfire

before 1980 and therefore the full extent of wildfire does not

show up in Figure 10.

Make Fine-Scale

Determinations

Determine Fine-Scale, Pasture-Level

Objectives

Pasture-level objectives are designed to achieve

the minimum allowable percentages of big

sagebrush in classes 3, 4, or 5 within each

GMA (see Table 4). The spatial extent of big

sagebrush in canopy classes 3, 4, or 5 and the

ecological status (plant composition data,

including herbaceous understory, compiled

from range surveys) were used as the basis for

pasture-level objectives:

Sagebrush Canopy Cover on Native Rangeland:

Big sagebrush canopy cover capable of supporting wildlife (classes 3, 4, and 5) should be

present on at least 50 to 75 percent of the

surface acreage capable of supporting big
19

• Population stability and resilience

Louse Canyon GMA Findings

The pasture-level objectives were used as the

basis for evaluating the achievement of Oregon’s

Rangeland Health Standard 5 for terrestrial

uplands in pastures within the Louse Canyon

GMA. The Louse Canyon GMA is approximately

523,000 acres and contains 4 allotments, the

Campbell, Anderson, Star Valley Community, and

Louse Canyon Community allotments. There are

20 pastures within these 4 allotments, the

majority of which are composed of shrub-steppe

vegetation types, primarily big sagebrush vegetation types. Table 5 summarizes the determinations

made for each pasture regarding achievement

of Oregon’s Rangeland Health Standard 5 on

terrestrial uplands.

Fifteen of the 20 pastures did achieve the sagebrush canopy cover structural conditions and

herbaceous understory conditions necessary to

achieve Standard 5. Starvation Seeding pasture did

not achieve Standard 5 because only 10 percent of

its acreage could be classified as class 3, 4, or 5.

The remaining four pastures that did not achieve

Standard 5 were deficient in herbaceous understory conditions.

composed of native or seeded rangeland that

currently exhibits a grassland aspect and is in

classes 1 or 2.

About 92 percent of the native rangeland in

Louse Canyon GMA has no history of seeding or

chemical brush control. It is a nearly complete

block of sagebrush vegetation types with relatively minor, fine-scale inclusions of grassland

vegetation types. Habitat patterns that appear

as corridors, mosaics, and islands are detectible

only at the site (local) scale and are consistent

with soil, climate, or landform differences rather

than recent disturbance. The herbaceous understory composition in most of the native rangeland is diverse, composed of predominantly

native species, and is consistent with mid-seral,

late-seral, or potential natural community 

ecological status (Figure 12).

Even where herbaceous understory diversity and

density of individuals is somewhat weakly

expressed, the vegetation is not at high risk to

wildfire because cheatgrass is either totally

absent or only weakly expressed. Invasive plants

with the potential for direct or indirect adverse

effects on wildlife habitat have only minor and

localized influences.
20

Table 5. Pasture-by-pasture evaluation of Oregon’s Rangeland Health Standa

Percent of Pasture

Capable of Perce

Supporting Big Capabl

Sagebrush, Big 

Estimated to be Esti

Acres per Vegetation Occupied by Occup

Pastures Pasture Types Present1 Classes 1 or 2 

Campbell A

Horse Hill 49,987 Arar, Artrwyo, 0 

Artrva, Artrtr

Starvation 19,024 Artrwyo 0 

Brush ControlStarvation 15,472 Agcr, Artrwyo/ 90 Seeding AgcrSacramento 19,355 Artrwyo 0 

HillTwin Springs 9,824 Artrwyo 0 SouthTwin Springs 14,793 Artrwyo 0 NorthTwin Springs 7,166 Artrwyo 0 MiddlePeacock 28,583 Artrwyo 0 Larribeau 1,748 Arar, Artrwyo, 0 Holding Artrva
21

Anderson A

Spring 12,959 Artrwyo 0 

Bull Flat 8,728 Artrwyo 10 North 12,991 Artrwyo, Arar 5 

Star Valley Comm

North Stoney 57,248 Artrwyo 0 

CorralTristate 45,782 Artrwyo 0 South Tent 50,660 Artrwyo, 0 Creek Artrtr, ArarNorth Tent 35,343 Artrwyo 0 Creek

Louse Canyon Com

Drummond 15,050 Artrwyo 0 

BasinSteer Canyon 11,272 Artrwyo/Agcr 0 SeedingPole Creek 15,586 Artrwyo/Agcr, Artrtr 0 SeedingLouse Canyon 87,737 Artrwyo, Arar <1 

(Upper and Lower)

1 Artrwyo=Wyoming big sagebrush, Artrtr=basin big sagebrush, Artrva=mountain big sagebrush, Arar=lo2 Most habitats observed meet the desired herbaceous understory conditions for native rangeland (e.g., m

community ecological conditions).

