United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report December 2016

Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-356

Using Resilience and Resistance Concepts to Manage 

Threats to Sagebrush Ecosystems, Gunnison SageGrouse, and Greater Sage-Grouse in Their Eastern 

Range: A Strategic Multi-Scale Approach

Jeanne C. Chambers, Jeffrey L. Beck, Steve Campbell, John Carlson, 

Thomas J. Christiansen, Karen J. Clause, Jonathan B. Dinkins, Kevin E. Doherty, 

Kathleen A. Griffin, Douglas W. Havlina, Kenneth F. Henke, Jacob D. Hennig, 

Laurie L. Kurth, Jeremy D. Maestas, Mary Manning, Kenneth E. Mayer, 

Brian A. Mealor, Clinton McCarthy, Marco A. Perea, and David A. Pyke
Chambers, J.C.; Beck, J.L.; Campbell, S.; Carlson, J.; Christiansen, T.J.; Clause, K.J.; Dinkins, 

J.B.; Doherty, K.E.; Griffin, K.A.; Havlina, D.W.; Henke, K.F.; Hennig, J.D.; Kurth, L.L.; 

Maestas, J.D.; Manning, M.; Mayer, K.E.; Mealor, B.A.; McCarthy, C.; Perea, M.A.; 

Pyke, D.A. 2016. Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage threats to 

sagebrush ecosystems, Gunnison sage-grouse, and Greater sage-grouse in their 

eastern range: A strategic multi-scale approach. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-356. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 143 p.

Abstract

This report provides a strategic approach developed by a Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies interagency working group for conservation of sagebrush ecosystems, 

Greater sage-grouse, and Gunnison sage-grouse. It uses information on (1) factors that influence sagebrush ecosystem resilience to disturbance and resistance to nonnative invasive 

annual grasses and (2) distribution and relative abundance of sage-grouse populations to 

address persistent ecosystem threats, such as invasive annual grasses and wildfire, and land 

use and development threats, such as oil and gas development and cropland conversion, to 

develop effective management strategies. A sage-grouse habitat matrix links relative resilience and resistance of sagebrush ecosystems with modeled sage-grouse breeding habitat 

probabilities to help decisionmakers assess risks and determine appropriate management 

strategies at both landscape and site scales. Areas for targeted management are assessed 

by overlaying matrix components with Greater sage-grouse Priority Areas for Conservation 

and Gunnison sage-grouse critical habitat and linkages, breeding bird concentration areas, 

and specific habitat threats. Decision tools are discussed for determining the suitability of 

target areas for management and the most appropriate management actions. A similar 

approach was developed for the Great Basin that was incorporated into the Federal land 

use plan amendments and served as the basis of a Bureau of Land Management Fire and 

Invasives Assessment Tool, which was used to prioritize sage-grouse habitat for targeted 

management activities.

Keywords: sagebrush habitat, Greater sage-grouse, Gunnison sage-grouse, persistent 

ecosystem threats, land use and development threats, climate change, management 

prioritization, conservation, restoration

Front Cover Photo. Expansive big sagebrush in sage-grouse Management Zone II (photo 

by M. Evans) with male Greater sage-grouse on road inset (photo by C.P. Kirol). 

Inside Cover Photo. Sage-grouse lek in Sublette County, Wyoming (photo by T. 

Christiansen).

Back Cover Photo. Male Greater sage-grouse in a sagebrush ecosystem in Management 

Zone I (photo by C. Duchardt). 
i

Authors

Jeanne C. Chambers, Research Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Reno, Nevada.

Jeffrey L. Beck, Associate Professor, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Steve Campbell, Soil Scientist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland, 

Oregon.

John Carlson, Management Zone I Greater Sage-Grouse Lead, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Billings, Montana.

Thomas J. Christiansen, Sage-Grouse Program Coordinator, Wyoming Game & Fish 

Department, Green River, Wyoming.

Karen J. Clause, Rangeland Management Specialist, USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Pinedale, Wyoming.

Jonathan B. Dinkins, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Ecosystem Science 

and Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Kevin E. Doherty, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado.

Kathleen A. Griffin, Grouse Conservation Coordinator, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Grand 

Junction, Colorado.

Douglas W. Havlina, Fire Ecologist, USDI Bureau of Land Management, National 

Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho.

Kenneth F. Henke, Natural Resource Specialist, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Jacob D. Hennig, Spatial and Data Technician, Department of Ecosystem Science and 

Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Laurie L. Kurth, Applied Fire Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Fire and Aviation 

Management, Washington, DC.

Jeremy D. Maestas, Sagebrush Ecosystem Specialist, USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Redmond, Oregon.

Mary Manning, Regional Vegetation Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana.

Kenneth E. Mayer, Wildlife Ecologist, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

Sparks, Nevada.

Brian A. Mealor, Associate Professor, Extension Weed Specialist, Department of Plant 

Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Clinton W. McCarthy, Retired Wildlife Biologist, Region 4, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, 

Utah.

Marco A. Perea, Fire Management Specialist, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Lakewood, Colorado.

David A. Pyke, Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem 

Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon.
Acknowledgments

We thank the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Great Basin Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative, and Bureau of Land Management for financial support of this effort. We also thank the numerous resource specialists who provided input into the ecological 

type descriptions, state-and-transition models, and fire and fuels management strategies, 

and who reviewed a draft of this report. Cameron Aldridge, Steve Hanser, Jane Mangold, and 

Mary Rowland provided valuable comments on the report.

All Rocky Mountain Research Station publications are published by U.S. Forest Service employees and 

are in the public domain and available at no cost. Even though U.S. Forest Service publications are not 

copyrighted, they are formatted according to U.S. Department of Agriculture standards and research 

findings and formatting cannot be altered in reprints. Altering content or formatting, including the cover 

and title page, is strictly prohibited.
iii

Contents

1. Purpose and Use of this Document .......................................................................1

2. Introduction ............................................................................................................2

3. Climatic Regimes and Vegetation Types ...............................................................4

4. Threats to Sagebrush Ecosystems, Greater Sage-Grouse, and 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse ..................................................................................13

4.1 Persistent Ecosystem Threats ......................................................................13

4.2 Climate Change ............................................................................................22

4.3 Land Use and Development Threats ............................................................25

5. Resilience to Disturbance and Resistance to Nonnative Invasive 

Plant Species ..................................................................................................36

6. Integrating Resilience and Resistance Concepts with Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Requirements to Prioritize Areas for Management and 

Inform Management Strategies .......................................................................39

6.1 Sage-grouse Breeding Habitat Probabilities and Population Indices ........... 39

6.2 Soil Temperature and Moisture Regimes as Indicators of Ecosystem 

Resilience and Resistance ......................................................................46

6.3 Sage-Grouse Habitat Resilience and Resistance Matrix ............................. 51

7. Delineating Habitats for Targeted Management Intervention at the 

Ecoregional/Management Zone Scale ............................................................59

7.1 Assessing Target Areas for Sage-Grouse Habitat Management – 

Key Data Layers ......................................................................................59

7.2 Assessing Target Areas for Sage-Grouse Habitat Management – 

Overlaying data layers.............................................................................63

8. Determining Appropriate Management Treatments at Local Scales ................... 72

8.1 Steps in the Process ....................................................................................72

8.2 Examples of How to Apply the Concepts and Tools ..................................... 75

8.3 Monitoring and Adaptive Management .........................................................88

8.4 Sources of Management Information ...........................................................89

9. Conclusions .........................................................................................................90

References ..............................................................................................................91

Appendix A1. Definitions of Terms Used in This Document .................................. 110

Appendix A2. Explanation of Soil Temperature and Moisture Regime Data .......... 112

Appendix A3. Methods for Determining the Predominant Ecological Types ......... 115
iv

Appendix A4. Data Sources for the Maps in This Report ...................................... 123

Appendix A5. Explanation of the Use of Landscape Measures to Describe 

Sagebrush Habitat ........................................................................................126

Appendix A6. State-and-Transition Models for the Predominant 

Sagebrush Ecological Types in the West-Central Semiarid 

Prairies, Western Cordillera, and Cold Desert ............................................. 127

Appendix A7. Informing Wildfire and Fuels Management Strategies to 

Conserve Sagebrush Ecosystems and Sage-Grouse .................................. 138

Appendix A8. Informing Management Strategies in the Face of 

Climate Change ............................................................................................142
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 1

1. Purpose and Use of this Document

The primary purpose of this report is to (1) facilitate large-scale prioritization 

of limited resources across administrative boundaries to address persistent ecosystem threats, (2) provide a unifying framework to communicate relative risks, 

and (3) assist in determining appropriate management strategies to promote both 

species and ecosystem persistence at multiple scales. An approach is provided that 

links information on ecosystem resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive 

plant species with data on species habitat and population abundance. A key aspect 

of the process is prioritizing areas for management at the scale of ecoregions or 

Management Zones. Once these priority areas for management are determined, they 

are used to inform budget prioritization and to ensure consistent allocation of funds.

Ecoregion or Management Zone priorities are stepped down to local scales by 

engaging managers and stakeholders to refine priorities based on higher resolution 

geospatial products and more detailed species information and to identify opportunities to leverage partner resources. The ultimate goal is to ensure that enough of 

the right actions are implemented in the right places, consistently through time, to 

maintain the distribution and abundance of functioning sagebrush ecosystems and 

sage-grouse. This approach is consistent with prioritizations and management strategies already being applied by local land managers, but places those actions into a 

broader context and helps to justify the need to sustain or enhance conservation and 

restoration investments.

This document is divided into parts that can be used by the reader to gain an understanding of (1) the biophysical characteristics of sagebrush ecosystems and threats to 

sagebrush ecosystems, Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, hereafter 

GRSG), and Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus, hereafter GUSG), (2) the 

key concepts and approach used to prioritize areas for management and develop 

effective management strategies, and (3) the necessary information for determining appropriate management treatments. Users of the document will find the rationale for this 

report in section “2. Introduction.” Individuals who are unfamiliar with the biophysical 

characteristics of sagebrush ecosystems and threats to sagebrush ecosystems, GRSG, 

and GUSG can access that information in sections “3. Climatic Regimes and Vegetation 

Types,” and “4. Threats to Sagebrush Ecosystems, Greater Sage-Grouse, and Gunnison 

Sage-Grouse,” respectively. Those who are familiar with sagebrush ecosystems and their 

threats but lack an understanding of resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive 

annual grasses can obtain that information in section “5. Resilience to Disturbance and 

Resistance to Nonnative Invasive Plant Species.” The key elements of the approach are 

in sections “6. Integrating Resilience and Resistance Concepts with Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Requirements to Prioritize Areas for Management and Inform Management Strategies,” 

and “7. Delineating Habitats for Targeted Management Intervention at the Ecoregional/

Management Zone Scale,” and will be of interest to all users. Section “8. Determining 

Appropriate Management Treatments at the Local Scales” provides information and 

examples and also will be of general interest.

Geospatial data, maps, and models are provided through the U.S. Geological Survey 

ScienceBase (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/576bf69ce4b07657d1a26ea2) 

and BLM Landscape Approach Data Portal (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/

more/Landscape_Approach/dataportal.html) to assist managers in implementing the 

resilience-based approach described herein. Handbooks and guides for implementing 
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

this approach are available for the western portion of the sagebrush biome that can be 

adapted to the eastern portion of the sagebrush biome (Miller et al. 2014, 2015; Pyke 

et al. 2015a,b).

2. Introduction

Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems are among the largest and most imperiled 

ecosystems in North America (Noss et al. 1995). Sage-grouse and the more than 350 

other species that rely on sagebrush ecosystems (Suring et al. 2005) face widespread 

habitat loss due to multiple, interacting threats. The GRSG has been considered 

for Federal regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act eight times 

(USFWS 2015). The GUSG was designated as threatened (USFWS 2014a) with 

1.4 million acres (566,000 ha) designated as critical habitat under the Endangered 

Species Act in 2014 (USFWS 2014b). Concern over GRSG and GUSG and their 

associated habitats has set in motion Federal and State land management policy 

changes and proactive conservation actions to address threats within the realm of 

management control (Western Governors Association 2015). However, persistent 

ecosystem threats, such as invasive species and altered disturbance regimes, interact 

with land uses and development threats, such as oil and gas development and cropland conversion, and remain widespread issues that require sustained management 

effort (see Goble et al. 2012; Scott et al. 2010). To address these threats, a strategic, 

multi-scale approach based on resilience science has been developed for the western 

portion of the GRSG range (Chambers et al. 2014a). This approach provides the 

framework for wildland fire operations, post-fire rehabilitation, fuels management, 

and restoration/recovery strategies, and has been used as the basis for prioritization 

of GRSG conservation resources at national and regional scales (USDA NRCS 

2015b; USDI BLM 2014). In this report, we develop a similar approach for the 

GUSG range and the eastern portion of GRSG range that can be used to help prioritize areas for management and determine the most effective management strategies 

based on an area’s resilience to disturbance and resistance to nonnative invasive 

plants, particularly invasive annual grasses.

Two different types of threats impact sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse in 

the eastern portion of the range. Persistent ecosystem threats—invasion of nonnative invasive plants, altered fire regimes, conifer expansion, and climate change 

(Miller et al. 2011)—are difficult to regulate and must be managed using ecologically based approaches (Boyd et al. 2014b; Evans et al. 2013). In contrast, threats 

due to land uses and development—energy development, conversion to cropland, 

livestock grazing, mining, and urban, suburban, and exurban development—can be 

regulated on public land. These two threats often interact with each other. For example, oil and gas development can increase the spread of invasive annual grasses 

and potential for wildfire, and invasive annual grasses can increase the difficulty of 

restoring sites impacted by oil and gas development (Mealor et al. 2013). Many land 

use and development threats have been extensively studied or reviewed in recent 

years (see Hanser et al. 2011; Knick and Connelly 2011; Manier et al. 2014). In this 

report, we focus on persistent ecosystem threats and the secondary effects of land 

use and development on ecosystems such as invasion of nonnative plant species. 

Importantly, the same types of ecologically based approaches used to manage persistent ecosystem threats can be used to minimize impacts and increase restoration 

effectiveness of habitats affected by land use and development.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 3

Resilience science has been used to provide a conceptual basis for conservation 

planning (Curtin and Parker 2014; Fischer et al. 2009). Spatially explicit knowledge of how ecosystem resilience and resistance vary across large landscapes can 

provide the basis for threat management (Rowland and Wisdom 2009; Wisdom and 

Chambers 2009). Resilient ecosystems have the capacity to reorganize and regain

their fundamental structure, processes, and functioning when altered by stressors 

like invasive species, climatic factors such as drought, and disturbances such as 

overgrazing by livestock and altered fire regimes (Holling 1973). (See Appendix 1 

for definitions used in this report.) Resistant ecosystems have the capacity to retain

their fundamental structure, processes, and functioning when exposed to stressors, 

disturbances, or invasive species (Folke 2004). Resistance to invasion by nonnative plants is increasingly important in sagebrush ecosystems; it is a function of 

the abiotic and biotic attributes and ecological processes of an ecosystem that limit 

the population growth of an invading species (D’Antonio and Thomsen 2004). By 

identifying key indicators of the capacity of ecosystems and species to recover from 

disturbance and resist stressors like invasive plants, it is possible to assess and predict how they will respond to persistent threats and management actions over large 

planning areas.

Species are likely to be more resilient if connected populations exist in large blocks 

of high quality habitat across the full breadth of environmental conditions to which the 

species is adapted (Redford et al. 2011). Greater sage-grouse is a broadly distributed and 

wide ranging species that can move long distances between seasonal habitats (Connelly 

et al. 2011a,b; Fedy et al. 2012; Tack et al. 2011), and threat management necessarily requires a strategic, multi-scale approach that integrates both landscape prioritization and 

site-scale decision tools. Because of its widespread distribution and the broad range of 

sagebrush habitats that sage-grouse use, managers have considered GRSG an umbrella 

species for identifying ecological conditions required for a larger set of sagebrushobligate species across large landscapes (Hanser and Knick 2011; Rowland et al. 2006). 

Holistic management approaches based on resilience science that address large-scale 

threats to GRSG and GUSG habitat should benefit sagebrush ecosystems and most 

sagebrush obligate species (see Evans et al. 2013).

The use of resilience science has recently been fully operationalized for conservation of sagebrush ecosystems and GRSG in the Cold Desert ecoregions of the 

western portion of the GRSG range (Management Zones III, IV, and V; Chambers 

et al. 2014a). Here, we expand the approach that was developed to include the 

eastern portion of the range (Management Zones I, II, and VII identified in Stiver 

et al. 2006), which differs from western GRSG range in the magnitude of ecosystem 

versus land use and development threats and encompasses a different set of climatic 

regimes and vegetation types. We first discuss the climatic regimes and vegetation 

types that characterize the ecoregions in Management Zones I, II, and VII and 

review the primary threats to sagebrush ecosystems, GRSG, and GUSG in these 

ecoregions. We then discuss factors that determine ecosystem resilience to stressors and disturbances and resistance to nonnative invasive annual grasses in these 

ecoregions, and we provide an overview of the relative resilience and resistance of 

the predominant ecological types. We develop a sage-grouse habitat matrix in which 

we link the information that we developed on relative resilience to disturbance 

and resistance to nonnative invasive annual grasses with breeding habitat probabilities (Doherty et al. 2016) to both identify priority areas for management and 

determine effective management strategies at landscape scales. We also provide an 
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

approach for targeting areas for habitat management that overlays Priority Areas for 

Conservation (USFWS 2013) for GRSG, critical habitat for GUSG (GSGRSC 2005, 

as updated; USFWS 2014a), and breeding bird population indices with resilience to 

disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses to spatially link sage-grouse 

populations with indicators of habitat conditions and risks. Finally, we review the 

tools and data available for assessing the suitability of targeted areas for treatment 

and determining the most appropriate management treatments. Throughout the 

report, we emphasize the importance of providing information that can help guide 

management and restoration strategies to maintain or enhance GRSG and GUSG 

habitat.

3. Climatic Regimes and Vegetation Types

The eastern portion of GRSG range is characterized by different ecoregions that 

vary with respect to the type and extent of sagebrush habitat and persistent ecosystem threats. Here, we use Level II and Level III Environmental Protection Agency 

Ecoregions as the basis for describing these differences. The eastern portion of the 

range encompasses three Level II and six Level III ecoregions: the Cold Desert, 

which includes the Wyoming Basin and Colorado Plateau; West-Central Semiarid 

Prairies, which includes the Northwestern Glaciated Plains and Northwestern Great 

Plains; and Western Cordillera, which includes the Middle Rockies and Southern 

Rockies (fig. 1; Griffith 2010). Each of these ecoregions is characterized by distinct 

temperature and precipitation regimes (fig. 2) and differs in the amount of precipitation received in winter vs. summer (fig. 3). Greater sage-grouse Management Zones 

were based largely on these ecoregional differences, and the relationships between 

the two land classifications are shown in figure 1.

Differences in overlap between seasonality of precipitation and temperature, and 

onset of the dry season, are of particular importance in determining ecoregional 

differences. These differences, especially when coupled with amount of precipitation, influence both plant functional type dominance (Lauenroth et al. 2014; Sala 

et al. 1997) and competitive interactions with invasive species such as cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum) and field brome (B. arvensis, formerly B. japonicus) (Bradford 

and Lauenroth 2006). Amount of precipitation that is received during the period 

when temperature and potential evapotranspiration are low influences the amount 

of water stored in deep soil layers and therefore the balance between woody and 

herbaceous species (Lauenroth et al. 2014; Sala et al. 1997). Areas that receive more 

winter/spring precipitation typically have greater deep soil water storage and are 

dominated by woody species, such as sagebrush, which are more effective at using 

deep soil water (figs. 4a,b). In contrast, areas that receive predominantly summer 

precipitation are typically dominated by grasses. Also, seasonality of precipitation 

during the period when temperatures are favorable for plant growth is an important 

factor influencing the balance between C3 and C4 (cool and warm season) species 

with C3 species such as wheatgrasses (e.g., Agropyron and Elymus spp.) dominating 

in areas with cool, wet springs and C4 species such as grama grasses (Bouteloua

spp.) dominating in areas with warm, wet summers (Paruelo and Lauenroth 1996; 

Sala et al. 1997). These differences are reflected in the land cover of sagebrush for 

the eastern portion of the range (figs. 5, 6).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 5

Figure 1—The Level II and Level III Ecoregions (EPA 2016) occurring in 

Management Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006).