3 The southern third of the pasture near Lucky Seven Cow Camp is more consistent with early ecological 4 Habitats observed do not meet the minimum desired herbaceous understory conditions for seeded rang5 Herbaceous composition in the southern third of the pasture is more consistent with early ecological co6 For the 56 percent of this pasture that was seeded to crested wheatgrass, habitats observed do not mee

introduced forb species not present).

7 For the 26 percent of this pasture that was seeded to crested wheatgrass, habitats observed do not mee

introduced forb species not present).
22

Figure 12. Seral status (ecological condition) of native vegetation and range condition of seeded

vegetation in pastures in Louse Canyon GMA. Quinn River and Little Owyhee allotments

at the south end lie in Nevada, yet are administered by the Vale District as part of the

Upper Louse Canyon and South Tent Creeks pastures, respectively.
23

• Adaptive management involving BLM land

treatments and wildfire suppression will

incorporate wildlife habitat needs at the fine

and site scales in order to limit sagebrush

community fragmentation.

• Maintain 85 percent or more of Wyoming,

mountain, and basin big sagebrush communities (see Table 4) as canopy cover classes 3, 4,

or 5, with shrubs in a predominantly mid to

late structural condition (as per Fig. 1). This

objective includes both native and modified

rangelands.

• BLM-initiated land treatments which result in

grassland conditions (canopy cover classes 1

and 2), will not exceed 5 percent of Louse

Canyon GMA, or about 26,000 acres, at any

given time. This includes future actions such as

fire fuel treatments, enhancement of existing

seedings for livestock forage production,

watershed treatments, and wildlife habitat

improvement manipulations.

• Where necessary, allow land treatments in

native rangeland as long as the combined

amount of disturbance resulting in grassland

Community ecological status in big sagebrush,

low sagebrush, and salt desert habitats.

Desirable herbaceous plant communities for

wildlife are comprised of native perennial

grasses and multiple species of native forbs

consistent with site potential as determined

by Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) site guides.

• Manage livestock grazing use impacts on

native rangeland so that utilization levels are

predominantly slight (6-20 percent) or light

(21-40 percent) at reasonable distances from

livestock water sources and salting areas.”

These management objectives for Louse Canyon

GMA demonstrate how the structural complexity,

ecological status, and landscape-level features

discussed in the SEORMP were incorporated into

the management of the four grazing allotments.

Native and modified rangeland desired conditions

were addressed, links to prescribed fire and

wildfire suppression activities were indicated,

and desired canopy cover types that can be

monitored over time were identified. Because

the Louse Canyon GMA currently contains such

a large geographic area of big sagebrush habitat,
and described at a finer scale with more

detailed data. These more discrete measures

are often difficult to attain, difficult to measure

and monitor over the long term, and difficult to

integrate into activity plans that extend over

large areas of land.

At present within the BLM, because there are

hundreds of thousands, even millions, of acres

within each field office’s jurisdiction, it is not

possible to conduct an on-the-ground detailed

assessment to discern all of the possible combinations of overstory and understory conditions

present at finer scales within pastures.

Alternatively, for the SEORMP, the five classes

of big sagebrush canopy cover were further

divided into subclasses, which serve as the

basis for a site- (local-) scale, more detailed way

of mapping big sagebrush habitat conditions

with pastures. Although these subclasses were

not mapped in the evaluation of Standard 5

conducted in the Louse Canyon GMA, they are

offered as placeholders that can be identified,

mapped, and spatially analyzed with remote

sensing technology and geostatistics in future

evaluations or identified through the use of

pg

2(A), 2(C), 3(A), 3(B), 3(C), 4(B), and 5(A).

Subclass 1(B): This vegetation is dominated by

introduced annual grasses and forbs, such as

cheatgrass, medusahead, and tumblemustard,

which do not meet the habitat needs of wildlife

species that rely primarily on sagebrush and associated understory herbaceous species (Figure 14).

It is in a degraded vegetation state (Habich 2001)

and is not desirable to sustain in its present

condition if the site has potential to support

sagebrush. Before converting to annual grasses

and forbs, subclass 1(B) vegetation was more

likely to have been dominated by Wyoming big

sagebrush or basin big sagebrush than either low

sagebrush or mountain big sagebrush (Miller and

Eddleman 2001). Subclass 1(B) vegetation is

prone to disturbance by wildfire at short-interval

frequencies (Billings 1948; Pellant 1990). High

plant density of these annual plants, along with

great amounts of litter and frequent wildfire,

effectively eliminate biological soil crusts. The

combination of these factors inhibits recovery of

native plants and biological soil crusts

(Kaltenecker et al. 1999; Hilty et al. 2004).

24
Subclass 1(C): This vegetation is dominated by

seedings of crested wheatgrass or other introduced

perennial grasses, which generally do not meet

the habitat needs of wildlife species that rely 

primarily on sagebrush and associated understory

herbaceous species (Figure 15). It is lacking in

sagebrush canopy cover because a sagebrush

seed source is lacking nearby, sufficient time has

not elapsed for sagebrush species to recolonize

the seeding, or the site does not have the potential to support sagebrush. This vegetation is not

desirable to sustain in its present state if the site

has the potential to support sagebrush.

Subclass 1(D): This subclass is a woodland

dominated by species such as western juniper

(Figure 16). Western juniper encroachment and

increasing density, particularly in the mountain

big sagebrush and low sagebrush dominated

vegetation, can result in the near total loss of

sagebrush canopy cover (Miller and Eddleman

2001). Subclass 1(D) vegetation does not meet

the habitat needs of sage-grouse and other

wildlife that rely primarily on sagebrush and

associated understory herbaceous species. Sagegrouse did not select western juniper dominated

vegetation in central Oregon for nesting or

This example is in the

Jackies Butte Summer

allotment in the

Jackies Butte GMA,

at an elevation of

about 3,400 feet.

Photo taken by Jon

Sadowski.

25
26

winter habitat (Hanf et al. 1994). Excessive

livestock grazing pressure and fire suppression

since Euro-American settlement have been the

main contributors to the formation of many of

these woodlands (Eddleman et al. 1994). These

vegetation types have depleted understory

herbaceous vegetation in addition to depleted

(or sometimes nonexistent) shrub canopy cover,

and they may have depleted biological soil

crusts if the sites are capable of supporting

biological soil crusts. The depletion of the shrub,

herbaceous, and biological soil crust cover may

result in accelerated erosion in these vegetation

types, as well as in documented declines in vegetation productivity, floral and faunal diversity,

and wildlife habitat (Wilcox 2002). This vegetation is not desirable to sustain in its present state

if the site has the potential to support sagebrush.

Subclasses for Class 2

Subclass 2(A): This vegetation is dominated by

native grasses and forbs, with some recruitment

of sagebrush, which generally meets a portion of

the habitat needs of wildlife species that rely

primarily on sagebrush and associated understory

herbaceous species (Figure 17). This vegetation is

typically observed after fire occurs, when sagebrush species are reestablishing. It is desirable as

patches, intermingled with subclasses 1(A), 2(C),

3(A), 3(B), 3(C), 4(B), and 5(A).

and Thurber’s needlegrass, sagebrush

canopy cover now is

basically nonexistent.

Photo taken by Jon

Bates.
27

frequent fire through time. Subclass 2(B) areas do

not meet the habitat needs of wildlife species

that rely primarily on sagebrush and associated

understory herbaceous species. This vegetation is

in a degraded vegetation state (Habich 2001) and

is not desirable to sustain in its present condition

if the site has the potential to support sagebrush.

Before converting to annual grasses and annual

forbs, subclass 2(B) vegetation is more likely to

have been dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush

or basin big sagebrush than either low sagebrush

or mountain big sagebrush (Miller and Eddleman

2001). Subclass 2(B) vegetation is prone to disturbance by wildfire at short-interval frequencies

(Billings 1948; Pellant 1990). High plant density

of these annual plants, along with great amounts

seedings of crested wheatgrass or other introduced perennial grasses, where sagebrush

species are in the early stages of recolonization

(Figure 18). This vegetation might not be meeting

the complex structure (shrub, grass, and forb)

and food needs of wildlife species that rely primarily on sagebrush and associated understory

herbaceous species, but if sagebrush canopy

cover is increasing due to sagebrush colonization

and growth of existing sagebrush, there is high

likelihood that it will meet habitat needs in the

future. This vegetation is desirable to sustain if it

is moving successionally to greater abundance

of sagebrush species and the site has the

potential to support sagebrush.
28

Subclass 2(D): This subclass is a woodland

dominated by species such as western juniper

(Figure 19). Western juniper encroachment and

increasing density can result in near total loss

of sagebrush canopy cover, particularly in the

mountain big sagebrush and low sagebrush

dominated vegetation (Miller and Eddleman

2001). Subclass 2(D) vegetation is where western

juniper is continuing to increase in density and

canopy coverage and sagebrush species are on

their way out. The vegetation does not provide

habitat needs for sage-grouse and other

wildlife that rely primarily on sagebrush and

associated understory herbaceous species.