Resistance to Bromus species generally increases as summer precipitation and 

amount of precipitation increase (fig. 4c) as a function of increasing perennial grass 

productivity and dominance. This appears to be due to less favorable conditions for 

establishment of annual species like cheatgrass and strong competition from perennial native grass species that dominate under this precipitation regime (Bradford and 

Lauenroth 2006; Bradley 2009). However, even in this competitive environment, 

disturbances that remove perennial native grass cover often facilitate establishment of invasive annual grasses and other nonnative invasive plants (Bradford and 

Lauenroth 2006; Knight et al. 2014; Lauenroth et al. 2014).
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Soil climate regimes (temperature and moisture) integrate several different 

climate variables including mean annual temperature and precipitation and seasonality of precipitation thus providing a means of assessing climatic differences 

among ecoregions and effects on vegetation. These regimes are mapped as part of 

the National Cooperative Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2016) and thus can be used 

in large-scale analyses (Maestas et al. 2016). (See Appendix 2 for an explanation 

of soil temperature and moisture regimes.) Also, they are a key component of 

Ecological Site Descriptions— part of a widely used land classification system that 

describes the potential of a set of climatic, topographic, and soil characteristics to 

support a dynamic set of plant communities and provide necessary information for 

determining the most appropriate management actions at site scales (Caudle et al. 

2013; USDA NRCS 2015a). The soil temperature and moisture regimes that characterize sagebrush ecosystems in the eastern range vary due to the large latitudinal 

difference and elevation gradients that the area encompasses as well as the variation 

in seasonality of precipitation (fig. 7).

Figure 2—The 30-yr normal annual values for precipitation and temperature (PRISM) in Management Zones I, II, 

and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 7

Figure 3—Percentage of annual precipitation occurring during the months of July, 

August, and September (PRISM) in Management Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 

2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016).

As with most large-scale mapping products, there are limitations in using Soil 

Survey information including incongruities in soil regime classifications, especially 

along mapping boundaries, and variation in the level of survey detail available. 

However, these areas represent a relatively minor component of the data set and 

have been taken into account in this report. Until improved products emerge, the 

Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) 

still provides the most complete data set to advance understanding of resilience 

and resistance concepts across the sagebrush biome. Project level planning can be 

informed by local climate and soils data.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Summer Winter/Spring

High

LowSnow Water Equivalent

A Soil Water Storage

High ppt/low temp

Low ppt/high temp

High

LowLandscape Dominance

B Life Form Dominance

Grasses Shrubs

Summer Winter/Spring

High

LowEcosystem Resistance

C Resistance to Annual Bromus

Summer Winter/Spring

Figure 4—Changes in soil water storage, life form dominance, and resistance to annual 

Bromus as seasonality of precipitation transitions from primarily summer to winter. A. Soil 

water storage increases as winter/spring precipitation and snow water equivalent increase 

and these changes are relatively greater for areas with relatively high precipitation and low 

temperature. B. Landscape dominance of grasses is highest with primarily summer precipitation; shrub dominance is greatest with primarily winter/spring precipitation. C. Resistance to 

Bromus is higher in areas where soil water storage is low and grasses dominate largely due 

to strong resource competition. Decreases in effective precipitation can increase resource 

fluctuations and lower resistance to Bromus. At more local scales, resistance also is influenced by nutrient availability and disturbance (based on Chambers et al. 2016a).

West-Central Semiarid Prairies is represented by the Northwestern Glaciated 

Plains in northern Montana and the Northwestern Great Plains in the west and 

central Dakotas, southeast Montana, and northeast Wyoming (Griffith 2010). The 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains are comprised of rolling hills and gentle plains mantled by glacial till, outwash, and glaciolacustrine sediments, while the Northwestern 

Great Plains were not glaciated and have rolling plains of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes.

The West-Central Semiarid Prairie Ecoregion has a mostly dry, mid-latitude 

climate and is characterized by warm to hot summers and cold winters. Mean 

annual temperatures range from 37.4 °F to 47.3 °F (3 °C to 8.5 °C), while mean 

annual precipitation ranges from 9.8 inches to 21.6 inches (25 cm to 55 cm). In the 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains soil temperature and moisture regimes are predominantly cool (frigid) and summer moist (ustic), respectively, but in the Northwestern 

Great Plains both cool (frigid) and warm (mesic) soil temperature regimes and 

summer moist bordering on dry (ustic bordering on aridic) soil moisture regimes are 

typical.

Cook and Irwin (1992) evaluated vegetation characteristics along a west to east 

gradient at 14 study sites between Idaho and the Dakotas. They found that shrub 

cover diminished and graminoid cover increased at relatively constant rates across 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 9

Figure 5—Sagebrush-dominated ecological systems and grass-dominated ecological systems with sagebrush components (USGS 2014) in Management Zones I, II, 

and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016).

this west to east gradient. Graminoid cover was positively associated with increased 

summer precipitation, whereas shrub cover was positively correlated with winter 

precipitation. Thus, climate patterns of the eastern portion of the Northwestern 

Great Plains favor grassland communities. Sagebrush species include silver 

sagebrush (A. cana spp. cana), Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis), fringed sagewort (A. frigida), and basin big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. 

tridentata) (Miller et al. 2011; USGS 2013). Dominant grasses include wheatgrasses 

(Pascopyrum smithii and Elymus spp.), grama grasses (Bouteloua spp.), bluestem 

species (Andropogon gerardii, Schizachyrium scoparium), and needlegrasses 

(Hesperostipa spp., Nasella spp., and Achnatherum spp.), which vary widely in 

relative abundance in response to climate, drought conditions, and grazing pressure 

(Barker and Whitman 1988).
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Figure 6—Representative Wyoming big sagebrush ecological types in (A) the Powder River Basin in the West-Central 

Semiarid Prairies (Management Zone I) (photo by C. P. Kirol), 

(B) the Rochelle hills in eastern Wyoming (Management Zone 

I) (photo by C. Duchardt), and (C) the Wyoming Basin in the 

Cold Desert (Management Zone II) (NRCS file photo).

A

B

C
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 11

The Cold Desert in the eastern part of the sage-grouse range includes the 

Wyoming Basin in the western and central portions of Wyoming, and the Colorado 

Plateau in eastern and southern Utah and western Colorado. The Wyoming Basin is 

a broad, intermontane basin that ranges in elevation from about 4,000 ft to 9,450 ft 

(1,220 m to 2,850 m) and is characterized by sedimentary landforms and variable 

topography, while the Colorado Plateau is deeply dissected tableland comprised of 

sedimentary rock that ranges from about 2,950 ft to over 9,840 ft (900 m to over 

3,000 m).

Figure 7—Soil temperature and moisture regimes by soil moisture subclass in 

Management Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions 

(EPA 2016). See Appendix 2 for an explanation of the soil temperature and 

moisture regime data used in this report. The area near the border between 

southeastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming is in a transition zone between 

the frigid and mesic soil temperature regimes, which has resulted in an apparent 

abrupt change in temperature regime at the State border. Future updates to soil 

survey information will resolve these join issues along political boundaries, using 

current climate datasets and additional field data.
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

The Cold Desert ecoregion in general has a continental climate with warm to hot 

and dry summers and cool to cold and wet winters. In the Wyoming Basin, mean 

annual temperature ranges from about 32 °F to 46.4 °F (0 °C to 8 °C) and mean 

annual precipitation ranges from 5.1 in to 19.7 in (13 cm to 50 cm). In the warmer 

Colorado Plateau, mean annual temperature ranges from approximately 41 °F (5 °C) 

at high elevations in the north to 59 °F (15 °C) in southern canyons, and mean 

annual precipitation ranges from 5.1 in (13 cm) at lower elevations in the south to 

more than 31.5 in (80 cm) at high elevations. Cool and warm (frigid and mesic) 

soil temperature regimes and dry and summer moist (aridic and ustic) soil moisture 

regimes occur in the Cold Desert ecoregion.

Vegetation is characterized largely by arid to semiarid shrublands that transition 

from zero to a few warm season grasses west of the Continental Divide, to warm 

season grasses as a major component east of the Continental Divide (Griffith 2010). 

Lower elevation sagebrush types are dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush. Black 

sagebrush (A. nova) occurs on windswept ridges and in areas with shallow soils 

while early sagebrush (A. arbuscular ssp. longiloba) occurs on sites with higher 

precipitation and clay content. Basin big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. tridentata) 

is found in areas with deeper soils and higher available soil moisture across the 

region, as is silver sagebrush in eastern portions of the Wyoming Basin. In ecotones between Cold Desert and Western Cordillera Ecoregions at mid elevations, 

Wyoming big sagebrush transitions into mountain big sagebrush, and at higher 

elevations mountain big sagebrush co-occurs with mountain shrubs (e.g., Saskatoon 

serviceberry [Amelanchier alnifolia], antelope bitterbrush [Purshia tridentata], and 

snowberry [Symphoricarpos spp.]). In these zones in Colorado, extensive areas 

of hybridization occur between black sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush, and 

between Wyoming big sagebrush and mountain big sagebrush (Monsen 2005; 

Winward 2004). Bunchgrasses are common and include wheatgrasses, needlegrasses, fescues (Festuca spp.), and bluegrasses (Poa spp.).

Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) occurs in the more arid basins in the 

western part of the ecoregion, while Rocky Mountain juniper (J. scopulorum) is 

common at higher elevations and in the east where summer precipitation is higher. 

In the Colorado Plateau, two-needle piñon (Pinus edulis) co-mingles with Utah 

juniper.

The Western Cordillera is represented by the Middle Rockies (which occur in 

southwestern Montana, eastern Idaho, western Wyoming, the Black Hills of western 

South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming) and the Southern Rockies (which extend 

from southern Wyoming through Colorado) (Griffith 2010). The Western Cordillera 

Ecoregion is characterized by high elevation mountains and foothills that range 

from 5,085 ft to over 14,400 ft (1,550 m to over 4,390 m), and by cool to warm 

short summers and cold winters.

Mean annual temperature and precipitation vary greatly with elevation. In the 

Middle Rockies, mean annual temperatures range from approximately 23 °F to 

46.4 °F (–5 °C to 8 °C) and precipitation ranges from 11.8 in (30 cm) to over 98.4 in 

(250 cm). Soil temperature regimes are cool to cold (frigid to cryic), and soil moisture regimes are summer moist and wet and humid (ustic and udic). In the Southern 

Rockies, mean annual temperatures range from about 24.8 °F to 51.8 °F (–4 °C 

to 11 °C), and precipitation ranges from 9.8 in (25 cm) to over 68.9 in (175 cm). 

Soil temperature regimes range from warm to cold (mesic to cryic), and moisture 

regimes range from dry to wet and humid (aridic to udic).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 13

Dominant sagebrush species at higher elevations are mountain big sagebrush, low 

sagebrush (A. arbuscula), silver sagebrush, three-tip sage (A. tripartita), and spiked 

big sage (A. tridentata ssp. spiciformis), and at lower elevations are Wyoming big 

sagebrush and black sagebrush (Knight et al. 2014). Utah juniper and two-needle 

piñon occur in the lower and more arid areas in the western and southern part of 

the ecoregion, while Rocky Mountain juniper is common at higher elevations. The 

Middle Rockies and Southern Rockies are characterized by many of the same grass 

species as the Cold Desert ecoregions (fig. 1) including wheatgrasses, needlegrasses, fescues, and bluegrasses.

4. Threats to Sagebrush Ecosystems, Greater SageGrouse, and Gunnison Sage-Grouse

The relative importance of persistent ecosystem threats versus land use and 

development threats for GRSG was summarized in the Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Objectives Final Report (COT Report; USFWS 2013) based on known occurrence 

of threats, existing management strategies, and professional experience. Threats 

to GUSG are summarized in the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation 

Plan (GSGRSC 2005) and the final U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing decision 

(2014a). Here we discuss these threats for the GRSG habitat in the eastern portion 

of the range and for GUSG habitat range-wide to inform a resilience and resistance 

approach. We focus on the effects of persistent ecosystem threats and the secondary 

ecosystem threats of land use and development. Because the Cold Desert transitions into the Western Cordillera and have similar threats, we combine them for this 

discussion.

4.1 Persistent Ecosystem Threats

West-Central Semiarid Prairies (Management Zone I)

Herbivory, in conjunction with fire, has significantly influenced plant community 

composition, structure, and production of plant communities in the West-Central 

Semiarid Prairies (Knapp 1996). Historically, large numbers of bison (Bos bison) 

moved nomadically through the area in response to changes in vegetation associated with drought, past herbivory, and fire (Bragg and Steuter 1996). Grazing by 

bison occurred across large areas as huge herds moved through, and the impacts of 

these herds on the vegetation, soils, and riparian areas were probably extensive. The 

interval between grazing episodes may have ranged from 1 to 8 years (Malainey 

and Sherriff 1996). Knopf (1996) suggests that the mixed and short-grass prairies 

comprising the West-Central Semiarid Prairies supported not only a significant 

portion of the North American bison population, but also the highest densities 

of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus). Rocky Mountain locusts 

(Melanoplus spretus), which became functionally extinct by 1900, often erupted in 

swarms numbering in the billions and their impact on vegetation was also presumed 

to be extensive (Lockwood and DeBrey 1990). Managed domestic livestock grazing 

(mostly cattle) has largely replaced these herbivores across the landscape and their 

impacts on grassland habitats are different in scale and duration.

Drought also played an important role in the composition of plant communities 

in this ecoregion, and it resulted in temporal changes in the dominant graminoid 
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

species (e.g., shifts from western wheatgrass to blue grama; Bragg and Steuter 

1996). Large fires often occurred, but fire regimes were probably highly variable 

depending on rainfall and subsequent grass growth (Umbanhowar 1996). The burns 

removed much of the vegetation, which resulted in continual shifts in the abundance 

and distribution of herbivores across large areas. In turn, drought and grazing 

by bison and/or locusts mediated the direction and extent of vegetation response 

(Umbanhowar 1996).

Euro-American settlement had profound impacts on this ecoregion. Prior to 

settlement, fire likely limited expansion of shrub communities, including sagebrush 

and, along with herbivory, fire was considered a significant disturbance in the WestCentral Semiarid Prairies. Anthropogenic changes in landscape patterns resulting 

from Euro-American settlement reduced the extent and distribution of fires and 

likely resulted in increased shrub abundance. Numerous fires have burned in this 

ecoregion in the past 15 years, but most large fires have occurred within conifer 

dominated ecosystems and outside of sage-grouse Priority Areas for Conservation 

(fig. 8).

After Euro-American settlement, bison were removed from the landscape and 

a high proportion of the area was converted from native prairie to cropland (tilled 

agriculture). Much of this development occurred on sites with more productive 

(resilient) soils and temperature regimes. These areas were the breeding habitat for 

the Rocky Mountain locust, and conversion to cropland was presumably a primary 

driver of their extinction (Lockwood and Debrey 1990).

A number of homestead claims were filed on lands that were not suitable for 

non-irrigated agricultural development. Following the severe drought (“dust-bowl”) 

years of the 1930s, portions of the area with a high number of failed homesteads 

were reacquired by the Federal government under the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant 

Act (1937, as amended). The Bankhead Jones Act included provisions for development of a land conservation and utilization program. Land considered submarginal 

for cropland was purchased, rehabilitated, and used for purposes for which it was 

better suited (Maddox 1937).

Under management of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, conservation measures 

were taken to restore water and soil resources that included planting non-native 

grass species. Several introduced seeded species became widely naturalized, including crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) (Lesica et al. 1996). More recently, 

sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), smooth 

brome (Bromus inermis), timothy (Phleum pratense), annual bromes, and leafy 

spurge (Euphorbia esula) have altered native communities. Land use and development uses as well as climate change in this ecoregion may exacerbate effects of 

these species on sagebrush communities

The West-Central Semiarid Prairies align with Management Zone I and in a 

recent analysis included 12.4 percent of the total GRSG population based on lek 

counts from 2010 to 2014 (fig. 9; Doherty et al. 2016). In this analysis, variables 

showing the highest importance for predicting breeding habitat were: tree canopy 

cover (negatively associated), cover of all sagebrush species (positively associated), 

terrain roughness (quadratic relationship), topographic wetness (quadratic relationship), and gross primary productivity (quadratic relationship) (table 1; see Doherty 

et al. 2016). This analysis clearly showed the overarching importance of environmental variables in determining suitable GRSG habitat. Greater sage-grouse habitats 

in Management Zone I are characterized by patchy and often sparse sagebrush 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 15

cover, and just 14 percent of the landscape is classified as sagebrush compared to 

45 percent in Management Zone II (fig. 5; Knick 2011). Within this patchwork of 

sagebrush, sage-grouse select areas that contain high cover of sagebrush to winter 

and nest (Doherty et al. 2008, 2010a; Herman-Brunson et al. 2009; Moynahan et al. 

2006; Swanson et al. 2013).

In the COT Report (USFWS 2013), persistent and widespread threats in the WestCentral Semiarid Prairies (Management Zone I) included weeds and annual grasses 

in the Yellowstone Watershed and Powder River Basin, and fire in North and South 

Dakota. Conifers were a localized threat in parts of the region. Land use and development activities including cropland conversion in the Yellowstone Watershed 

that eliminates sagebrush cover, and energy development throughout the ecoregion, 

Figure 8—Perimeters of fires that have occurred since 2000 in Management Zones 

I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006), the Gunnison sage-grouse critical range plus linkages (GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 2012; USFWS 2014a), and associated ecoregions 

(EPA 2016). Data for fires >1,000 acres are from MTBS (2014) and data for fires 

<1,000 acres are from GeoMAC (2015). 
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

were considered significant threats. Understanding the relative effects of invasive 

species, fire, and conifer expansion across the ecoregion can help in determining the 

most effective management and restoration strategies in areas being affected by land 

use and development activities as well as in relatively intact areas.

Cold Desert and Western Cordillera Ecoregions (Management Zones II 

and VII)

Euro-American arrival in the mid-1800s initiated a series of changes in vegetation composition and structure in the Cold Desert that had cumulative effects on 

sagebrush habitats. First, improper grazing by livestock led to a decrease in native perennial grasses and forbs (Miller and Eddleman 2001; Miller et al. 2011). 

Figure 9—Relative percentage of the Greater sage-grouse population based on 

breeding bird abundance during 2010 to 2014 (Doherty et al. 2016) in Management 

Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016). 

Population index values were calculated separately for each management zone. 

Population bins are additive. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 17

Table 1—Top predictor variables and relative importance values from Random Forest models for each 

Management Zone from Greater sage-grouse results (2010 to 2014) from Doherty et al. (2016) and 

Gunnison sage-grouse results (1995 to 2015) developed for this report.

Management First Second Third Fourth Fifth

 zone variable variable variable variable variable

 I Conifer All Roughness Topographic Gross

 cover sagebrush wetness primary 

 production

 Importance 1.00 0.63 0.57 0.55 0.45

 II All Conifer Annual Degree days Mean annual

 sagebrush cover drought index >5 °C precipitation

 Importance 1.00 0.73 0.68 0.59 0.49

 VII All Low Human Oil and gas

 (Greater sage- sagebrush sagebrush disturbance wells

 grouse)

 index

 Importance 1.00 0.67 0.48 0.4

 VII All All Conifer Annual Conifer

 sagebrush sagebrush cover cover

 (Gunnison sage- (4.0 km) (0.56 km) (0.56 km) drought index (4.0 km)

 grouse)

 Importance 1.00 0.64 0.53 0.39 0.32

Decreased competition from perennial herbaceous species, in combination with 

ongoing climate change and favorable conditions for woody species establishment 

at the beginning of the 20th century, resulted in a widespread increase in shrub 

abundance (primarily Artemisia species) and at mid elevations more localized 

increases in Utah and Rocky Mountain juniper and two-needle piñon pine (Baker 

2011; Miller et al. 2011; Romme et al. 2009).