Sage-grouse did not select western juniper

dominated vegetation in central Oregon for

nesting or winter habitat (Hanf et al. 1994).

Excessive livestock grazing pressure and fire

suppression since Euro-American settlement have

been the main contributors to the formation of

many of these woodlands (Eddleman et al. 1994).

These vegetation types have depleted understory

herbaceous vegetation in addition to depleted

shrub canopy cover and may have depleted

biological soil crusts if the sites are capable of

supporting biological soil crusts. The depletion of

the shrub, herbaceous, and biological soil crust

cover may result in accelerated erosion in these

vegetation types, as well as in documented

declines in vegetation productivity, floral and

faunal diversity, and wildlife habitat (Wilcox

2002). This vegetation is not desirable to sustain

in its present state if the site has the potential

to support sagebrush.

and mountain big

sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass

are declining in

canopy cover.

Photo taken by Jon

Bates.
29

ypy 

basin big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush.

Despite this, subclass 3(B) basin big sagebrush or

mountain big sagebrush vegetation types meet

Figure 20. An 

example of subclass

3(A), potential natural

community vegetation

dominated by Wyoming

big sagebrush and

native grasses and

forbs, on the Anderson

allotment in the Jordan

Resource Area on a

north slope at an 

elevation of 5,300 feet.

A mature sagebrush

canopy offers abundant cover and 

structural character

important to wildlife

communities that

occupy sagebrush

habitat.

Photo taken by Jon

Sadowski.

desirable to sustain if the site has the potential

to support sagebrush, but the addition of grasses

and forbs to the understory is recommended.
30

Subclasses for Class 4

Subclass 4(A): This vegetation has a shrub

component dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush, in which native grass and forb canopy

cover typically begin to decline where sagebrush

canopy cover exceeds 20 percent (Miller and

Eddleman 2001) (Figure 22). Biological soil crust

development may decline as well, compared

with subclass 3(A) Wyoming big sagebrush

vegetation. Disturbances such as excessive

livestock grazing pressure can contribute to the

development of the greater than 20 percent of

this vegetation (Miller and Eddleman 2001).

Subclass 4(A) vegetation that is greater than

20 percent might not be the potential natural

community or a desirable outcome for Wyoming

big sagebrush when the inherent capabilities of

soil, landform, and climate are factored in.

However, subclass 4(A) vegetation can meet

some habitat needs of sage-grouse—for example,

by providing winter habitat (Miller and Eddleman

2001)—and those of other wildlife species that

rely primarily on sagebrush and associated

understory herbaceous species.

Subclass 4(B): This vegetation has a shrub 

component dominated by basin big sagebrush or

mountain big sagebrush, with an understory of

native grasses and forbs (Figure 23). Subclass

4(B) vegetation typically represents the potential

natural community for basin big sagebrush or

mountain big sagebrush vegetation types. It

meets the habitat needs of sage-grouse—for

example, by providing nesting habitat (Hanf et al.

end of the 15 to 

25 percent range, on

the Star Valley

Community allotment

in the Louse Canyon

GMA.

Photo taken by Jon

Sadowski.
31

1(A), 2(A), 2(C), 3(A), 3(B), 3(C), and 5(A).

Subclass 4(C): This vegetation has shrub canopy

cover dominated by mountain big sagebrush,

with tree seedlings (particularly western juniper)

in the understory or in the intershrub spaces

(photo not available.). Western juniper encroachment and increasing density can result in the

near total loss of sagebrush canopy cover, particularly in the mountain big sagebrush and low

sagebrush dominated vegetation types (Miller

and Eddleman 2001). Subclass 4(C) vegetation

currently meets the habitat needs of wildlife

species that rely primarily on sagebrush and associated understory herbaceous species. However,

with continued growth and increasing density

of western juniper, sagebrush will decline, and

subclass 4(C) vegetation will likely transition to

subclass 2(D) and, subsequently, subclass 1(D)

vegetation. During this transition, fewer habitat

needs will be met for wildlife species that rely

primarily on sagebrush and associated understory

herbaceous species. Excessive livestock grazing

pressure and fire suppression since Euro-American

settlement have been the main contributors to

the formation of many of these subclass 4(C)

vegetation types (Eddleman et al. 1994). Subclass

4(C) vegetation is not desirable to sustain in its

component dominated by basin big sagebrush,

or mountain big sagebrush, or infrequently,

Wyoming big sagebrush, with an understory of

native grasses and forbs (Figures 24 and 25).