Second, invasive annual grasses (e.g., cheatgrass and field brome) were 

introduced from Eurasia in the late 1800s and spread into low to mid-elevation ecosystems that had depleted understories due to improper grazing or were disturbed 

by land development (Mealor et al. 2013; Knight et al. 2014). These grasses spread 

with wildfire disturbance in both the Wyoming Basin (Knight et al. 2014) and western Colorado Plateau (Floyd et al. 2006). Annual grass/fire cycles and increases in 

fire frequency are not yet as problematic as in the Great Basin and western portion 

of the range, but conversion to invasive annual grasses is an increasing problem 

in some areas (Baker 2011; Brooks et al. 2015; Mealor et al. 2012). On sites with 

oil and gas drilling and mining disturbances, invasive annual grasses and a host of 

other annual invaders typically increase at the expense of native species diversity 

and cover (fig. 10; Allen and Knight 1984; Bergquist et al. 2007). Also, vegetation 

management treatments designed to reduce Wyoming big sagebrush density and 

increase understory grasses and forbs often result in an increase in invasive annuals if already present (Beck et al. 2012). This leads to slow recovery of sagebrush 

canopy cover and height required by nesting and brooding sage-grouse (Hess and 

Beck 2012a).
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Third, expansion of juniper and piñon pine trees into sagebrush types at mid- to 

high elevations is occurring locally and is reducing the grass, forb, and shrub species associated with these types (fig. 11, 12; Romme et al. 2009). For example, 

infill of persistent woodlands and wooded shrublands and expansion of piñon and 

juniper into shrublands is occurring on portions of the Uncompahgre Plateau and 

Mesa Verde in southwestern Colorado (Eisenhart 2004; Floyd et al. 2004, 2006; 

Shinneman and Baker 2009). Infilling of trees increases woody fuels but reduces 

fine fuels that can result in less frequent fires than occurred historically in sagebrush 

dominated ecosystems (Miller et al. 2013). Fires in piñon and juniper stands at or 

Figure 10—Annual invasive species established on disturbed sites in Wyoming: (A) cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and (B) saltlover (Halogeton glomeratatus) (photos by K. Henke).

A

B
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 19

near full tree stocking are typically high severity (Baker and Shinneman 2004) and 

consequently result in significant losses of above- and below-ground organic matter 

with detrimental ecosystem effects (Miller et al. 2013).

Warmer temperatures and prolonged droughts may be increasing the risk of wildfire and invasive annual grasses in many of these ecosystems (Littell et al. 2009). 

Multiple fires have burned in Management Zones II and VII since 2000, often with 

uncharacteristically large sizes and severity (fig. 8). Although not within GUSG 

range, in southwestern Colorado in Mesa Verde National Park, a greater proportion 

of the piñon-juniper woodland burned in the decade between 1995 and 2005 than 

had burned throughout the previous 200 years (Floyd et al. 2006). Those stands that 

had sparse understories prior to burning are now dominated largely by cheatgrass 

and other annual invaders (Floyd et al. 2006).

Figure 11—Conifer-dominated ecological systems (USGS 2014) in Management 

Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016). The 

dark brown colors represent conifer-dominated systems most likely to expand into 

sagebrush-dominated systems (USDI BLM 2014), and are not intended to indicate 

areas with ongoing conifer expansion.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

In the COT Report (USFWS 2013), persistent ecosystem threats to GRSG were 

ranked high for much of the Wyoming Basin and Middle Rockies (Management 

Zone II). Fire was considered a persistent and widespread threat in six of the nine 

populations (North Park, Colorado; Northwest, Colorado; Middle Park, Colorado; 

Laramie, Wyoming; Rich-Morgan Summit, Wyoming and Utah; Uintah, Utah) 

and a localized threat in the remaining three (Eagle-South Routt, Colorado; Jackson 

Hole, Wyoming; Wyoming Basin, Wyoming) (fig. 8). Weeds and annual grasses 

were a persistent and widespread threat in eight populations and a low-ranked threat 

in one (Wyoming Basin, Wyoming). Conifers were a persistent and widespread 

threat in the Laramie and two Utah populations (Rich-Morgan-Summit and Uintah), 

and a localized threat in the remaining populations, except for Middle Park and 

North Park, Colorado, where conifers were not considered a threat (fig. 11).

In Doherty et al.’s (2016) analysis, Management Zone II included 36.8 percent 

of the range-wide total of male GRSG attending leks from 2010 to 2014 (fig. 9). 

Variables showing the highest importance for predicting breeding habitat were: 

cover of all sagebrush species (positively associated), tree canopy cover (negatively 

associated), annual drought index (quadratic relationship), degree days greater than 

5 o

C (quadratic relationship), and mean annual precipitation (quadratic relationship) 

(table 1; see Doherty et al. 2016). Similar to Management Zone I, these variables 

indicate the importance of environmental variables to sage-grouse habitats. Habitats 

in Management Zone II are characterized by broad expanses of sagebrush ecosystems, which provide resources for all life history needs of GRSG (Doherty et 

al. 2016; Fedy et al. 2014; Kirol et al. 2015a; Smith et al. 2014). Lek sites are an 

important predictor of GRSG populations, with approximately 95 percent of nests 

within 10 km from lek capture (Doherty et al. 2010a; Holloran and Anderson 2005). 

Figure 12—Conifer expansion in the Big Horn Basin of the Cold Desert (Management Zone 

II) (photo by T. Christiansen).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 21

In addition, individual GRSG from many populations in Management Zone II migrate between seasonal sagebrush habitats (Fedy et al. 2014).

Studies on the impacts of conifer expansion on GRSG and GUSG from across 

the eastern portion of the range indicate both species avoid or are negatively associated with conifer cover during lekking and nesting as well as during summer and 

winter (Aldridge et al. 2012; Doherty et al. 2008, 2016; Fedy et al. 2014; Walker 

et al. 2016). But Kirol et al. (2015a) reported a positive response for non-brooding 

female GRSG in summer in south-central Wyoming. Furthermore, summer survival 

of females in Wyoming was negatively associated with proximity to forested areas 

(deciduous and conifer stands), where on average, GRSG mortality was higher 

closer to woodlands than for locations farther from woodlands (Dinkins et al. 2014b). 

In the Gunnison Basin, GUSG also selected nest sites farther from conifer (including juniper) cover, and nesting habitat quality was lower within 350 m of forested 

habitat (Aldridge et al. 2012). A doubling of GUSG males occurred on three leks 

in southwestern Colorado 2 to 3 years after piñon-juniper reduction near the leks 

(Commons et al. 1999). Outside the eastern region, GRSG have been shown to incur 

population-level impacts at a very low level of conifer expansion and the likelihood 

of maintaining breeding activity is severely compromised when conifer canopy 

exceeds 4 percent in the immediate vicinity of the lek (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013).

Persistent ecosystem threats coupled with land use and development threats can 

exacerbate potential impacts to sage-grouse. For example, environmental conditions such as sagebrush cover and availability of riparian areas interact with other 

stressors including land use and development and predatory birds such as Buteo

hawks, common ravens (Corvus corax), and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in 

Management Zone II (Dinkins et al. 2012, 2014a). In turn, these stressors influence 

survival rates for GRSG (Dinkins et al. 2014b; Kirol et al. 2015b; LeBeau et al. 

2014).

Also, increasing land use and development in the Wyoming Basins fragments 

habitat and promotes establishment of invasive species such as cheatgrass, which 

may lead to increasing wildfire (Hess and Beck 2012b). Numbers of oil and gas 

well pads, percent area of wildfire, and variability of shrub height within 1 km of 

leks were all correlated with GRSG lek abandonment in the Bighorn Basin of northcentral Wyoming (Hess and Beck 2012b). These additive factors, all related to 

increasing disturbance, were reported to be connected to reduction in habitat quality, 

partly related to establishment and spread of cheatgrass and increasing wildfire 

(Hess and Beck 2012b). Although annual grasses do not yet dominate GRSG 

habitats in the Wyoming Basin, results from a microhabitat selection study in the 

south-central portion of this region indicate female sage-grouse nest site selection 

was negatively correlated with presence of cheatgrass and positively with canopy 

cover of mountain and Wyoming big sagebrush (Kirol et al. 2012).

In the COT Report (USFWS 2013), persistent ecosystem threats varied in importance for GRSG populations in the Colorado Plateau and Southern Rockies 

(Management Zone VII). Fire was a persistent and widespread threat in both 

populations (Parachute-Piceance-Roan Basin and Meeker-White River, Colorado) 

(fig. 8), weeds and annual grasses were a localized threat in both populations 

(fig. 10), and conifers were a persistent and widespread threat in the ParachutePiceance-Roan Basin, Colorado, population and not a threat in the Meeker-White 

River, Colorado, population (fig. 11).
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

In Doherty et al.’s (2016) analysis, Management Zone VII included 0.3 percent 

of the rangewide total of GRSG males on leks from 2010 to 2014 (fig. 9). The four 

variables important for predicting breeding habitat of these small populations were: 

cover of all sagebrush species (positively associated), cover of low sagebrush (positively associated), human disturbance index (negatively associated), and oil and gas 

wells (negatively associated) (table 1; see Doherty et al. 2016).

The Colorado Plateau and adjacent Southern Rockies (Management Zone VII) 

encompass the entire population of GUSG, which was estimated at 4,700 birds 

rangewide in 2014 (fig. 13; USFWS 2014a). About 85 percent of the entire population of GUSG occurs in the Gunnison Basin while the remaining birds occur in six 

satellite populations in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah.

Invasive plants, piñon and juniper expansion, and wildfire are considered to be 

secondary and/or localized threats to GUSG. Some GUSG habitat has been affected 

by invasive plants, especially cheatgrass, but the impacts do not currently appear 

to be threatening individual populations or the species rangewide (GSGRSC 2005; 

USFWS 2014a). However, invasive plants continue to expand their range, facilitated 

by ground disturbances such as wildfire, grazing, and human infrastructure. Climate 

change will likely alter the range of individual invasive species, accelerating 

the decline of sagebrush communities (USFWS 2014a). Drought impacts are 

already considered a high to very high level of threat in two satellite populations 

(San Miguel, Colorado and Dove Creek/Monticello, Utah and Colorado; GSGRSC 

2005). Most populations are experiencing low to moderate levels of piñon-juniper 

expansion although piñon-juniper expansion has been considerable in the Crawford 

and Piñon Mesa populations (GSGRCS 2005; USFWS 2104a).

The models developed for this report indicate that the five variables important for 

predicting breeding habitat of the GUSG populations were: cover of all sagebrush 

species at the 4.0 km scale (positively associated); conifer cover (negatively associated) at both the 0.56 km and 4.0 km scales; cover of all sagebrush species at the 

0.56 km scale (positively associated); and annual drought index (quadratic relationship) (table 1).

4.2 Climate Change

Climate change projections and the likely effects of global warming differ 

among ecoregions in the eastern portion of GRSG range (U.S. National Climate 

Assessment, Kunkel et al. 2013a,b). In the Western Great Plains as a whole, average 

temperatures have increased throughout the region in the last few decades, with the 

largest changes occurring in winter months (Kunkel et al. 2013a). Also, the number 

of frost-free days has increased (Kunkel et al. 2013a). There have been no significant trends in precipitation, but there has been a significant increase in extreme 

precipitation events.

Future temperature projections are based on Global Circulation Models and 

depend on the models used, the carbon dioxide emissions scenario, and the time 

frame. Downscaled models are rare for the eastern portion of the range, but 

temperature values are generally similar for ensemble Global Circulation Models 

(CMIP3) with a reference period of 1980 to 2000 for the Great Plains and the 

Southwest United States (Kunkel et al. 2013a,b). Warming projections for low (B1) 

and high emissions (A2), respectively, range from 2.5 °F to 3.0 °F (4.5 °C to 5.4 °C) 

for 2035, 3.5 °F to 5.0 °F (6.3 °C to 9 °C) for 2055, and 5.0 °F to 8.0 °F (9.0 °C to 

14.4 °C) for 2085. Notably, recent increases in temperature follow predicted trend 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 23

lines from the Global Circulation Models. Precipitation in general is more difficult 

to forecast (and therefore has higher uncertainty), but for the Western Great Plains is 

predicted to change by about 0 to –6 percent in the west and increase by 3 to 9 percent in the east by 2070 (Kunkel et al. 2013a).

In the Cold Desert, including the Wyoming Basins and Colorado Plateau, annual 

temperature has generally increased over the past 115 years, and in the southern 

portion of the ecoregion the recent 10-year averages surpass any previous decadal 

value. Nighttime temperatures show the greatest increase and the recent period of 

elevated temperatures is most prominent in spring and summer. Precipitation is 

highly variable and shows no long-term trend. As in the Western Great Plains, the 

freeze-free season length has increased especially in the south. Ensemble Global 

Circulation Models project a change in precipitation of 0 to –9 percent by 2070 depending on location with winter months receiving relatively more precipitation and 

remaining seasons less than current (Kunkel et al. 2013b).

Figure 13—Gunnison sage-grouse critical range plus linkages (GSGRSC 2005; 

UDWR 2012; USFWS 2014a) as well as active, inactive, and historic Gunnison 

sage-grouse leks.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Within both ecoregions, evapotranspiration is predicted to increase whether or not 

precipitation increases and even those projections that indicate increases in precipitation show decreases in water availability (Seager et al. 2007). More precipitation 

is falling as rain instead of snow, snowmelt is occurring earlier, and consequently 

there is a shift towards earlier runoff (Knowles et al. 2006). Floods and droughts are 

likely to become more common and more intense as regional and seasonal precipitation patterns change and rainfall becomes more concentrated into heavy events with 

longer, hotter dry periods in between events.

The changes in precipitation and temperature regimes described above are 

 predicted to have large consequences for species distributions, and because individual species differ in their climatic requirements, for community composition. 

Warmer temperatures are leading to species distribution shifts poleward and upward 

in elevation—a trend that has been observed for thousands of species globally 

(e.g., Chen et al. 2011; Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Root et al. 2003).

Bioclimate envelope models for big sagebrush (A. tridentata spp.) and other sagebrush species project large decreases in southern latitudes and lower elevations, but 

relatively small increases in northern latitudes and higher elevations (Bradley 2010; 

Homer et al. 2015; Schlaepfer et al. 2012; Still and Richardson 2015). For Wyoming 

big sagebrush, which occupies the warmest and driest portions of the species’ range, 

a 39 percent reduction (66 million hectares) in suitable climate is predicted by 

mid-century (Still and Richardson 2015). Areas in these regions that retain or gain 

climate suitability include higher elevations in the Cold Desert and the Northern 

Great Plains overall. For juniper and piñon woodlands, habitat with suitable climate 

is projected to move north and upslope with principal gains in Colorado and southwest Wyoming and losses in the Southwest (Rehfeldt et al. 2006, 2012).

Climate change is also predicted to have significant effects on invasive annual 

grasses. Cheatgrass will likely spread upwards in elevation and possibly shift to 

northeast facing slopes; red brome (B. rubens) might expand northward and/or increase its abundance in the Cold Desert and Colorado Plateau (Bradley et al. 2016). 

Decreases in average summer precipitation or prolonged summer droughts could 

enable cheatgrass invasion into sagebrush ecosystems that are currently resistant to 

invasion and resilient to fire disturbance (Mealor et al. 2012; Bradley et al. 2016). 

If average summer, plant available water declines, the land area susceptible to 

cheatgrass invasion may increase by up to 45 percent, particularly in mountain big 

sagebrush steppe in Montana and higher elevation areas of the Colorado Plateau 

(Bradley et al. 2016).

Greater climate variability likely will favor invasion of annual invasive species in 

many areas (Bradley 2010) and negatively affect native species’ persistence in areas 

that remain otherwise climatically suitable. Reduced soil moisture availability coupled with greater climate variability can result in reduced resilience and/or recovery 

potential of native ecosystems following disturbances such as improper livestock 

grazing and uncharacteristic wildfire (Chambers et al. 2014a,b). In turn, decreased 

resilience can lower resistance of these ecosystems to invasive annual grasses like 

cheatgrass, red brome, and field brome (Chambers et al. 2014b).

Climate-driven changes are likely to combine with both persistent ecosystem and 

land use and development induced stresses to further increase the vulnerability of 

natural ecosystems to pests, disease, invasive species, and loss of native species. 

Changes in temperature and precipitation affect the composition and diversity of 

native animals and plants by altering their breeding patterns, water and food supply, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 25

and habitat availability. In a changing climate, populations of some pests, such as 

mosquitos that are better adapted to a warmer climate, are projected to increase resulting in an increase in diseases such as West Nile virus, which is a threat to GRSG 

and GUSG (Schrag et al. 2010; USFWS 2014a).

4.3 Land Use and Development Threats

The effects of land use and development on ecosystem resilience are diverse, but 

here we focus on changes in native species composition, degradation of soils, increases in exotic annual grasses and other invasive plants, and altered fire regimes. 

We include land fragmentation because of its importance to ecosystem processes 

such as species movements and gene flow. More detailed reviews of land use and 

development effects on sage-grouse are in Hanser et al. (2011) and Knick et al. 

(2011).

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing is the most widespread land use in the eastern portion of GRSG 

range. Grazing has well-recognized effects on ecosystem composition, pattern, and 

function (Beck and Mitchell 2000; Boyd et al. 2014a; Cagney et al. 2010; Freilich 

et al. 2003; Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001; Knick et al. 2011). In the COT Report 

(USFWS 2013), improper livestock grazing was considered a persistent and widespread threat to GRSG in Management Zones II and VII, except for three GRSG 

populations in Management Zone II (Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Rich-MorganSummit and Uintah, Utah) where it was not considered a threat. Livestock grazing 

occurs throughout Management Zone VII in the GUSG range and is considered a 

current and future threat to grouse where grazing occurs in a manner incompatible 

with local ecological conditions (USFWS 2014a).

The potential landscape effects of livestock grazing have been difficult to evaluate until recently because of a lack of area-wide spatial data (Knick et al. 2011). To 

address this lack of data, Veblen et al. (2011) compiled spatial allotment boundaries 

for all BLM grazing allotments and combined those spatial boundaries with tabular 

data from the Rangeland Administration System, including billed animal unit 

months (AUMs), type of animal, and season of use by pasture and allotment. Veblen 

et al. (2011) demonstrated that allotment spatial data can be combined with other 

allotment-related data, for example BLM’s land health data, and with additional 

spatial vegetation data to examine relationships between livestock grazing and 

vegetation. Veblen et al. (2011) suggested that these types of analyses could assist 

managers in identifying allotments where livestock were potentially the cause of 

not meeting land health standards and prioritizing allotments for further evaluation. 

Similar data are being used to model vegetation phenology, timing of grazing, and 

intensity of grazing by allotment to relate spatial data for male GRSG reproductive 

success to the multivariate effects of livestock grazing on management units (Adrian 

Monroe, Colorado State University, personal communication).

Currently, the BLM maintains grazing allotment boundary data in a geospatial 

format at BLM State offices. The data are compiled at the national level and include allotment numbers by State that are related to the information tracked in the 

Rangeland Administration System. Livestock effects on sagebrush ecosystems and 

GRSG habitat at mid to local scales are evaluated on a case-by-case basis that typically does not involve spatial data analyses.
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Major differences in plant responses to herbivory exist among ecoregions due 

to evolutionary adaptations to grazing and browsing, plant phenology relative to 

the timing of grazing, and selectivity of grazers for different plant species within 

the community. Plants in the Cold Deserts evolved without large numbers of grazing animals (Mack and Thompson 1982). In contrast, plants in the West-Central 

Semiarid Prairies were grazed regularly and have adapted to regular defoliation 

(Coughenour 1985). In the Western Cordillera colder and snow-covered winter 

landscapes protected low-statured plants from grazing until the growing season 

when moisture was available and plants typically evolved without large numbers of 

grazers.

Season of defoliation relative to availability of water for plant regrowth after 

defoliation is an important factor related to livestock grazing and plant tolerance 

of defoliation. Water storage and plant growth in the Cold Deserts depend on winter 

precipitation, especially in the western portion of the range (fig. 4). Cool-season 

plants (C3 photosynthesis pathway) dominate plant communities in this ecoregion. 

Generally, water becomes limiting during late spring and perennial plants become 

dormant if they are not able to extract deep-soil moisture or able to photosynthesize 

during the heat of summer. The West-Central Semiarid Prairies have more available 

moisture during summer and have a mixture of cool-season plants and warm-season 

(C4 photosynthesis) grasses that have greater water use efficiency.

Livestock effects on sagebrush ecosystems are likely more pronounced in Cold 

Deserts where stocking rates (Briske et al. 2011) and grazing season together can 

affect plant responses to grazing (Briske and Richards 1995). In Cold Deserts, 

defoliation of perennial grasses during inflorescence development (late spring) 

is the time when moisture is becoming limited and plant regrowth and recovery 

may be compromised (Briske and Richards 1995). In the Western Cordillera and 

West-Central Semiarid Prairies, precipitation during the growing season may allow 

greater tolerance to grazing, but cool-season grasses can be eliminated by seasonal 

use that impacts them yet allows warm-season plants to remain ungrazed. Care 

must be exercised regarding grazing season of use and stocking rates to maintain 

combinations of phenologically diverse plants where they should occur in these 

ecosystems.

The greatest potential for livestock grazing to affect sage-grouse habitat is by 

changing composition, structure, and productivity of herbaceous plants used for 

nesting/early brood-rearing (Beck and Mitchell 2000; Boyd et al. 2014a; Cagney 

et al. 2010; Hockett 2002). Empirical studies and meta-analysis indicate that sagegrouse nesting and early brood micro-habitat selection and brood-rearing success 

are closely tied to areas with greater sagebrush and grass canopy cover and height 

than are randomly available in sagebrush landscapes (Dinkins et al. 2016; Doherty 

et al. 2011a; 2014; Hagen et al. 2007; Kirol et al. 2012; Thompson et al. 2006). 

Grass height in particular has been shown to influence nest success for GRSG in 

Management Zone I (Doherty et al. 2011a; 2014). However, Holloran et al. (2005) 

and Dinkins et al. (2016) reported weak, if any, effects of grass height on GRSG 

nest success in Management Zone II. Most recently, Gibson et al. (2016) demonstrated sampling bias based on the timing of grass height data collection. Their 

results suggest previously published grass height results based on data collected 

when nest fate was determined rather than the predicted hatch date were biased 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 27

towards higher grass height relative to the true effect. In some cases, this bias 

was enough to change the overall direction of the effect as well as its magnitude. 

Therefore, revisiting management prescriptions based on specific grass heights 

within nesting habitat is advised. Nevertheless, repeated heavy grazing of sagebrush 

bunchgrass communities in Management Zone II removes bunchgrasses and leads 

to a sagebrush/rhizomatous grass or bluegrass state, which has reduced resource 

value for nesting and brood-rearing GRSG (Cagney et al. 2010). Sagebrush cover is 

inherently lower in the West-Central Semiarid Prairies than in other portions of the 

species range (Doherty et al. 2016; Herman-Brunson et al. 2009), suggesting greater 

reliance by breeding GRSG on herbaceous cover in Management Zone I than in 

other portions of the range.

Infrastructure related to domestic livestock grazing (e.g., water developments) 

can result in loss of vegetation structure and plant species diversity near these features (Rinehart and Zimmerman 2001). Also, fences to control livestock on western 

rangelands can contribute to collision related mortality, particularly when located on 

flat terrain close to leks (Stevens et al. 2012; Coates et al. 2016).

Urban and Exurban Development

Loss of sagebrush due to urban and exurban (residential) development since 

Anglo-American settlement is estimated at 16.0 percent for the West-Central 

Semiarid Prairies (Management Zone I), 18.4 percent for the Wyoming Basin 

and adjacent Rockies (Management Zone II), and 29.2 percent for the Colorado 

Plateau and adjacent Rockies (figs. 14, 15; Knick et al. 2011). In the COT Report 

(USFWS 2013), urban and exurban development was not considered a threat to 

GRSG in Management Zone I except for the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, where 

it was considered a localized threat. Development was considered a persistent and 

widespread threat in Management Zone II, particularly in outlying populations 

(Eagle South-Routt and Middle Park, Colorado; Laramie, Wyoming; Rich-Morgan 

Summit and Uintahs, Utah; and North Park, Colorado) and in Management Zone 

VII (Meeker-White River, Colorado). Most residential areas are on the edge of the 

current distribution of sagebrush and GRSG rather than within core areas, but resource use and connecting infrastructure can extend well beyond the boundaries of 

developed areas (fig. 16; Knick et al. 2011).

Doherty et al.’s (2016) analysis showed that human disturbance was a major 

factor in predicting GRSG breeding habitat in Management Zone VII (ranked 

#3) and a minor factor in Management Zone I (ranked #12) and Management Zone 

II (ranked #11). For GUSG in Management Zone VII, residential and exurban development and associated infrastructure are considered a current or potential issue 

in all populations (USFWS 2014a). Nesting female GUSG avoided high-density 

development at the landscape scale and chose to nest farther away from any single 

development at the patch scale (Aldridge et al. 2012). A subsequent study showed 

that avoidance of development resulted in no observed effects on nest survival, and 

it indicated that other unknown factors may be driving nest survival (Stanley et al. 

2015). In general, low-density exurban developments support lower native species 

abundance and more human-commensal bird and mammal species and invasive 

plants, than comparable unfragmented rangelands (Maestas et al. 2003).
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Figure 14—Percentage of developed land (NLCD 2011) within 5.0 km of each 

pixel in Management Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016). 

Figure 15—Rural subdivision in Sublette County, Wyoming (photo by T. Christiansen).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 29

Figure 16—Density of all roads (surface roads, major roads, and interstate 

highways; ESRI Street Map Premium) in kilometers per square kilometer in 

Management Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016).

Energy Development

Loss of sagebrush cover associated with energy, primarily oil and gas development, has been well-documented in recent analyses. The Wyoming Basin 

Ecoregional Assessment (Hanser et al. 2011)—which included south-central 

Montana, western and central Wyoming, northeastern Utah, and northern 

Colorado—indicated that oil and gas development has removed approximately 658 mi2

 (1,703 km2) of sagebrush and other native habitats in this area 

since 1900. This is due to construction of well pads and supporting infrastructure, such as roads, power lines, and pipelines (Finn and Knick 2011). 

It is considered a persistent and widespread threat to almost all GRSG populations 

in the eastern range (figs. 17, 18; USFWS 2013). In the COT Report (USFWS 
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

2013), energy development was considered a persistent and widespread threat to 

GRSG in Management Zones I, II, and VII except in two GRSG populations in 

Management Zone II, where it is a localized threat (Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and 

Uintah, Utah). Energy development is limited in the GUSG range of Management 

Zone VII. Only two populations, San Miguel, Colorado, and Dove Creek/Monticello, 

Utah, currently have a moderate level of oil and gas development and a high level 

of future development potential. A medium level of potential development occurs 

in the Crawford, Colorado, population and no other populations have potential for 

energy development (GSGRSC 2005; USFWS 2014a).

Removal of sagebrush vegetation as a function of energy development can increase soil resources, such as available nitrogen, and alter soil properties that can 

favor various invasive species (Bergquist et al. 2007; Nielson et al. 2011). When 

compared to sites not influenced by development activities, sites disturbed by 

Figure 17—Number of active oil and gas wells per square kilometer (IHS; BLM 

[AFMSS]) in Management Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated 

ecoregions (EPA 2016).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 31

energy development had higher species richness (numbers) of exotic than native 

species and cover of exotic species was similar to that of native species (Bergquist 

et al. 2007). Similar effects have been documented for croplands and populated 

areas (Nielson et al. 2011). Invasive plant species are also associated with development infrastructure such as roads, highways, oil and gas well pads, pipelines, and 

power lines (Manier et al. 2011; 2014; Nielson et al. 2011). Although many invasive 

species decline at distances beyond 164 to 328 ft (50 to 100 m) of these structures, 

several species, including halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus) and cheatgrass, show 

low rates of decline in abundance with increasing distance from roads and reclaimed 

sites (Manier et al. 2011). Once these species are established, restoration is much 

more difficult, especially in areas with warm or dry soil temperature and moisture 

regimes (Pyke 2011).

Figure 18—Deep gas drill rig (A) outside of Pinedale, Wyoming (photo by T. Christiansen), 

and well pad (B) (photo by K. Henke). 

A

B
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Effects of development on effectiveness of sagebrush communities for GRSG 

and GUSG interact with other disturbance processes such as wildfire and drought. 

In southwest Wyoming, 10 to 15 percent of sagebrush ecosystem changes in the 

area were directly related to land use and development disturbances (Xian et al. 

2011). Decreases in precipitation and increases in temperature between 1996 and 

2006 appeared to impact sagebrush communities across all canopy cover ranges 

by increasing the extent of bare ground and reducing herbaceous cover (Xian et al. 

2011). Also, fires that occurred largely after 1996 accounted for approximately 12 

to 23 percent of the changes in sagebrush landscape cover (Xian et al. 2011). This 

suggests that land use and development can decrease ecosystem resilience by reducing resistance to invasive species, which in turn may increase fire frequency and 

extent. These effects may be most evident for sites with relatively warm or dry soil 

temperature and moisture regimes, and may increase as the climate warms.

A number of studies indicate that energy development activities have significant 

effects on GRSG and can result in localized extirpations of GRSG populations (Aldridge 

and Boyce 2007; Duncan 2010; Gregory and Beck 2014; Harju et al. 2010; Walker et al. 

2007). Infrastructure related to energy development (e.g., roads, pipelines, storage facilities, mines, wind turbines, transmission lines) decreases the effectiveness of habitat for 

GRSG (Braun et al. 2002; Dinkins et al. 2014a,b; Doherty et al. 2008; Kirol et al. 2015a; 

LeBeau et al. 2014; Lyon and Anderson 2003). Greater sage-grouse hens with successful nests located their nests farther from roads in oil and gas fields than unsuccessful 

hens (Lyon and Anderson 2003). Transmission towers potentially provide perches 

and nesting structures for raptors and ravens, and may also contribute to collision 

mortalities (Beck et al. 2006; Borell 1939; Coates et al. 2014; Howe et al. 2014). 

Proximity to distribution and transmission lines was related to lower adult female 

survival for GRSG, which was most likely related to increased raptor densities 

rather than collision mortalities (Dinkins et al. 2014b). Also, West Nile virus and increased abundance of mesocarnivores, both of which are associated with reservoirs 

created to hold water produced from energy development, can cause declines in 

GRSG populations (Taylor et al. 2013). Thus, measures to decrease fragmentation 

and maintain areas with greater sagebrush cover in higher ecological condition are 

primary management objectives (Aldridge and Boyce 2007; Kirol et al. 2015b).

Cropland Conversion

Cropland conversion (changing rangeland to cropland) was ranked a persistent 

and widespread threat in areas with higher precipitation and more productive 

soils across the eastern range in the COT Report (USFWS 2013; Yellowstone 

Watershed, Montana; Eagle South-Routt and Middle Park, Colorado; North Park 

and Northwest Colorado [Wyoming Basin in Colorado]; Meeker-White River, 

Colorado) (figs. 19, 20). It was not a threat for most other populations. In Doherty 

et al.’s (2016) analysis, amount of tilled cropland was a minor factor in predicting 

GRSG breeding habitat in Management Zone I (ranked #7) and Management Zone 

II (ranked #14). Effects of cropland conversion may be underestimated as many 

productive lands with deeper soils that supported GRSG habitat historically were among 

the first lands converted to cropland (Vander Haegen et al. 2000). These lands are 

no longer considered in analyses of GRSG within their current range. Throughout 

GUSG range in Management Zone VII, the amount of land in cropland is declining 

except in the Dove Creek/Monticello, Utah, population (GSGRSC 2005) and is not 

expected to be a future threat in any of the other populations (USFWS 2104a). 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 33

Figure 19—Percent annually tilled agricultural land (cropland; NASS 2014) within 

5.0 km of each pixel in Management Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016).

Figure 20—Conversion of a sagebrush ecosystem in the West-Central Semiarid Prairies to 

agricultural land (photo by J. Carlson, used with permission).
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Extensive cultivation and fragmentation of native habitats have been associated with 

sage-grouse population declines. The West-Central Semiarid Prairies (Management 

Zone I) have the highest percentage of private lands and highest amount of tilled 

cropland (Doherty et al. 2016). Sage-grouse are known to use agricultural fields 

periodically, such as for strutting grounds and brood-rearing habitat, but pesticide 

contamination is a documented concern (Blus et al. 1989; Connelly et al. 2000). 

The amount and configuration of sagebrush habitat in the landscape surrounding agricultural fields influence habitat use (Schroeder and Vander Haegen 2011). 

Several studies indicate that GRSG populations cannot persist in areas with less 

than 25 percent landscape cover of sagebrush (Aldridge et al. 2008; Knick et al. 

2013; Wisdom et al. 2011). Greater sage-grouse extirpations have occurred in areas 

where cultivated crops exceeded 25 percent (Aldridge et al. 2008), and recent 

studies show that 96 percent of active leks are surrounded by less than 15 percent 

cropland in Management Zone I (SGI 2015; Smith et al. 2016). Management aimed 

at maintaining existing functional patches of sagebrush habitat at landscape scales is 

fundamental to the persistence of GRSG in Management Zone I.

Recreation

Recreational activities (off-highway vehicle [OHV] use, mountain biking, camping, snowmobiling, etc.) can have both direct and indirect impacts on sagebrush 

ecosystems and sage-grouse (USDI BLM 2009). Recreational use of OHVs is 

one of the fastest growing outdoor activities, although the effects of OHV use on 

sagebrush and sage-grouse have not been studied (Knick et al. 2011). Motorized 

access for recreation has a variety of effects, including removal of sagebrush cover, 

modification of animal behavior because of habitat changes or noise, alteration of 

the physical and chemical environment, and spread of invasive plants (Knick et 

al. 2011). In the COT Report (USFWS 2013) recreation is considered a persistent 

and widespread threat or a localized threat in every population in Management 

Zone I and Management Zone II, except the Meeker-White River and ParachutePiceance-Roan populations in Colorado. Recreational use within the GUSG range 

is widespread, occurs throughout the year, and has expanded as more people move 

into the area or travel to recreate (Connelly et al. 2004). Recreation uses have affected large areas of GUSG range, especially portions of the Gunnison Basin and 

Piñon Mesa populations (USFWS 2014a).

Habitat Fragmentation

Land use and development can affect both habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. 

In its 2010 listing decision, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the 

greatest threat to GRSG was habitat loss and fragmentation (USFWS 2010). The 

USFWS noted in its 2015 decision (USFWS 2015) that the configuration of sagebrush mosaics across the range of GRSG has changed, resulting in risk of increased 

population isolation, exposure to predators in areas of edge habitat, and invasive 

plants (Gelbard and Belnap 2003; Knick and Connelly 2011; Saunders et al. 1991).

Habitat fragmentation is a function of habitat configuration (e.g., number of 

habitat fragments, edge density, patch shape), rather than total amount of habitat in 

a landscape. “Fragmentation” represents the dissection of large expanses of habitat 

via various mechanisms (Manier et al. 2013). Greater sage-grouse populations 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 35

generally rely on large, interconnected expanses of sagebrush for local migrations 

and access to seasonal habitats (Connelly et al. 2004, 2011a,b). While conclusive 

data establishing minimum sizes of sagebrush-dominated landscapes necessary to 

support populations of GRSG are unavailable (Connelly et al. 2011a,b), some quantitative indications exist. For example, research in Wyoming and Montana suggest 

that the size of a sagebrush dominated landscape needed to support breeding habitats of an interspersed population may exceed 386 mi2

 (1,000 km2) (Doherty et al. 

2008). Investigations from Idaho and Wyoming suggest that relatively large blocks 

of sagebrush habitat (>9,884 acres [4,000 ha]) are critical to successful reproduction 

and overwinter survival (Leonard et al. 2000; Walker et al. 2007; Wisdom et al. 

2011). More recently, Doherty et al. (2016) developed a spatial model of occupied 

GRSG breeding habitat based on biophysical habitat, climate, landform, and anthropogenic development. This model clearly shows the importance of ecological 

context in determining both habitat selection and response to disturbance.

Reduction and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats can decrease GRSG abundance and reduce the distribution of GRSG across the landscape (Knick et al. 2011; 

Leu and Hanser 2011). Greater sage-grouse avoid habitats near anthropogenic 

infrastructure associated with energy development (Naugle et al. 2011), interstate 

highways (Connelly et al. 2004; Knick et al. 2013), cropland (Aldridge and Boyce 

2007; Smith et al. 2005; Walker et al. 2007,) and urban and exurban subdivision development (Aldridge and Boyce 2007). Indirect effects such as increased mortality 

and reduced reproductive success have also been documented.

The historic distribution of GUSG was naturally fragmented by piñon-juniper and 

rocky canyons (Braun et al. 2014; Rogers 1964). In 2014, the GUSG was listed as 

threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the determination document for 

the listing, habitat loss, degradation, and anthropogenic fragmentation of sagebrush 

habitats were considered the primary causes of GUSG decline in abundance and distribution (USFWS 2014a). Between 1958 and 1993 substantial sagebrush was lost; 

Gunnison Basin showed an 11 percent loss in sagebrush acreage, with a 28 percent 

loss combined for satellite populations (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001). This resulted 

in considerable habitat fragmentation with remnant sagebrush patches surrounded 

by a matrix of unsuitable habitat for GUSG. Due to habitat loss and fragmentation, 

the seven populations have become isolated with limited migration and gene flow 

thus increasing the likelihood of extirpation (USFWS 2014a).

Current climate and climate change are important factors determining the negative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on species density and/or diversity 

(Mantyka-Pringle 2011). Most studies indicate that current habitat loss and fragmentation outweigh the responses of climate warming on species and ecosystems 

(Franco et al. 2006; Jetz et al. 2007), but the impact of climate change is predicted 

to increase over time and may exacer bate land-use modifications in determining 

population trends (Lemoine et al. 2007). Populations in fragmented landscapes are 

more vulnerable to environmental drivers, such as climate change, than those in 

continuous, intact landscapes (Opdam and Wascher 2004; Travis 2003). Also, the 

threshold of climate change below which species extinction occurs or populations 

severely decline is likely to be determined by the pattern of habitat loss (Opdam and 

Wascher 2004).
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

5. Resilience to Disturbance and Resistance to 

Nonnative Invasive Plant Species

Our ability to address persistent ecosystem and land use and development threats 

to sagebrush habitats can be greatly enhanced by understanding the effects of 

environmental conditions on resilience to stress and disturbance and resistance to 

invasion by nonnative plants (Chambers et al. 2014a,b; Wisdom and Chambers 

2009). In the West-Central Semiarid Prairies, Western Cordillera, and Cold Deserts, 

resilience of native ecosystems to stress and disturbance changes along climatic and 

topographic gradients at both landscape and local scales. At landscape scales, higher 

precipitation and cooler temperatures, along with greater soil development and plant 

productivity, typically result in greater resource availability and more favorable 

environmental conditions for plant growth and reproduction (Alexander et al. 1993; 

Dahlgren et al. 1997). In contrast, lower precipitation and higher temperatures result 

in reduced resource availability for plant growth and reproduction and thus lower 

ecosystem productivity (Smith and Nowak 1990; West 1983a,b). Higher levels of 

available resources coupled with greater productivity generally result in increased 

ecosystem resilience to disturbances and management treatments (Chambers et al. 