Particularly on sites where sagebrush canopy

cover does not exceed 35 percent, subclass 5(A)

vegetation represents the potential natural community for basin big sagebrush or mountain big

sagebrush dominated vegetation types (Miller

and Eddleman 2001). As sagebrush canopy

cover approaches and exceeds 35 percent, the

understory of native grasses and forbs declines.

Subclass 5(A) vegetation can meet the habitat

needs of sage-grouse—for example, by providing

nesting habitat (Connelly et al. 2000; Miller and

Eddleman 2001), brood-rearing habitat (Miller

and Eddleman 2001), and winter habitat

(Connelly et al. 2000)—and those of other

wildlife that rely primarily on sagebrush and

associated understory herbaceous species.

Subclass 5(A) vegetation with sagebrush canopy

cover in the range of greater than 25 percent to

35 percent is probably within the range of what

the soils, landform, and climate would sustain

for basin big sagebrush or mountain big sagebrush dominated vegetation types. However,

subclass 5(A) vegetation with sagebrush canopy

cover that exceeds 35 percent is less desirable
32

,

feet.

Photo taken by Jon

Sadowski.

Figure 25. An example

of subclass 5(A),

vegetation dominated

by Wyoming big 

sagebrush, with a

sagebrush canopy cover

averaging 25.6 percent

but ranging between

20 percent and 

30 percent (based on 

3, 100-foot line intercept samples). It has

an understory dominated by grasses,

such as bluebunch

wheatgrass and

Thurber’s needlegrass,

and forbs, represented

by Lupinus sp., Crepis

acuminata, Erigeron sp., Allium sp., Phlox hoodii, and Eriogonum sp. This example is in the

North Jackson Creek pasture of the 15 Mile allotment in Trout Creek GMA, in the upland study

exclosure at an elevation of 5,600 feet and in a 12-to 14-inch precipitation zone.

Photo taken by Jon Sadowski.
33

35

pg jg

objectives were developed at the mid and fine scales.

Create Canopy Cover Classes: These big sagebrush canopy cover classes were created:

Divide big sagebrush canopy cover into habitat Class 1: no sagebrush canopy cover (grassland);

classes that represent grasslands and shrublands. Class 2: trace to 5 percent sagebrush canopy cover (grassland);

Use big sagebrush classes to complement Class 3: greater than 5 percent to 15 percent sagebrush 

existing rangeland ecology metrics and provide canopy cover (shrubland);

a simple way to portray sagebrush structural Class 4: greater than 15 percent to 25 percent sagebrush 

conditions important to wildlife. canopy cover (shrubland);

Class 5: greater than 25 percent sagebrush canopy cover 

(shrubland).

Make Mid-Scale Assessments: Place Of the 4.6 million acres in the SEORMP area, about 3.49 million

Mid-Scale Conditions in the Context of acres either support or are capable of supporting big sagebrush

Broad-Scale Findings: and about 1.92 million of those acres lie within the Jordan

Compile data about and portray mid-scale Resource Area. In the Jordan Resource Area, as of 2002, seedings

resource conditions, including the extent of and brush control treatments covered about 347,000 and

vegetation types that either support or have the 171,000 acres, respectively, for a total of 518,000 acres of land

potential to support big sagebrush and the treatments; between 1980 and 2002, 411,500 acres burned and,

spatial location and extent of past disturbances in some cases, the same acres burned multiple times.

such as wildfire and chemical control treatments.

Mid-scale resource conditions were placed in Big sagebrush vegetation types were highlighted for

the context of big sagebrush vegetation trends conservation and restoration in the ICBEMP. The big sagebrush

over time and space at a broader scale reported cover type, which includes the Wyoming and basin subspecies,

in the sagebrush assessment of the ICBEMP. declined 33 percent in area in the Interior Columbia Basin from

the mid-1800s to the present. The mountain big sagebrush

cover type declined 34 percent in area in the Interior Columbia

Basin from the mid-1800s to the present. Largely because

of these declines, species such as the sage-grouse, sage 

thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, lark bunting, pygmy 

rabbit, and sagebrush vole experienced a 28 percent decline in 

source habitat from the mid-1800s to the present.
36

in classes 3, 4, or 5. Associated herbaceous community ecological status. On seeded rangeland, 25 to 

understory objectives focus on plant composition. 50 percent of the pasture’s area is in the minimum allowable 

Each pasture’s big sagebrush and herbaceous range of sagebrush to maintain in classes 3, 4, or 5. The 

understory objectives contribute to the associated herbaceous understory should include one or more 

achievement of the mid-scale GMA objectives. adapted forb species.