2014a,b). More resilient ecosystems typically exhibit smaller changes following 

perturbations and recover more rapidly than less resilient ecosystems (Chambers et 

al. 2014a,b; Davies et al. 2012). These relationships also are observed at local or site 

scales where aspect, slope, and topographic position affect solar radiation, erosion 

processes, and effective precipitation, and thus soil development and vegetation 

composition and structure (Condon et al. 2011; Johnson and Miller 2006).

Resistance to nonnative invasive plant species depends on environmental factors 

and ecosystem attributes and is a function of (1) the invasive species’ physiological and life history requirements for establishment, growth, and reproduction; and 

(2) interactions with the native perennial plant community including interspecific 

competition and response to herbivory and pathogens. Soil temperature and moisture regimes strongly influence plant species distributions and relative abundances. 

The importance of these factors in determining invasibility is well-illustrated for 

nonnative invasive brome grasses, which are among the most widespread and 

problematic invasive plant species in sagebrush ecosystems (figs. 21, 22; Brooks et 

al. 2016; Chambers et al. 2014b; 2016a). For example, germination, growth, and/

or reproduction of cheatgrass is physiologically limited in relatively warm and 

dry sites at lower elevations by frequent, low precipitation years, constrained by 

low soil temperatures at high elevations, and optimal under relatively moderate 

temperature and water availability at mid elevations (Chambers et al. 2007; Meyer 

et al. 2001). In contrast, red brome is found primarily on warm and dry salt desert 

sites (Salo 2005). Field brome is limited on warm and dry as well as cold sites but is 

relatively abundant on cool and moist sites (Baskin and Baskin 1981). Slope, aspect, 

and soil characteristics modify soil temperature and water availability and influence 

resistance to brome grasses at landscape to plant community scales (Chambers et al. 

2007; Condon et al. 2011; Mealor et al. 2013; 2014; Reisner et al. 2013; 2015; Salo 

2005).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 37

The occurrence and persistence of invasive annual grasses in sagebrush habitats 

are strongly influenced by interactions with the native perennial plant community. 

For example, cheatgrass is a facultative winter annual that can germinate from early 

fall through early spring, exhibits root elongation at low soil temperatures, and has 

higher nutrient uptake and growth rates than most native species (Arredondo et al. 

1998; James et al. 2011; Mack and Pyke 1983). Seedlings of native, perennial plant 

species are generally poor competitors with cheatgrass, but adults of native, perennial grasses and forbs, especially those with similar growth forms and phenology, 

can be highly effective competitors with the invasive annual (Blank and Morgan 

2012; Booth et al. 2003; Chambers et al. 2007). Also, biological soil crusts, which 

are an important component of plant communities in warmer and drier sagebrush 

ecosystems, can reduce germination or establishment of cheatgrass (Eckert et al. 

1986; Kaltenecker et al. 1999). Disturbances or management treatments that reduce 

abundance of native perennial grasses and biological soil crusts and increase the 

distances between these perennial grasses often result in higher resource availability 

and increased competitive ability of cheatgrass (Chambers et al. 2007; Reisner et 

al. 2013; 2015; Roundy et al. 2014). Similarly, decreases in native perennial grasses 

Figure 21—Resistance to invasive annual brome grasses (A) and resilience to disturbance 

(B) over a typical soil moisture and temperature gradient in the West-Central Semiarid 

Prairies. Dominant ecological sites occur along a continuum from relatively warm and summer moist with Wyoming big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, and cool season grasses with a 

minor component of warm season grasses to cold and summer moist with a mixture of cool 

and warm season grasses and silver sagebrush. Resistance to annual brome grasses varies 

along the temperature and precipitation gradient as a function of their ecological amplitudes 

and is affected by disturbances and management treatments that alter vegetation structure 

and composition and increase resource availability. Resilience also increases along the gradient and is influenced by site characteristics like soils and aspect (based on Chambers et al. 

2014b).

High

LowResistance

A

B

B. tectorum

Wyoming big/silver sage

Cool season with minor

warm season grasses

Cool/warm season grasses

Wyoming big/

silver sage

Cool/warm season grasses

silver sage

Warm-Summer Moist Cold-Summer Moist

Productivity

High

LowResilience

B. arvense

Disturbance/Altered Vegetation
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

and elevated resources result in increased abundances of red brome (Salo 2005), 

field brome (Collins et al. 1985), and also species like spotted knapweed (Centauria 

stoebe ssp. micranthos syn. C. maculosa) (Willard et al. 1988).

The type, characteristics, and natural range of variability of stress and disturbance 

strongly influence both resilience and resistance. Disturbances like overgrazing of 

perennial plants by livestock and atypical fire regimes are outside of the historical 

range of variability and can reduce the resilience of sagebrush ecosystems. Reduced 

resilience is triggered by changes in environmental factors like temperature regimes, 

abiotic attributes like water and nutrient availability, and biotic attributes such as 

vegetation structure, composition, and productivity (Chambers et al. 2014b) and 

cover of biological soil crusts (Reisner et al. 2013). Resistance to an invasive species can change when alterations in abiotic and biotic attributes result in increased 

resource availability or altered habitat suitability that influences an invasive species’ 

ability to establish and persist and/or compete with native species (Chambers et al. 

2014b,c). Progressive reduction of resilience and resistance can result in the crossing of abiotic and/or biotic thresholds and an inability of the system to recover to 

the reference state (Briske et al. 2008).

High

LowResistance

A

B

B. tectorum

Wyoming

big sage

Basin big

sage

Mountain big sage/

mountain shrub

Warm-Dry and

Warm-Dry bordering

on Summer Moist

Cold-Wet and

Cold-Summer Moist

Productivity

High

Low

B. arvense

Disturbance/Altered Vegetation

B. rubens

Mountain

big sage

Low

LowResilience

Figure 22—Resistance to invasive annual brome grasses (A) and resilience to disturbance 

(B) over a typical soil temperature and moisture gradient in the Cold Desert. Dominant ecological sites occur along a continuum from relatively warm and dry to cold and wet conditions 

that includes salt desert shrub, Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, mountain big 

sagebrush, and mountain big sagebrush with root-sprouting shrubs. Resistance to annual 

brome grasses varies along the temperature and precipitation gradient as a function of their 

ecological amplitudes and is affected by disturbances and management treatments that alter vegetation structure and composition and increase resource availability. Resilience also 

increases along the temperature and precipitation gradient and is influenced by site characteristics like soils and aspect (based on Chambers et al. 2014b).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 39

6. Integrating Resilience and Resistance Concepts with 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Requirements to Prioritize Areas 

for Management and Inform Management Strategies

Widespread persistent ecosystem and land use and development threats coupled 

with large and diverse ecoregions require a strategic approach to conserve sagegrouse habitats (Meinke et al. 2009; Pyke 2011; Wisdom and Chambers 2009; 

Wisdom et al. 2005). This strategic approach requires the ability to (1) identify those 

locations that provide current or potential habitat for sage-grouse, (2) prioritize 

management actions based on relative resilience and resistance, and (3) effectively 

allocate resources to achieve desired objectives. Recently, probabilistic models of 

GRSG occupied breeding habitat have been developed that account for general 

habitat characteristics, climate, landform, and disturbance. Spatially explicit 

models have been developed that quantify the relative density of breeding male 

GRSG across Management Zones (Doherty et al. 2016). And information on the 

relationships of environmental characteristics to ecological types and their inherent 

resilience and resistance has been developed. Coupling species distribution and 

abundance information with relative habitat resilience and resistance provides the 

foundation to (1) prioritize areas for management that sustain viable populations of 

birds and (2) determine the most appropriate treatments based on the area’s capacity 

to respond to management actions (Chambers et al. 2014c).

6.1 Sage-grouse Breeding Habitat Probabilities and Population 

Indices

Sage-Grouse Breeding Habitat Model

We used two sets of models developed for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

status assessment (Doherty et al. 2016) to develop sage-grouse breeding habitat 

probabilities and population indices. The occupied breeding habitat distribution 

model (hereafter, breeding habitat model) was developed to more accurately portray 

important breeding areas for GRSG (Doherty et al. 2016) primarily because information available to the USFWS regarding occupied GRSG range was developed 

at a broad spatial scale and included large areas of unsuitable habitat. The breeding 

habitat model uses GRSG lek data as a proxy for landscapes important to breeding 

birds, because leks are central to the breeding ecology of sage-grouse (Coates et al. 

2013; Holloran and Anderson 2005). The breeding habitat model evaluates characteristics such as vegetation (i.e., land cover), climate, landform, and disturbance 

variables around leks, which is where most nests occur (Holloran and Anderson 

2005), i.e., within a radius of 4 mi (6.4 km; 13,010 ha; Doherty et al. 2016). The 

model provides an estimate of the probability of occupied breeding habitat at a spatial resolution of 120 x 120 m based on habitat characteristics for each sage-grouse 

Management Zone (fig. 23).

For this report, we modeled breeding habitat for GUSG in Management Zone VII 

following the same methodology used by Doherty et al. (2016) for GRSG. We used 

lek designations for active, inactive, and historic GUSG leks provided by Colorado 

Parks and Wildlife (GSRSC 2005) and by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for 

Utah from 1995–2015. As with the GRSG breeding habitat analysis, we performed 

a geographic range analysis (i.e., Johnson’s [1980] first order scale) to evaluate 

breeding habitat represented by active GUSG leks. The extent of this analysis was 
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

delineated by placing a minimum convex polygon around range-wide GUSG habitat 

defined by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as occupied range and linkage habitat, 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources as occupied and unoccupied habitat, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat. We then buffered the polygon by 

11 mi (18 km) as a reasonable approximation for the average distance an individual 

GUSG might move during the year to access seasonal resources based on several 

GRSG studies from Wyoming (Fedy et al. 2012). We quantified habitat, landform, 

and disturbance variables within two spatial scales, 2.5 mi (4.0 km) and 0.35 mi 

(0.56 km) of each lek. The median distance of an active GUSG lek from non-habitat 

as defined by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Figure 23—Greater sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities based on 2010 to 

2014 lek data (Doherty et al. 2016) in Management Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 

2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016). Active leks are overlaid.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 41

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g., forested areas) was approximately 

2.5 mi (4.0 km). We believed the smaller buffer size for GUSG compared to GRSG 

was warranted because a 4 mi (6.4 km) buffer placed around active GUSG leks 

included approximately 37 percent non-habitat (e.g., forested). We also considered 

a second lek buffer distance of 0.56 km (100 ha) for GUSG, which coincided with 

the avoidance distance of nesting GUSG from conifer in the western portion of the 

Gunnison Basin (Aldridge et al. 2012). Climatic variables were evaluated within 30 

m x 30 m pixels. Similar to the GRSG breeding habitat model, the GUSG breeding 

habitat model generated an estimate of the probability of occupied breeding habitat 

at a spatial resolution of 30 x 30 m based on habitat characteristics within the 

GUSG range (fig. 24).

Figure 24—Gunnison sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities for the Gunnison 

sage-grouse range plus linkages (GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 2012; USFWS 2014a) 

based on lek data from 1995 to 2015. The breeding habitat probabilities were developed for this report based on Doherty et al. 2016. Active, historic, and inactive 

leks are overlaid.
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

We used the breeding habitat probabilities for GRSG (Doherty et al. 2016) and 

GUSG (see above) to develop three categories of breeding habitat suitability for 

areas near leks that can be used to prioritize management actions on the landscape: 

low (0.25 to <0.50); moderate (0.50 to <0.75); and high (0.75 to 1.00). Areas with 

very low probabilities (0.01 to <0.25) were considered to be unsuitable for breeding 

habitat, but may provide habitat during other life stages or linkages between suitable breeding habitat. Greater sage-grouse leks were defined as active if more than 

two males were counted in a single year from 2010 to 2014 and the last count was 

not zero (Doherty et al. 2016). Inactive GRSG leks were defined as those where 

no males were observed for more than four of the last lek counts. For GUSG, we 

combined inactive and historic leks. We relied on the probability values at existing 

active lek locations for GRSG and GUSG to define thresholds in breeding habitat 

probabilities. We then used the probability values at inactive lek locations for GRSG 

and inactive and historic lek locations (combined) for GUSG to conduct an accuracy 

assessment of our categorization of habitat probabilities (table 2). Our goal was 

to categorize breeding habitat so that less than 10 percent of active leks and more 

than 50 percent of the inactive leks would occur in the low and moderate probability ranges. This approach clearly differentiates where management actions to 

improve habitat are warranted (table 2). Inactive leks in the high habitat probability 

range (29.7 percent for GRSG and 45.6 percent for GUSG; table 2) may reflect 

site-specific issues such as a small wildfire that burned habitat surrounding a lek or 

a road or single oil and gas well placed close to a lek that resulted in its collapse. 

In contrast, active GRSG leks in the unsuitable (0.1 percent of active leks) and low 

(0.8 percent of active leks) probability ranges would indicate leks that are at high 

Table 2—Breeding habitat model probabilities for Greater sage-grouse leks in Management 

Zones I, II, and VII and Gunnison sage-grouse leks in Management Zone VII grouped into 

ranges relative to their probability of supporting sage-grouse leks. Percentage (sample 

size) of active and inactive Greater sage-grouse leks from Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming are included as an illustration of the distribution 

of current active and inactive leks within these probability ranges. Percentage (sample size) 

of active and inactive Greater sage-grouse leks from all States and active and inactive/

historic Gunnison sage-grouse leks from Colorado and Utah are included as justification of 

probability breaks for these probability ranges. Habitat probabilities for Greater sage-grouse 

were modeled by comparing habitat characteristics within 4 mi (6.4 km) around active leks 

and pseudo-absence locations (Doherty et al. 2016). Habitat probabilities for Gunnison 

sage-grouse were modeled by comparing habitat characteristics within 2.5 mi (4.0 km) and 

0.35 mi (0.56 km) around active leks and pseudo-absence locations (this report).

Breeding habitat probability

Unsuitable Low Moderate High

Percentage of leks 0.01 to <0.25 0.25 to <0.50 0.50 to <0.75 0.75 to 1.0

Greater sage-grouse

Active (%) 0.1 (n = 1) 0.8 (n = 14) 7.2 (n = 131) 92.0 (n = 1,680)

Inactive (%) 6.2 (n = 51) 24.5 (n = 202) 39.6 (n = 326) 29.7 (n = 244)

Gunnison sage-grouse

Active (%) 0.0 0.0 1.1 (n = 1) 98.9 (n = 93)

Inactive/historic (%) 7.3 (n = 5) 22.1 (n = 15) 25.0 (n = 17) 45.6 (n = 31)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 43

risk of collapse (table 2). Habitat managers should consult table 1 to identify the 

top predictor variables for GRSG breeding habitat in each Management Zone and 

for GUSG in Management Zone VII to identify specific issues. Identifying these 

issues may help explain why some leks occur in low, moderate, and high probability 

ranges. For example, there may be specific issues such as energy development 

structures or wildfire that eliminated sagebrush near inactive leks in the moderate 

probability range.

Sage-Grouse Population Index Model

Doherty et al. (2016) also developed a population index model (hereafter, population index) to identify areas on the landscape that contain population centers of 

male GRSG. Past work has shown that sage-grouse populations are highly clumped 

and that relatively small areas can contain a disproportionate number of males attending leks (Doherty et al. 2011a). This model is important because there are very 

large differences in the density of birds even within the identified high sage-grouse 

breeding habitat probability threshold described above. The population index serves 

as a proxy for relative abundance, which allows for better understanding of how 

risks, such as development or conifer expansion, and management strategies can 

be aligned spatially with population centers of sage-grouse. The population index 

model provides spatial insight into the importance of specific areas to the overall 

relative number of male GRSG during 2010 to 2014. Because of its threatened status under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2014a) and its limited distribution 

and abundance, we believe all GUSG range is important to the conservation of the 

species. However, lek locations can provide spatial insight into the relative importance of specific areas within the satellite populations of GUSG (fig. 13).

The population index model follows logic similar to previous published work by 

the U. S. Geological Survey on the Bi-State Greater sage-grouse population (Coates 

et al. 2016). To create the population index model, lek data were used to identify 

hotspots using kernel density functions. The kernel density function was linked with 

the breeding habitat model to develop a final population index model. The model 

created grids that represent an index to the relative abundance of breeding males in 

each 120 x 120 m pixel within each Management Zone. The final population index 

models incorporated spatial patterns of sage-grouse habitat selection with contemporary information of abundance within each Management Zone (fig. 9). Similar 

to the breeding habitat model, the population index model can be linked with other 

spatially explicit risk models or conservation actions to understand spatial overlap 

of habitat with sage-grouse populations. We did not develop a population index 

model for GUSG.

Use and Limitations of the Breeding Habitat Models

We used partial probability plots to elucidate habitat relationships of the variables 

in the final breeding habitat model for GRSG (Doherty et al. 2016) and GUSG. 

These figures demonstrate how the probability of the landscape to support a breeding population of sage-grouse changes relative to specific habitat variables (fig. 25). 

To improve interpretability and show variation across the GRSG range, we plotted 

each covariate for all Management Zones on the same plot. The partial probability 

plots were derived using the rfUtilities library (Evans and Murphy 2014).
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Partial probability plots of habitat relationships can also be used to identify 

thresholds in which non-habitat features exceed the tolerance of a species. For 

example, within the GUSG range, steep declines in the probability of an area supporting breeding habitat were associated with greater proportion of landscape cover 

of conifers within 0.35 mi (0.56 km) of leks (fig. 26A). The relationship of habitat 

characteristics can be mapped in a Geographical Information System (GIS) to 

display areas that have exceeded the GUSG threshold for the probability of lek occurrence in relation to a particular habitat characteristic. To illustrate this point, we 

have used habitat values associated with a probability threshold of 0.65 (identified 

in fig. 25 for GRSG) to predict the probability of lek occurrence across the entire 

range of GUSG (fig. 26B). We used this threshold because the original models 

developed by Doherty et al. (in press) indicated that all active GRSG leks existed 

in areas with estimated occupied habitat probabilities greater than 0.65, and our 

GUSG modeling for this report indicated all active GUSG leks were in areas with 

estimated breeding habitat probabilities greater than 0.66.

Use of a spatially explicit model that predicts occurrence based on multiple habitat features simultaneously is preferred over using a single habitat variable such as 

sagebrush cover to define priority habitat areas. This is because environmental niches of species are defined by multiple variables (e.g., James 1971). However, when 

multi-variable, spatially explicit models do not exist, then using threshold values of 

a single habitat variable from the literature, such as those identified in fig. 25, can 

be a useful starting place for defining priority areas. For example, Donnelly et al. (in 

press) showed an apparent threshold value of sagebrush cover of 40 percent above 

which the occurrence of three sagebrush obligate passerines increased (fig. 27).

Figure 25—Partial probability plot depicting the effect of landscape cover of sagebrush on the probability of a landscape supporting a breeding population of Greater 

sage-grouse (modified from Doherty et al. 2016). The thick red line shows the minimum level of sagebrush landscape cover needed to support a breeding population 

of Greater sage-grouse based on a 4 mi (6.4 km) radius of a lek. Landscape cover of 

sagebrush was derived from Landfire (USGS 2014). Probability of the landscape supporting a breeding population

Percent sagebrush cover within a 6.4-km radius

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

N. Great Plains

WY Basin

S. Great Basin

Snake River

N. Great Basin

Columbia Basin
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 45

Figure 26—(A) Partial probability plot depicting the effect of 

landscape cover of conifers on 

the probability of a landscape 

supporting a breeding population 

of Gunnison sage-grouse. The 

red line shows the maximum level 

of conifer land cover that can 

support a breeding population 

of Gunnison sage-grouse based 

on a 0.35 mi (0.56 km) radius 

of a lek. (B) Spatial depiction of 

the landscape cover of conifers 

binned by the predicted probability of Gunnison sage-grouse 

lek occurrence using a 0.35 mi 

(0.56 km) radius of a lek. Conifer 

land cover was derived from 

Falkowski et al. (in press). The 

Gunnison sage-grouse range plus 

linkages (GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 

2012; USFWS 2014a) is based 

on lek data from 1995 to 2015. 

Active, historic, and inactive leks 

are overlaid.

B

A
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

6.2 Soil Temperature and Moisture Regimes as Indicators of 

Ecosystem Resilience and Resistance

Once suitable habitat for sage-grouse is identified, appropriate conservation and 

restoration actions are determined by assessing the likely ecological response to disturbances and management treatments. Soil temperature and moisture regimes can 

be used as indicators of resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual 

species like cheatgrass in sagebrush ecosystems (Chambers et al. 2007; Chambers 

et al. 2014a,b,c; Maestas et al. 2016). In general, higher potential resilience and resistance occurs with cool to cold (frigid to cryic) soil temperature regimes and moist

(udic), winter moist (xeric), or predominantly summer moist (ustic) soil moisture 

regimes, while lower potential resilience and resistance occur with warm (mesic) 

soil temperatures and relatively dry (aridic) or summer moist bordering on dry (ustic bordering on aridic) soil moisture regimes (figs. 21, 22; Chambers et al. 2014a,b; 

Maestas et al. 2016). An explanation of soil temperature and moisture regimes is in 

Appendix 2.

High soil moisture typically equates to elevated productivity and thus increased 

resilience (Chambers et al. 2014b), whereas cold soil temperatures typically limit 

growth and reproduction of nonnative invasive annual grasses and thus increase 

resistance (Chambers et al. 2007). The timing of precipitation also is important 

Figure 27—Partial dependence plot showing the predicted relationships among the proportion of sagebrush within a 120-m buffer and counts of Brewer’s sparrow (BRSP), sagebrush 

sparrow (SASP), and sage thrasher (SATH) (Donnelly et al., in press). There is an apparent 

threshold value of 40 percent landscape cover of sagebrush above which abundance of the 

different species increases. The background histogram is the frequency of covariate values 

across the landscape and shows that a large proportion of sampled areas had low density of 

sagebrush (right y-axis). Predicted count

Proportion sagebrush (AllSB120m)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0 5 10 20 25 30

Density of sagebrush within study area

15

A)

0 2 6 8

4

BRSP

SASP

SATH
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 47

because cheatgrass and many other invasive annual grasses are particularly welladapted to climates with cool and wet winters and warm and dry summers (fig. 4; 

Bradford and Lauenroth 2006; Bradley 2009). In contrast, areas that receive regular 

and relatively abundant summer precipitation (ustic soil moisture regimes at the 

high end of the precipitation gradient) often are dominated by warm and/or cool 

season grasses (Sala et al. 1997). These grasses likely create a more competitive 

environment and result in greater resistance to annual grass invasion and spread 

(Bradford and Lauenroth 2006; Bradley 2009).

For this report, we describe the predominant sagebrush ecological types in relation to soil temperature and moisture regimes, typical vegetation, and resilience 

to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grass (table 3). To facilitate landscape analyses and prioritization, we categorized relative resilience and resistance 

based on soil temperature regime and moisture regime subclasses (fig. 7) and the 

predominant sagebrush ecological types (table 3; Appendix 3). We assigned each 

soil temperature regime and moisture regime subclass to one of three categories of 

relative resilience and resistance: high, moderate, and low. An explanation of soil 

temperature and moisture regimes and cross-walks between soil temperature and 

moisture regimes and relative resilience and resistance are in Appendix 2. To facilitate assessments across scales, we developed state-and-transitions models for the 

predominant ecological types based on soil temperature and moisture regimes and 

relative resilience and resistance of the sagebrush ecosystem types (Appendix 6). 

State-and-transition models provide information on the alternative states, ranges 

of variability within states, and processes that cause plant community shifts within 

states as well as transitions among states.

Much of the West-Central Semiarid Prairies (Management Zone I) is characterized by moderate to high resilience and resistance as indicated by relatively cool 

and summer moist regimes (fig. 7; table 3). However, the southeastern part of 

this ecoregion has low to moderate resilience and resistance as indicated by warm 

(mesic) and drier regimes (ustic bordering on aridic) (table 3). The dominant 

ecological types are comprised of varying amounts of cool season and warm 

season grasses, Wyoming big sagebrush, and plains silver sagebrush (table 3). The 

Western Cordillera in Management Zones II and VII grades into the foothills of the 

Wyoming Basin and Colorado Plateau and is characterized by cold and wet to cool 

and summer moist soil temperature and moisture regimes with generally high to 

moderate resilience and resistance (fig. 7; table 3). Ecological types are typically 

comprised of mountain big sagebrush, snowberry, other shrubs, and cool season 

grasses (table 3). The Cold Deserts in Management Zones II and VII encompass a 

broad range of soil temperature and moisture regimes—cool bordering on cold and 

summer moist bordering on dry to warm and dry—with generally moderate to low 

resilience and resistance (fig. 7; table 3). The ecological types are characterized by 

mountain big sagebrush on the coolest sites, Wyoming big sagebrush and salt desert 

shrubs on the warmest and driest sites, and basin big sagebrush and sometimes 

silver sagebrush in drainages. Cool season grasses predominate with warm season 

grasses occurring in some types with summer moisture.
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Table 3—Predominant sagebrush ecological types in the West-Central Semiarid Prairies (MZ I), Western 

Cordillera, and Cold Deserts Ecoregions (MZ II, VII) based on soil temperature and moisture regimes 

(to moisture subclass), typical characteristics, and resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive 

annual grasses. Relative abundance of sagebrush species and composition of understory vegetation vary 

depending on major land resource area (MLRA) and ecological site type. Definitions of MLRAs, state-andtransition models, ecological types, and ecological sites are in Appendix 1. The methods used to determine 

the predominant ecological types and a map that intersects the MLRAs, ecoregions, and management 

zones are found in Appendix 3. State-and-transition models were developed for most of these ecological 

types for this report (Appendix 6). A detailed description of how to use this information is in the section on 

“Determining Appropriate Management Treatments at Local Scales” in this report.

West-Central Semiarid Prairies (Northwestern Glaciated Plains and Northwestern Great Plains)

Ecological Type Characteristics Resilience and Resistance 

Cool bordering on cold/ Summer moist 

bordering on dry

(Frigid bordering on Cryic/Ustic 

bordering on Aridic)

Representative Area: 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains—

MLRA 52 in northern Montana

Precipitation: 10-14 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

Green needlegrass, wheatgrasses, 

needle-and-thread, plains silver 

sagebrush 

Grass dominated—cool with some 

warm season grasses

Resilience—High. High precipitation 

and high productivity result in high 

resilience. 

Resistance—High. Climate suitability 

to invasive annual bromes is low due to 

low soil temperature and club mosses. 

Cool/Summer moist

(Frigid/Ustic)

Representative Area:

Northwestern Great Plains—MLRA 

60A in South Dakota

Precipitation: 13-18 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

Western wheatgrass, green 

needlegrass, blue and sideoats 

grama, buffalograss, plains silver 

sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush 

on shallow clay sites

Grass dominated—mixture of cool 

and warm season grasses 

Resilience—Moderate to high.

Effective moisture and productivity are 

high, depending on soil texture. 

Resistance—Moderate to high. 

Climate suitability to invasive annual 

grasses is moderate to high increasing 

on warmer sites.

Cool/Summer moist bordering on dry

(Frigid/Ustic bordering on Aridic)

Representative Area: Northwestern 

Great Plains—MLRA 58A in Montana 

and 58D in South Dakota, 58C in 

North Dakota

Precipitation: 10-14 inches 

Typical Vegetation: Wyoming 

big sage, plains silver sage, 

wheatgrasses, green needlegrass, 

needle-and-thread, and blue grama

Shrub dominated—cool with some 

warm season grasses

Resilience—Moderate to high.

Effective moisture and productivity 

are relatively high, depending on soil 

texture. 

Resistance—Moderate to high. 

Climate suitability to invasive annual 

grasses is minor and increases on 

warmer and drier sites.

Warm/Summer moist

(Mesic/Ustic)

Representative Area: 

Northwestern Great Plains—wetter 

portions of MLRA 58B in Wyoming 

near Black Hills

Precipitation: 15-17 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

Wyoming big sagebrush, western 

wheatgrass, green needlegrass, 

needle-and-thread 

Ponderosa pine potential 

Shrub dominated—cool and warm 

season grasses 

Resilience—Moderate to high.

Effective precipitation and productivity 

are relatively high. 

Resistance—Moderate. Climate 

suitability to invasive annual grasses 

is moderate to low depending on soil 

temperature and texture.

Warm/Summer moist bordering on dry

(Mesic/Ustic bordering on Aridic)

Representative Area:

Northwestern Great Plains—drier 

portions of MLRA 58B in Wyoming, 

and probably warmer portions of 58A, 

Land Resource Unit E in southeastern 

Montana

Precipitation: 10-14 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

Wyoming big sagebrush, silver 

sagebrush, wheatgrasses, green 

needlegrass, needle-and-thread, blue 

grama

Shrub dominated—cool and warm 

season grasses

Resilience—Low to moderate.

Effective precipitation and productivity 

are relatively low. 

Resistance—Low to moderate. 

Climate suitability to invasive annual 

grasses is moderate to high depending 

on soil temperature and texture.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 49

Table 3—(Continued)

Western Cordillera (Middle and Southern Rockies)

Ecological Type Characteristics Resilience and Resistance

Cold/Wet

(Cryic/Udic)

Representative Area:

Middle and Southern Rockies—MLRA 

43B in Wyoming and Montana; 48A in 

Colorado; MLRA 47 in Utah 

Applies to both Gunnison and 

Greater sage-grouse habitats 

Precipitation: 20+ inches

Typical Vegetation: 

mountain big sagebrush, spiked big 

sagebrush, snowberry, mountain 

silver sagebrush , aspen, lodgepole 

pine, slender wheatgrass, fescues, 

needlegrasses, bromes 

Shrub dominated—cool season 

bunchgrasses

Resilience—High. High precipitation 

and high productivity result in high 

resilience. 

Resistance—High. Climate suitability 

to invasive annual bromes is low due to 

low soil temperature.

Cold/Summer moist

(Cryic/Ustic)

Representative Area:

Middle and Southern Rockies—

MLRAs 46/43B Foothills in Wyoming 

and Montana; MLRA 48A in Wyoming 

and Northern Colorado; MLRA 49 in 

Wyoming

Applies to both Gunnison and 

Greater sage-grouse habitats

Precipitation: 15-19 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

mountain big sagebrush, bitterbrush, 

snowberry, serviceberry, mahogany, 

aspen, fescues, needlegrasses, 

bluebunch wheatgrass

Shrub dominated—cool season 

bunchgrasses

Resilience—High. High precipitation 

and high productivity result in high 

resilience. 

Resistance—High. Climate suitability 

to invasive annual bromes is low due 

to low soil temperature. High variability 

due to aspect with lower resistance on 

south-facing aspects.

Cool/Summer moist

(Frigid/Ustic)

Representative Area:

Uinta Mountains (MLRA 47, LRU C) in 

Utah and Wyoming; Southern Rockies 

in Colorado and Utah—MLRA 48A 

Applies to both Gunnison and 

Greater sage-grouse habitats

Precipitation: 16-22 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

mountain big sagebrush, 

serviceberry, snowberry, bitterbrush, 

western wheatgrass, needlegrasses, 

bluegrasses

Shrub dominated—cool season 

grasses with some warm season 

grasses in southern extent

Resilience—Moderate to high.

Precipitation and productivity are 

moderate. Decreases in herbaceous 

perennial species, and ecological 

conditions can decrease resilience. 

Resistance—Moderate to high. 

Climate suitability to invasive annual 

grasses is relatively high. 

Cool/Winter moist

(Frigid/Xeric)

Described in Chambers et al. 2014b. 

Representative Area: Wasatch and 

Uinta Mountains in Utah (MLRA 47) 

Precipitation: 12-22 inches

Typical vegetation: 

mountain big sagebrush, antelope 

bitterbrush, snowberry, or low 

sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, 

basin wildrye, Nevada bluegrass

Piñon pine and juniper potential in 

some areas 

Shrub dominated—cool season 

grasses

Resilience – Moderately high. 

Precipitation and productivity are 

generally high. Decreases in site 

productivity, herbaceous perennial 

species, and ecological conditions can 

decrease resilience.

Resistance—Moderate. Climate 

suitability to invasive annual grasses 

is moderate, but increases as soil 

temperatures increase. 

Cold Deserts (Wyoming Basin and Colorado Plateau)

Ecological Type Characteristics Resilience and Resistance

Cool/Summer moist bordering on dry

(Frigid/Ustic bordering on Aridic)

Representative Area: 

Wyoming Basin—MLRA 34A in 

Wyoming east of continental divide 

and southern extent of MLRA 34A in 

Colorado west of continental divide.

Applies to both Gunnison and 

Greater sage-grouse habitats

Precipitation: 10-14 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

Wyoming big sagebrush; basin big 

sagebrush or silver sagebrush in 

drainages, wheatgrasses, needleand-thread, Indian ricegrass

Shrub dominated—cool season 

grasses with some warm season 

grasses (blue grama)

Resilience—Moderate. Precipitation 

and productivity are moderate. 

Decreases in site productivity, 

herbaceous perennial species and 

ecological conditions can decrease 

resilience.

Resistance—Moderate. Climate 

suitability to invasive annual bromes 

is relatively low, but increases with 

temperature and soil sand content. 
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Table 3—(Continued)

Ecological Type Characteristics Resilience and Resistance

Cool bordering on warm/ Summer 

moist

(Frigid bordering on Mesic/Ustic)

Representative Area: 

Colorado Plateau – MLRA 48A/34A 

Piceance Basin-Book Cliffs in 

Colorado and Utah 

Applies to both Gunnison and 

Greater sage-grouse habitats

Precipitation: 14-18 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

Wyoming big sagebrush, basin 

big sagebrush in drainages, 

mountain big sagebrush, Utah 

juniper, twoneedle pinyon, Gambel 

oak, basin wildrye, rhizomatous 

wheatgrasses, Sandberg bluegrass

Pinyon-juniper potential

Shrub dominated—cool with some 

warm season grasses 

Resilience—Moderate to high.

Effective precipitation and productivity 

are high, depending on soil texture. 

Erosive soils and steep terrain can 

decrease resilience. 

Resistance—Moderate to Low. 

Climate suitability to invasive annual 

grasses is moderate. Decreases in 

site productivity, herbaceous perennial 

species, and ecological conditions 

decrease resistance.

Cool/dry bordering on summer moist

(Frigid/Aridic bordering on Ustic)

Representative Area: 

Wyoming Basin – MLRA 34A in Green 

River Basin (west of continental 

divide) and Great Divide Basin

Precipitation: 7-10 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

Wyoming big sagebrush and 

salt desert shrubs, bottlebrush 

squirreltail, needleandthread, Indian 

ricegrass, wheatgrasses

Shrub dominated—cool season 

grasses 

Resilience—Moderate to Low. 

Effective precipitation limits site 

productivity. Decreases in productivity, 

perennial herbs, and ecological 

conditions further decrease resilience.

Resistance —Moderate. Climate 

suitability to invasive annual grasses is 

moderate, but depends on soil texture 

and temperature. 

Warm/summer moist bordering on dry

(Mesic/Ustic bordering on Aridic)

Representative Area: 

Wyoming Basin – MLRA 32 foothills 

in Wyoming, MLRA 34B and 36 in 

Colorado and Utah 

Applies to both Gunnison and 

Greater sage-grouse habitats

Precipitation: 10-14 inches in 

Wyoming; 12-16 inches in Utah and 

Colorado

Typical Vegetation: 

Wyoming big sagebrush, Utah 

juniper and twoneedle pinyon, 

wheatgrasses, needleandthread, 

Indian ricegrass

Shrub dominated—cool season 

grasses with warm season grasses 

increasing in the south

Resilience—Moderate to low. 

Effective precipitation and productivity 

are moderately low, and vary with soil 

temperature and texture.

Resistance—Low. High climate 

suitability to invasive annuals. 

Warm/Dry bordering on summer moist

(Mesic/Aridic bordering on Ustic)

Representative Area:

Wyoming Basin and Colorado 

Plateau—MLRAs 32 foothills in 

Wyoming and MLRA 34B and36 in 

Colorado and Utah

Applies to both Gunnison and 

Greater sage-grouse habitats

Precipitation: 8-12 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

Wyoming big sagebrush, 

fourwing saltbush, Utah juniper, 

black sagebrush, shadscale, 

needleandthread, Indian ricegrass, 

wheatgrasses, galleta, 

Shrub dominated—cool season 

grasses with some warm season 

grasses

Resilience—Moderate to low. Effective 

precipitation and productivity are 

moderately low, and vary with soil 

temperature and texture.

Resistance—Low. Climate suitability to 

invasive annuals is high. Decreases in 

site productivity, herbaceous perennial 

species, and ecological conditions 

decrease resistance.

Warm/Dry

(Mesic/Aridic)

Representative Area: 

Wyoming Basin—MLRA 32 in 

Wyoming (Bighorn and Wind River 

Basins)

Precipitation: 5-9 inches

Typical Vegetation: 

Wyoming big sagebrush, salt 

desert shrubs, wheatgrasses, 

needleandthread, Indian ricegrass

Shrub dominated—cool season 

grasses with some warm season 

grasses

Resilience—Low. Effective precipitation 

and productivity are low resulting in low 

resilience.

Resistance—Low. Climate suitability 

to invasive annual grasses is high. 

Decreases in site productivity, 

herbaceous perennial species, and 

ecological conditions decrease 

resistance.

Cold Deserts (Wyoming Basin and Colorado Plateau)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 51

6.3 Sage-Grouse Habitat Resilience and Resistance Matrix

Knowledge of the potential resilience and resistance of sagebrush ecosystems can 

be linked with the probability that an area will provide sage-grouse breeding habitat 

to determine priority areas for management and identify effective management 

strategies (Chambers et al. 2014a; Wisdom and Chambers 2009). The sage-grouse 

habitat matrix (table 4) illustrates an area’s relative resilience to disturbance and 

resistance to invasive annual grasses in relation to its probability of providing habitat for sage-grouse. As resilience and resistance go from high to low, timeframes 

required for sagebrush regeneration and perennial grass and forb abundance progressively limit the capacity of sagebrush ecosystems to recover after disturbances 

without management assistance. The risk of annual invasives increases and the ability to successfully restore burned or otherwise disturbed areas decrease as resilience 

and resistance decrease. As the probability of sage-grouse breeding habitat goes 

from low to high within these same ecosystems, the capacity to sustain populations 

of sage-grouse increases. Areas with breeding habitat probabilities of 0.25 to less 

than 0.5 are unlikely to provide adequate breeding habitat for sage-grouse. Areas 

with breeding habitat probabilities of 0.5 to less than 0.75 can provide breeding habitat for sage-grouse, but are at risk if sagebrush loss occurs without recovery or if 

other factors negatively impact the area, such as conifer expansion, development, or 

infrastructure. Areas with breeding habitat probabilities greater than or equal to 0.75 

can provide the necessary breeding habitat conditions for sage-grouse to persist.

Management strategies can be determined by considering (1) resilience to 

disturbance and resistance to nonnative invasive plants, (2) sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities, and (3) the predominant threats to both sagebrush 

ecosystems and their associated sage-grouse populations. Management strategies for the West-Central Semiarid Prairies (Management Zone I), Cold Deserts 

(Management Zone II), and Western Cordillera Ecoregions (Management Zone 

VII) are found in table 5. Because management strategies often cross-cut multiple program areas for land management agencies, an integrated approach is 

typically used to address the predominant threats. For example, agency program 

areas such as invasive plant management, fuels management, range management, and wildlife, may all contribute to vegetation management strategies 

designed to address persistent ecosystem and land use and development threats.