Make Fine-Scale Determinations: Out of 20 pastures evaluated in the Louse Canyon GMA, 15 

Evaluate Achievement of Oregon’s fully achieved the pasture-level objectives for big sagebrush 

Rangeland Health Standard 5: canopy class and herbaceous understory conditions. Four

Describe existing vegetation in terms of big pastures achieved the big sagebrush objective but did not 

sagebrush canopy cover classes and associated achieve the herbaceous understory objective. One pasture failed 

herbaceous understory so that determinations to achieve the big sagebrush and the herbaceous understory 

for Oregon’s Standard 5 can be made for each objectives because it was a crested wheatgrass grassland with 

pasture. Then, based on all the pasture no native or introduced forbs.

determinations, describe composite GMA plant

community patterns in an evaluation that Based on all the pasture determinations, the mid-scale GMA big 

addresses the achievement of the GMA objective. sagebrush objective of 85 percent as the minimum allowable 

was achieved. Nearly 96 percent of the 394,000 acres in Louse 

Canyon GMA that are capable of supporting big sagebrush 

support big sagebrush in classes 3, 4, or 5. These acres 

appeared on the landscape as well-connected shrubland 

communities, predominantly in mid- to late- to potential natural 

community ecological status. The GMA objective permits some 

land treatment that specifies no more than 5 percent of the big 

sagebrush vegetation (26,000 acres total) could appear as 

grassland attributable to BLM-initiated actions. A conservation 

emphasis was warranted over the long term (at least 20 years) 

for wildlife that rely on sagebrush and associated understory 

herbaceous species.
37

39

Results of a study, 1988-1993. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Prineville District, BLM/OR/WA/PT-95/002-4120.7.

Hann, W.J., J.L. Jones, M.G. “Sherm” Karl, P.F. Hessburg, R.E. Keane, D.G. Long, J.P. Menakis, C.H.

McNicoll, S.G. Leonard, R.A. Gravenmier, and B.G. Smith. 1997. Landscape dynamics of the Basin. In

T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide, technical editors. An assessment of ecosystem components in the

Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-405. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Portland, Oregon, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Pages 337-1055.

Heady, H.F. and J. Bartolome. 1977. The Vale rangeland rehabilitation program: The desert repaired in

southeastern Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Resource Bulletin PNW-70.

139 pp.

Hilty, J.H., D.J. Eldridge, R. Rosentreter, M.C. Wicklow-Howard, and M. Pellant. 2004. Recovery of

biological soil crusts following wildfire in Idaho. Journal of Range Management 57:89-96.

Kaltenecker, J.H., M. Wicklow-Howard, and M. Pellant. 1999. Biological soil crusts: Natural barriers to

Bromus tectorum L. establishment in the northern Great Basin, USA. In D. Eldridge and D.

Freudenberger, editors. Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress, Aitkenvale,

Queensland, Australia. Pages 109-111.

Klebenow, D.A. 1970. Sage grouse versus sagebrush control in Idaho. Journal of Range Management

23:396-400.
40

Management. 2000. Interior Columbia Basin final environmental impact statement: Proposed

decision.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Sampling vegetation attributes.

Technical Reference 1734-4, revised 1999. BLM/RS/ST-96/002+1730. Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Bureau of Land Management

Strategic Plan, FY 2000-2005. www.blm.gov/nhp/info/stratplan/strat0105.pdf

(accessed on May 9, 2005).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Proposed southeastern

Oregon resource management plan and final environmental impact statement.

BLM/OR/WA/PL-01/016+1792. Vale District Office, Malheur and Jordan Resource Areas.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Rangeland health standards

handbook H-4180-1.

Weiss, N.T. and B.J. Verts. 1984. Habitat and distribution of pygmy rabbits (Sylvilagus idahoensis) in

Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist 44:563-571.

Wilcox, B.P. 2002. Shrub control and streamflow on rangelands: A process based viewpoint. Journal

of Range Management 55:318-326.
41

The mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the Federal Government.