The sage-grouse habitat matrix is a decision support tool that allows land 

managers to better evaluate risks and decide where to focus specific activities 

to promote desired species and ecosystem conditions (table 4; Chambers et al. 

2014a). Areas with high sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities and high 

concentrations of birds are typically comprised of intact habitats and thus are 

high priorities for management (table 4 cells 1C, 2C, 3C). Protective management can be used in and adjacent to these areas to maintain habitat connectivity 

and ecosystem resilience and resistance. A diverse set of strategies can be used 

for protective management such as reducing or eliminating disturbances from 

land uses and development, establishing conservation easements, utilizing an 

early detection and rapid response approach (EDRR; USDI 2016) to invasive plant 

species management, or suppressing fires (table 5). Areas with high sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities but lower resilience and resistance are slower to recover 

following fire and surface disturbances and are more susceptible to invasive plant 

species than areas with higher resilience and resistance (Chambers et al. 2014c). 
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Table 4—Sage-grouse habitat resilience and resistance matrix based on resilience and resistance concepts 

from Chambers et al. (2014a,b), and breeding habitat probabilities based on Doherty et al. (2016) for 

Greater sage-grouse and developed in this report for Gunnison sage-grouse. Rows show the ecosystem’s 

relative resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses (1 = high resilience and 

resistance; 2 = moderate resilience and resistance; 3 = low resilience and resistance). Resilience and 

resistance categories were derived from soil temperature and moisture regimes (see Appendix 2; Maestas 

et al. 2016) and relate to the sagebrush ecological types in table 3. Columns show the landscape-scale 

sage-grouse breeding habitat probability based on table 1 (A = 0.25 to <0.5 probability; B = 0.5 to <0.75 

probability; C ≥0.75 probability). Use of the matrix is explained in text. Potential management strategies for 

persistent ecosystem threats, land use and development threats, and climate change are in table 5 for the 

West-Central Semiarid Prairies (Management Zone I), Western Cordillera, and Cold Deserts (Management 

Zones II, VII). 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 53

Table 5—Management strategies for persistent ecosystem threats, land use and 

development threats, and climate change in the West-Central Semiarid Prairies 

(MZ I), Western Cordillera, and Cold Deserts (MZ II and VII). Recommendations 

are provided for prioritizing and targeting strategies based on cells in the sagegrouse habitat resilience and resistance matrix (table 4). Threats and strategies 

are cross-cutting and affect multiple program areas. While many of these fall 

under the broad umbrella of vegetation management, an integrated approach 

will likely be used in addressing threats. For example, it is expected that multiple 

agency program areas such as invasive plant management, fuels management, 

range management, wildlife, and others will contribute to strategies that use 

vegetation manipulation to address persistent ecosystem and land use and 

development threats.

Threat—Nonnative Invasive Species

Management Strategies

•	 Use resilience and resistance categories and knowledge of invasive plant distributions to 

select appropriate management approaches.

o Protect high quality (relatively weed-free) sagebrush communities with moderateto-high sage-grouse habitat probabilities (cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C):

§	 Focus on preventing introduction and establishment of invasive species, 

especially in low resistance areas with high susceptibility to annual grass 

invasion (in and adjacent to cells 3B, 3C). 

§	 Avoid seeding introduced forage species (crested wheatgrass, smooth 

brome, etc.) in postfire rehabilitation or restoration in moderate to high resilience and resistance areas because these species can dominate sagebrush 

communities.

§	 Practice early detection-rapid response (EDRR) approaches for emerging 

invasive species of concern (in and adjacent to cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C). 

o Where weed populations already exist, seek opportunities to maximize treatment 

effectiveness by prioritizing restoration within relatively intact sagebrush communities (cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C). Restoration will likely be easier at locations in 

cooler and moister ecological types with higher resilience and resistance.

§	 Prioritize sites with sufficient native perennial herbaceous species to respond 

to release from invasive plant competition. 

§	 Manage grazing to reduce invasive species and promote native perennial 

grasses. In the West-Central Semiarid Prairies and other cool and moist 

areas, manage grazing to reduce crested wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, 

smooth brome, and other introduced forage species and to promote native 

cool season perennial grasses (see grazing strategies.

§	 Attempt proactive management of invasive annual grasses in the understory 

of sagebrush stands to reduce wildfire risk where proven methods exist (rather than focusing efforts exclusively on postfire annual grass control). Restrict 

spread of large weed infestations located in lower habitat probability areas 

(cells 1A, 2A, 3A) to prevent compromising adjacent higher quality habitats 

(cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C).

Threat—Conifer Expansion

Management Strategies

•	 Addressing conifer expansion requires an interdisciplinary approach and necessarily 

involves multiple program areas. 

o Apply integrated vegetation management practices to treat conifer expansion, using 

an interdisciplinary approach in designing projects and treatments.

o Focus tree removal on early to mid-phase (e.g., Phases I, II) conifer expansion into 

sagebrush ecological sites to maintain shrub/herbaceous cover.

o Use prescribed fire selectively in moderate to high resilience/resistance (cells 1A, 

1B, 2A, 2B) to control conifer expansion.

o Prioritize for treatment:
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

§	 Areas with habitat characteristics that can support sage-grouse with moderate 

to high resilience and resistance (cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C), especially near leks. 

(Note: cells 3B and 3C are generally too warm and dry to support conifers.).

§	 Areas where conifer removal will provide connectivity between sagebrush 

habitats.

§	 Areas where sufficient perennial grasses and forbs exist to promote recovery.

Threat – Wildfire

Management strategies

Fire Operations: Protection of areas supporting sagebrush is important for maintaining sagegrouse habitat. The West-Central Semiarid Prairies (MZ I) have limited availability of sagebrush and all areas with moderate and especially low resilience and resistance have longer 

recovery periods. If resources become limiting, consider the following prioritization: 

•	 Fire suppression typically shifts from low to moderate priority when resistance and resilience categories shift from high to moderate, but it varies with large fire risk and landscape condition (cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C). In low resistance and resilience areas, the priority 

shifts from moderate to high as sage-grouse habitat probability increases (cell 3B, 3C). 

Scenarios requiring high priority may include:

o Areas of sagebrush that bridge large, contiguous expanses of sagebrush and that 

are important for providing connectivity for sage-grouse.

o Areas where sagebrush communities have been successfully reestablished 

through seedings or other rehabilitation investments.

o All areas during critical fire weather conditions, where fire growth may move into 

valued sagebrush communities. These conditions may be identified by a number of 

products including, but not limited to: Predictive Services National 7-Day Significant 

Fire Potential products; National Weather Service Fire Weather Watches and Red 

Flag Warnings; and fire behavior analyses and local fire environment observations.

Fuels Management: Fuels management includes vegetation projects that mitigate wildfire 

risk, improve resilience to disturbance, and restore habitat, as well as actions intended to 

protect intact sage-grouse habitat. Mechanical treatments are typically applied to reduce fuel 

loading or to alter species composition consistent with Land Use Plan objectives. Prescribed 

fire is one form of fuels management that may be used to improve habitat conditions or create fuel conditions that limit future fire spread in areas with moderate to high resilience and 

resistance, but should be considered only after consultation with local biologists and land 

managers. Chemical and seeding treatments are conducted to reduce invasive species and 

to change species composition to native and/or more fire resistant species where native 

perennial grasses and forbs are depleted. When setting priorities for fuels management, 

consider the following.

Mechanical Treatments

•	 Mechanical treatments conducted to minimize sagebrush loss (e.g., conifer reduction) is 

a high priority in areas with high breeding habitat probabilities and moderate to high resilience and resistance (cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C), and shifts to low in areas with low breeding 

habitat probabilities (cells 1A and 2A). 

•	 In areas of low resilience and resistance, mechanical treatments to minimize sagebrush 

loss shifts in priority from low to high as the sage-grouse habitat probability increases 

(cells 3B, 3C). However, treatments intended to decrease fuel loads and increase perennial herbaceous species may be ineffective if insufficient perennial grasses and forbs 

exist to promote recovery and resist invasive plant species. 

•	 Management activities may include:

o Tree removal in early to mid-phase (Phases I, II) post-settlement conifers to maintain shrub/herbaceous cover and reduce fuel loads.

o Removal of mountain shrub species that encroach into sagebrush communities 

(e.g., gambel oak, curlleaf mountain mahogany, snowberry, serviceberry.) 

o Tree removal in later phase (Phase III) post-settlement conifers to reduce risks or 

large or high severity fires. 

o Herbicide and/or seeding associated with mechanical treatments to reduce invasive 

species and restore native perennial species in areas with insufficient native perennial grasses and forbs for recovery.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 55

Table 5—(Continued).

Prescribed Fire

•	 Consider alternatives to prescribed fire where other treatment alternatives may meet 

management objectives.

•	 In low resilience and resistance areas, consider prescribed fire only after consultation 

with local biologists and land managers and when:

o Site information, such as state-and-transition models, affirm that the postburn 

trajectory will lead to functioning sagebrush communities. Most low resilience and 

resistance areas that receive <12 in (30.5 cm) of precipitation do not respond favorably to burning.

o Burning is part of multi-stage restoration projects where burning is required to remove biomass following chemical treatments for site preparation.

o Monitoring data validates that the preburn composition will lead to successful, native 

plant dominance postburn.

•	 Use prescribed fire selectively in moderate to high resilience and resistance areas, after 

consultation with local biologists and land managers and assessing site recovery potential and other management options based on the following: 

o Preburn community composition.

o Probability of invasive species establishment.

o Historic fire regime, and patch size/pattern to be created by burning.

o Wildfire risk and desired fuel loading to protect intact sagebrush; and

o Alternative treatments that may meet objectives.

•	 Prescribed fire activities may include: 

o Burning piles or concentrations of woody biomass resulting from mechanical treatments.

o Broadcast burning in areas having conifer concentrations that interface with sagebrush communities, while intentionally avoiding burning intact sagebrush that is not 

fire tolerant.

o Creating fuel conditions that constrain future fire spread.

o Prescribed fire adjacent to intact habitat where treatment will aid in wildfire 

 suppression. 

o Prescribed fire to create landscape patterns that improve resilience and desired species composition. 

Chemical Treatment and Seeding: Herbicide treatments and seedings are used to decrease invasive species composition and increase native species dominance where perennial native grasses and forbs are insufficient for site recovery. Herbicide treatments may be 

selectively applied in conjunction with prescribed fire or mechanical treatments. Typically, 

these treatments are in response to clear evidence of a nonnative invasive species threat.

Postfire Rehabilitation: Postfire rehabilitation is a cross-cutting effort involving range, wildlife, soils, fire, and fuels subject matter expertise. General considerations for prioritization of 

postfire rehabilitation efforts are:

•	 Priority shifts from generally low priority (cells 1A, 2A, 3A, 1B, and 1C) to moderate priority in moderate resilience and resistance areas (cells 2B, 2C). Areas of low resilience/resistance shift in priority from low priority to high priority with increasing habitat probability 

for sage-grouse (cells 3B to 3C). 

•	 Areas of higher priority include:

o Areas where perennial herbaceous cover, density, and species composition is inadequate for recovery.

o Areas where seeding or transplanting sagebrush is needed to maintain habitat connectivity for sage-grouse.

o Areas threatened by nonnative invasive plants.

o Steep slopes and soils with erosion potential.

Threat —Climate Change

Management strategies

•	 Where effects of climate change and its interactions with stressors are expected to be 

relatively small and knowledge and capacity high, continue to use best management 

practices.
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Table 5—(Continued).

•	 Where climate change and stress interactions are expected to be severe, proactive 

management such as assisted migration may be necessary to facilitate transition to a 

new site potential.

•	 Practice drought adaption measures such as reduced grazing during droughts, conservation actions to facilitate species persistence, and seeding and transplanting techniques 

proven to work during drought.

•	 Use species and ecotypes for seeding and out-planting that are adapted to both site 

conditions and drought, and resilient to episodic drought where projections indicate longterm climate change.

•	 Monitor transition zones between climatic regimes (the edges). Plant community shifts 

that affect management decisions often occur between Major Land Resource Areas or 

Level III Ecoregions. 

Threat —Grazing

Management strategies

•	 Manage livestock grazing to maintain a balance of perennial native grasses (warm and/

or cool season species as described in ESDs for that area), forbs, and biological soil 

crusts to allow natural regeneration and to maintain resilience. Ensure strategies prevent 

degradation and loss of native cool-season grasses in particular. Areas with low to moderate resilience and resistance may be particularly vulnerable (cells 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 

3C).

•	 Implement grazing strategies that incorporate periodic rest during the critical growth 

period, especially for cool season grasses, to ensure maintenance of a mixture of native 

perennial grasses. This strategy is important across all sites, but particularly essential 

on areas with low to moderate resilience and resistance supporting sage-grouse habitat 

(cells 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C).

•	 Ensure grazing strategies are designed to promote native plant communities and 

decrease nonnative invasive species. In ephemeral drainages and higher precipitation 

areas in the West-Central Semiarid Prairies that receive more summer moisture and 

have populations of nonnative invasive plant species, too much rest may inadvertently 

favor species such as field brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and smooth brome. Adjustments 

in timing, duration, and intensity of grazing may be needed to reduce these species.

Threat—Energy Development

Management strategies

•	 Avoid development, if feasible, in areas with high breeding habitat probability for sagegrouse and high sagebrush cover (cells 1C, 2C, 3C) and steer development in non-habitat areas (1A, 2A, 3A).

•	 Minimize habitat fragmentation in areas with moderate and high breeding habitat probabilities for sage-grouse (cells 1B, 2B, 3B, 1C, 2C, 3C).

•	 For disturbances that remove vegetation and cause soil disturbance, minimize and mitigate impacts (top soil banking, certified weed-free [including annual bromes] seed mixes, 

appropriate seeding technologies, and monitoring). Plan for multiple restoration interventions in areas with low resilience and resistance (cells 3B, 3C). 

•	 Minimize energy transport corridors (e.g., roads, pipelines, transmission lines) and limit 

vehicle access, where feasible. 

•	 Maintain resilience and resistance of existing patches of sagebrush habitat by aggressively managing weeds that may require the following management practices (especially 

important in low resilience and resistant areas—cells 3A, 3B, 3C):

o A weed management plan that addresses management actions specific to a project 

area

o Using certified weed-free (including annual bromes) gravel and fill material

o Assessing and treating weed populations, if necessary, prior to surface disturbing 

activities

o Removing mud, dirt, and plant parts from construction equipment

o Addressing weed risk and spread factors in travel management plans

o Ensuring timely establishment of desired native plant species on reclamation sites

o Using locally adapted native seed, if possible
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 57

o Intensively monitoring reclamation sites to ensure seeding success and to determine 

presence of weeds

o Using mulch, soil amendments, or other practices to expedite reclamation success 

when necessary

o Ensuring weeds are controlled on stockpiled topsoil.

Threat—Urban and Exurban Development

Management strategies

•	 Secure conservation easements to maintain existing sagebrush stands and sage-grouse 

habitat. Prioritize areas with high habitat probability for sage-grouse and high sagebrush 

cover (cells 1C, 2C, 3C).

•	 Encourage the protection of existing sage grouse habitat through appropriate land use 

planning and Federal land sale policies. Steer development towards non-habitat (cells 

1A, 2A, 3A) where habitat is unlikely to become suitable through management.

Threat—Cropland Conversion

Management strategies

•	 Secure conservation easements to maintain existing sagebrush grasslands and sagegrouse habitat and prevent conversion to tillage agriculture. Prioritize all areas supporting moderate-to-high sage-grouse habitat probability (cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C) in 

locations where tillage risk is elevated (see Sage Grouse Initiative Cultivation Risk layer).

•	 Secure term leases (e.g., 30 years) to maintain existing sagebrush grasslands and sagegrouse habitat and prevent conversion to tillage agriculture as a secondary strategy to 

conservation easements. Prioritize all areas supporting moderate-to-high sage-grouse 

habitat probability (cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C) especially in locations where tillage risk 

is elevated (see Sage Grouse Initiative Cultivation Risk layer).

•	 Offer alternatives to farming on expired USDA Conservation Reserve Program lands 

through Federal and state programs. Prioritize lands in and around intact habitats (cells 

1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C).

•	 Encourage enrollment in the USDA Conservation Reserve Program to return tilled lands 

to perennial plant communities supporting mixtures of grasses, forbs, and sagebrush 

where there are benefits to sage-grouse. Prioritize lands in and around intact habitats 

(cells 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C).

Threat—Sagebrush Reduction

Management strategies

•	 Avoid intentional sagebrush removal (prescribed fire, chemical, or mechanical removal) 

across all areas in the West-Central Semiarid Prairies due to relatively limited sagebrush 

availability and extended periods of recovery in the region. Many areas are characterized 

by moderate to moderately low resilience and resistance, and many sagebrush species 

lack the capacity to resprout.

•	 Use caution when attempting to increase herbaceous perennials by reducing sagebrush 

dominance through mechanical or chemical treatments in general. 

o Lower resistance and resilience areas are prone to annual grass increases and 

potential dominance if annual grasses exist in the area before treatment. 

o Pretreatment densities of 2 to 3 native perennial bunch grasses per square meter 

are often necessary for successful increases in perennial herbaceous plants and 

for suppression of annual grasses after treatment in lower resistance and resilience 

areas (Miller et al. 2014, 2015).

Table 5—(Continued).
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Consequently, these low resilience and resistance areas are at greater risk of habitat loss 

than areas with moderate to high resilience and resistance and are among the highest 

priorities for protective management (table 4 cell 3C; Chambers et al. 2014c).

Areas with moderate sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities are comprised of 

habitat that supported a higher proportion of leks in the past than currently (table 2) 

and that may be improved through various management strategies (table 4 cells 1B, 

2B, 3B). Management objectives may include increasing resilience and resistance 

by promoting perennial grasses and forbs through conifer removal or improved 

livestock management, reducing or eliminating new infestations of invasive plants 

through EDDR approaches, or restoring sagebrush habitat through seeding or transplanting (table 5). Management strategies often have synergistic effects. Increasing 

native perennial grasses and forbs can decrease the probability of invasion or expansion of annual invasive grasses (Chambers et al. 2007; Reisner et al. 2013) and, 

in turn, reduce the risk of altered fire regimes, transitions to undesired states, and 

decreased connectivity. Similarly, management strategies aimed at reducing the risk 

of wildfires outside of the historical range of variation, such as removing conifers in 

expansion areas, can increase the functional capacity of plant communities to resist 

invasive annual grasses (Chambers et al. 2014b) as well as enhance habitat connectivity (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013).

The relative resilience and resistance of an area strongly influences its response 

to management strategies such as conifer removal or post-fire rehabilitation and the 

likelihood of nonnative annual grass invasion (Chambers et al. 2014b; Miller et al. 

2013, 2014, 2015). Areas with lower resilience and resistance may still be among 

the highest priorities for management in areas with moderate breeding habitat 

probabilities, but they may require greater investment and repeated interventions to 

achieve management objectives (table 4 cell 3B; Chambers et al. 2014a).

Areas with low sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities are characterized by 

habitat that supported active sage-grouse leks in the past, but that currently support 

few leks (table 4 cells 1A, 2A, 3A). If land use and development threats such as oil 

and gas development or cropland conversion are causing low sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities, then habitat improvement may not be feasible. However, 

if the area has the capacity to respond to management treatments and if breeding 

populations are close enough for recolonization, improvement of these areas to 

increase breeding habitat probabilities may still be possible. Managers may decide 

to restore critical habitat in these types of areas, but the degree of difficulty and time 

frame required for habitat restoration increase as resilience and resistance decrease 

(Chambers et al. 2014a,c). Consequently, substantial investment and repeated interventions may be required to achieve objectives.

Careful assessment of the area of concern will always be necessary to determine 

the relevance of a particular strategy or treatment because sagebrush ecosystems 

occur over continuums of environmental conditions, such as soil temperature and 

moisture, and have differing land use histories and species composition (Miller et al. 

2014, 2015; Pyke et al. 2015a,b). Also, areas with low sage-grouse breeding habitat 

probabilities may support other resource values or at-risk species (Rowland et al. 

2006) that could benefit from management strategies designed to improve habitat. 

Knowledge of the locations of other priority resources and at-risk species and their 

response to management treatments can help ensure that treatments are located and 

strategies are implemented in a manner that will also benefit these other resources 

and species.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 59

7. Delineating Habitats for Targeted Management 

Intervention at the Ecoregional/Management Zone Scale

Effective management and restoration of sage-grouse habitat prioritizes the best 

management practices in the most appropriate places. This section describes an 

approach for targeting areas for sage-grouse habitat management based on widely 

available data, including (1) Priority Areas for Conservation for GRSG and critical 

habitat and linkages for GUSG, (2) breeding habitat probabilities and population indices, (3) ecosystem resilience and resistance, and (4) persistent ecosystem and land 

use and development threats. Here, key data layers are identified, the steps used to 

overlay and analyze the various data layers are discussed, and interpretations of the 

maps and analyses are provided. Datasets used to conduct the analyses and create 

the maps are in Appendix 4.

7.1 Assessing Target Areas for Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management—Key Data Layers

Priority Areas for Conservation and Critical Habitat

Sage-grouse priority areas for conservation have been delineated using available 

habitat and population data to identify areas critical for conserving GRSG populations (USFWS 2013). Similarly, critical habitat has been delineated for conserving 

GUSG populations (GSGRSC 2005; USFWS 2014a). These areas can be used as a 

first filter in prioritizing management actions. Habitats outside of priority areas for 

conservation and critical habitat areas are also important to consider where they provide genetic and habitat linkages and capture important seasonal habitats (USFWS 

2013).

Breeding Habitat Probabilities and Population Indices

Further prioritization can be achieved by mapping areas with high breeding 

habitat probabilities and population indices. The breeding habitat models provide 

information on habitat characteristics (figs. 23, 24; table 1; Doherty et al. 2016). 

The categorical break points show the proportion of active and inactive leks in each 

sage-grouse Management Zone for GRSG and GUSG (table 2). These areas can be 

used to prioritize areas for management based on the probability of an area providing suitable habitat. The categorized breeding habitat probabilities overlaid with lek 

locations shows the relationship of modeled breeding habitat and active breeding 

locations (figs. 23, 24).

The population index model combines information from the breeding habitat 

model with lek count data to provide indices and spatial depictions of GRSG relative abundance (fig. 9; Doherty et al. 2016). Because the output of the population 

index model is a continuous surface or map, it can be used to focus conservation 

efforts on specified portions of sage-grouse populations identified by stakeholders 

(e.g., highest 25 percent or 85 percent of the population). For the purposes of this 

report, the population index model was classified into two categories (0–80 percent 

and 80–100 percent of the relative population). Because of the large area currently 

occupied by GRSG, the population index model can be used to better focus appropriate management actions on areas that: (1) currently support viable populations, 

(2) provide connectivity between population centers, and (3) occur close enough to 

breeding concentration areas to allow successful recolonization of reclaimed habitat 

(Coates et al. 2016).
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Resilience to Disturbance and Resistance to Nonnative Invasive 

Annual Grasses

Resilience and resistance predictions coupled with sage-grouse breeding habitat 

probabilities and population indices provide critical information for determining 

areas for targeted management actions (table 5). Soil temperature and moisture 

regimes are strong indicators of ecological types as well as resilience to disturbance 

and resistance to nonnative invasive annual grasses figs. 7, 21, 22; table 3). The 

available data for soil temperature and moisture regimes were recently compiled for 

the western and eastern ranges of sage-grouse (Maestas et al. 2016; Appendix 2). 

Relative resilience and resistance categories were assigned to each soil temperature and soil moisture subclass to create a simplified index (table 3; figs. 28, 29; 

Figure 28—The soil temperature and moisture regimes categorized according to 

high, moderate, and low resilience and resistance in Management Zones I, II, and 

VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016). The soil temperature 

and moisture regime data used in this report and the soil temperature and moisture 

regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. The relationships of the soil temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant ecological types are in table 3.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 61

Appendix 2) that allows managers to predict the ecological responses of sagebrush 

ecosystems to both disturbance and management actions.

Habitat Threats

Assessing the magnitude of persistent ecosystem and land use and development threats can provide important insights into targeting areas for treatment and 

the most appropriate management strategies (e.g., Hanser et al. 2011). Although 

habitat threats are considered in the breeding habitat and population index models 

(Doherty et al. 2016), depicting threats to different populations is necessary to assess their magnitude and evaluate viable management strategies. The threats and 

data sources considered in this report largely follow those in the Interagency Greater 

Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Subteam Report (IGSDMS 2014) and are 

in Appendix 4. More refined data products are often available at regional to local 

scales. For example, Bureau of Land Management Rapid Ecoregional Assessments 

contain a large amount of geospatial data that may be useful in providing regional 

Figure 29—The soil temperature and moisture regimes categorized 

according to low, moderate, and high resilience and resistance in the 

Gunnison sage-grouse range plus linkages (GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 

2012; USFWS 2014a) and surrounding area. The soil temperature and 

moisture regime data used in this report and the soil temperature and 

moisture regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. The relationships of the soil temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant 

ecological types are in table 3.
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

information on vegetation types and persistent and land use and development threats 

across most of the range of sage-grouse (https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

Landscape_Approach/reas.html). Also, high resolution geospatial data for cultivation risk layers are available and piñon and/or juniper landscape cover will soon be 

available for the eastern portion of the range (http://map.sagegrouseinitiative.com/). 

Land managers can evaluate the available land cover datasets for the targeted area 

and select those datasets with the highest resolution and accuracy.

Other Relevant Data Layers

Use of spatially explicit habitat models like those developed by Doherty et al. 

(2016) for GRSG is generally preferred over using threshold values for specific habitat variables like landscape cover of sagebrush (Cushman et al. 2013). However, in 

the absence of these models, individual habitat variables can provide important information on habitat characteristics and may provide a viable approach for assessing 

the probability of suitable habitat (Vojta et al. 2013). Landscape cover of sagebrush 

has been shown to be an important predictor of persistence of sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush obligate species and can help inform management decisions. Landscape 

cover of sagebrush is typically derived from remotely sensed land cover data such 

as LANDFIRE (USGS 2013) using a moving window analysis (see Appendix 5). 

Because of the difficulty of using remote sensing to assess landscape cover of sagebrush in the West-Central Semiarid Prairies (Management Zone I), landscape cover 

of sagebrush is less informative for this ecoregion than for the Wyoming Basin and 

Middle Rockies (Management Zone II) or for the Colorado Plateau and Southern 

Rockies (Management Zone VII). Areas containing sagebrush are commonly 

mapped as grassland types, because sagebrush is either an understory component or 

grass cover dominates the signature during the mapping process.

Analyses of the landscape cover of sagebrush around leks in various portions of 

the range (Aldridge et al. 2008; Knick et al. 2013; Wisdom et al. 2011) indicate 

that the relative probability of lek persistence can be estimated using percentage 

sagebrush landscape cover. In general, low lek persistence occurs with less than 

25 percent landscape cover of sagebrush; intermediate persistence with 25–65 

percent; and high persistence with more than 65 percent (see Chambers et al. 2014a 

for a detailed explanation). However, analyses conducted in Management Zone I 

for this report show that active leks are distributed across all of these sagebrush 

landscape cover categories (measured within 6.4 km of leks) indicating that GRSG 

select breeding habitat across a broader range of sagebrush landscape cover in 

Management Zone I than in other Management Zones. This finding reflects the 

relatively lower percentage of sagebrush landscape cover in Management Zone I 

(14 percent) than in Management Zone II (45 percent; Knick et al. 2011) where 

most active GRSG leks occurred in areas of high sagebrush cover. Similar relationships exist for other species in the region (Aldridge et al. 2011), and a recent 

rangewide analyses of sagebrush obligate passerine birds indicates that there 

is a threshold of about 40 percent landscape cover of sagebrush for predicted 

counts of several species (Brewer’s sparrow [Spizella breweri], sagebrush sparrow [Artemisiospiza nevadensis], sage thrasher [Oreoscoptes montanus]) (fig. 27; 

Donnelly et al., in press).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 63

7.2 Assessing Target Areas for Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management—Overlaying Data Layers

Assessments of priority areas for management are typically conducted at the scale 

of ecoregions or Management Zones for GRSG because of similarities in biophysical characteristics and thus management strategies and treatments. Landscape scale 

analyses for GUSG are typically conducted at the scale of the range plus linkages. 

The process involves overlaying key data layers in a geospatial analysis to both visualize and quantify (1) species locations and abundances, (2) the probability that an 

area has suitable habitat, (3) the likely response to disturbance or management treatments, and (4) the dominant threats. The maps and analyses from this process are an 

essential component of prioritizing areas for management actions and developing 

management strategies.

The sage-grouse habitat resilience and resistance matrix (table 4) is based on the 

relative resilience and resistance of an area and the probability that the area provides 

suitable breeding habitat. The matrix provides the basis for interpreting the overlays 

and analyses and for selecting priority areas for management. Specific management 

strategies (table 5) address the predominant threats in sagebrush ecosystems and are 

linked directly to the cells in the matrix. These strategies are used to determine appropriate management actions for priority areas for management.

The steps in the geospatial analysis are identified below. The maps used to illustrate the 

steps are from the GRSG eastern range and the GUSG range and linkages.

1. Determine the best information available for the analyses. For GRSG, this includes 

Priority Areas for Conservation, breeding habitat probabilities, the population index 

(Doherty et al. 2016), and breeding bird densities (figs. 9, 23). For GUSG, this 

includes the range plus linkages, breeding habitat probabilities, and breeding bird 

densities (fig. 24).

2. Determine the probability of suitable habitat. For GRSG and GUSG, this is the 

breeding habitat probability (table 2; low = 0.25 to <0.50, moderate = 0.50 to 

<0.75, high = 0.75 to 1.0).

3. Create the resilience and resistance layer using categorized soil temperature 

and moisture regimes (figs. 7, 28, 29; Appendix 2; Maestas et al. 2016).

4. Overlay resilience and resistance categories with the probability of suitable 

habitat for the assessment area (figs. 30, 31). This layer provides information 

on how areas that can support sage-grouse will respond to both disturbance 

and management treatments, specifically the likelihood of recovery and risk 

of conversion to undesirable states. Calculating the areas in the different 

categories by ecoregion, Priority Areas for Conservation within Management 

Zones for GRSG, or the range plus linkages for GUSG can help identify 

priority areas for management.

5. Overlay resilience and resistance with species population abundance measures. 

For GRSG and GUSG, this is the breeding bird densities (figs. 32). This layer 

provides information on areas that currently support large populations, have 

potential to increase connectivity between populations, and are close enough 

to population centers that the species can recolonize reclaimed habitats. 

Calculating the areas in the different categories by ecoregion, Priority Areas for 

Conservation within Management Zones for GRSG, or the range plus linkages 

for GUSG can further refine areas for management.
64 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

6. Assess the extent and magnitude of the predominant threat(s). This will 

typically involve overlaying the resilience and resistance layer with the areas 

supporting high breeding habitat probabilities and the predominant threat(s). 

Threats vary by ecoregion/Management Zone for GRSG and within the range 

plus linkages for GUSG. Developing thresholds (ecological minimums) for 

the extent and magnitude of the threat (e.g., land cover of piñon and juniper 

and invasive annual grasses, density of oil and gas wells, road density, etc.) 

above which the habitat can no longer support sage-grouse and incorporating 

these into the geospatial analyses can further inform prioritization of areas for 

management. For example, ability of GRSG to maintain active leks decreases 

Figure 30—Greater sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities based on 2010 

to 2014 lek data (Doherty et al. 2016) intersected with resilience and resistance 

categories developed from soil temperature and moisture regimes in Management 

Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions (EPA 2016). The 

soil temperature and moisture regime data used in this report and the soil temperature and moisture regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. The relationships 

of the soil temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant ecological types 

are in table 3.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 65

significantly when conifer canopy exceeds 4 percent in the immediate vicinity 

(within 3,280 ft; 1000 m) of the lek (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013), and most 

active leks average less than 1 percent conifer cover at landscape scales 

(3.1 mi; 5 km; Knick et al. 2013).

 7. Prioritize areas for management. The maps and data derived from the prior 

steps and the sage-grouse habitat matrix (table 4) are used to determine priority 

areas for management within the assessment area. The actual prioritization is 

based on consideration of several factors:

 a. The area provides suitable habitat and supports species populations. For 

GRSG and GUSG, this is the breeding habitat probability and breeding bird 

density (table 4 cells 1B, 2B, 3B, 1C, 2C, 3C).

Figure 31—Gunnison sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse range plus linkages (GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 2012; 

USFWS 2014a) based on lek data from 1995 to 2015 intersected with 

resilience and resistance categories developed from soil temperature and 

moisture regimes. The breeding habitat probabilities were developed for 

this report based on Doherty et al. 2016. The soil temperature and moisture regime data used in this report and the soil temperature and moisture 

regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. The relationships of the soil 

temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant ecological types are 

in table 3.
66 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

b. The area is at risk due to low resilience and resistance but has high conservation value for sage-grouse (table 4 cells 3B, 3C).

 c. The area has reduced habitat suitability but could be improved by active 

management. These areas may be at higher risk of becoming unsuitable 

with additional disturbances that degrade habitat (table 4 cells 1B, 2B, 3B).

 8. Determine the most appropriate management strategies. The maps and data 

derived from the prior steps and the sage-grouse habitat matrix (table 4) 

are also used to determine management strategies (table 5). At the scale 

of the ecoregion, or Priority Areas for Conservation within Management 

Zones for GRSG and range plus linkages for GUSG, management strategies 

Figure 32—Relative percent of Greater sage-grouse population based on breeding 

abundance during 2010 to 2014 (Doherty et al. 2016) intersected with resilience 

and resistance categories developed from soil temperature and moisture regimes 

in Management Zones I, II, and VII (Stiver et al. 2006) and associated ecoregions 

(EPA 2016). The soil temperature and moisture regime data used in this report and 

the soil temperature and moisture regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. 

The relationships of the soil temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant 

ecological types are in table 3. A value of 80 percent is used to identify areas with 

high breeding abundance.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 67

are developed that require interagency coordination, e.g., State, National 

Forest, etc. Examples of these types of strategies include: (1) prepositioning 

firefighting resources within fire-prone areas that provide suitable habitat 

and support species populations as is being done for areas in the Great Basin 

with high fire risk (USDI BLM 2014); (2) coordinating efforts to use early 

detection and rapid response to prevent expansion of invasive annual grasses 

and other weeds; and (3) assessing habitat connectivity among Priority Areas 

for Conservation and species populations to develop coordinated approaches 

to management strategies, such as conifer removal and other habitat 

improvements, to decrease fragmentation (e.g., Coates et al. 2016).

Differences in Resilience and Resistance, Breeding Habitat 

Probabilities, and Relative Percentage of the Population for the GRSG 

Management Zones

Here, a general overview of the similarities and differences in breeding habitat 

probabilities, relative percentage of population, and resilience and resistance is provided for Management Zones in the eastern portion of the range. Selecting priority 

areas for management will require more detailed analyses.

The area in GRSG Priority Areas for Conservation in Management Zones I and 

II is largest for moderate breeding habitat probabilities (46 percent and 43 percent), 

intermediate for high breeding habitat probabilities (33 percent and 31 percent), and 

smallest for low breeding habitat probabilities (19 percent and 21 percent), respectively (fig. 23; table 6). In Management Zone VII, the area in GRSG Priority Areas 

for Conservation is greatest for high breeding habitat probabilities (42 percent) 

followed by moderate (29 percent) and then low (24 percent). The area outside of 

Priority Areas for Conservation with high breeding habitat probability ranges from 

8 percent in Management Zone VII, to 11 percent in Management Zone II, to17 percent in Management Zone I. This indicates significant acreages can be considered 

Table 6—The area and percentage of breeding habitat probability classes for Greater sagegrouse for Management Zones (MZ) I, II, and VII (A) and for priority area for conservation 

(PACs) within each Management Zone (B).

A

Breeding habitat MZ I MZ II MZ VII 

probabilities acres km2

 % acres km2 % acres km2 %

High 5,488,682 22,212 12 6,586,037 26,653 18 114,492 463 10

Moderate 13,919,754 56,331 30 13,311,428 53,870 36 386,027 1,562 33

Low 15,693,021 63,507 34 11,330,253 45,852 31 532,736 2,156 45

Unsuitable 10,924,858 44,211 24 5,647,767 22,856 15 147,250 596 12

Total 46,026,314 186,262 100 36,875,485 149,230 100 1,180,506 4,777 100

B

Breeding habitat MZ I PACs MZ II PACs MZ VII PACs

probabilities acres km2

 % acres km2 % acres km2 %

High 3,914,390 15,841 33 5,285,823 21,391 31 96,865 392 42

Moderate 5,328,819 21,565 46 7,406,972 29,975 43 68,201 276 29

Low 2,170,323 8,783 19 3,564,243 14,424 21 55,599 225 24

Unsuitable 291,090 1,178 2 882,906 3,573 5 11,614 47 5

Total 11,704,623 47,367 100 17,139,944 69,363 100 232,279 940 100
68 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Table 7—The area and percentage of resilience and resistance classes for Management Zones (MZ) 

I, II, and VII (A) and for priority areas for conservation (PACs) within each Management Zone (B).

A

Resilience and MZ I MZ II MZ VII 

probabilities acres km2 % acres km2 % acres km2 %

High 21,993,546 89,005 28 25,270,281 102,265 43 17,614,769 71,285 47

Moderate 55,414,038 224,253 71 23,466,452 94,966 40 3,830,409 15,501 10

Low 145,724 590 1 9,913,884 40,120 17 16,297,510 65,954 43

Total 77,553,308 313,848 100 58,650,618 237,351 100 37,742,688 152,739 100

B

Resilience and MZ I PACs MZ II PACs MZ VII PACs

probabilities acres km2

 % acres km2 % acres km2 %

High 901,296 3,647 8 3,450,456 13,964 21 210,705 853 90

Moderate 10,549,022 42,690 91 10,384,371 42,024 62 20,400 83 9

Low 97,818 396 1 2,871,828 11,622 17 2,121 9 1

Total 11,548,135 46,734 100 16,706,656 67,610 100 233,226 944 100

for conservation and restoration actions both within the high habitat probability 

class in the Priority Areas for Conservation and in adjacent areas of high and especially moderate habitat probability.

The majority of the area within the GRSG Priority Areas for Conservation in 

each Management Zone is characterized by moderate resilience and resistance for Management Zone I and II (91 percent and 62 percent, respectively; 

fig. 28; t able 7), and by high resilience and resistance for Management Zone VII 

(90 percent). A smaller percentage of habitat within Priority Areas for Conservation 

is in the low (1 percent) than high (8 percent) category in Management Zone I; 

similar percentages of habitat within Priority Areas for Conservation are in high 

(21 percent) and low (17 percent) in Management Zone II; and a small percentage 

of habitat within Priority Areas for Conservation is in either moderate (9 percent) 

or low (1 percent) in Management Zone VII. The large area within the high and 

moderate categories indicates that much of the eastern portion of the range within 

Priority Areas for Conservation has the capacity to recover from disturbances given 

appropriate management. However, areas in and adjacent to Priority Areas for 

Conservation, especially in Management Zone II, are characterized by low resilience and resistance. These areas are more susceptible to invasive annual grasses 

and require longer periods for recovery from either disturbances or management 

treatments (Chambers et al. 2014a; Mealor et al. 2012).

Coupling breeding habitat probabilities with resilience and resistance indicates 

that Priority Areas for Conservation generally have more area with high and moderate habitat probabilities and with moderate to high resilience and resistance than 

the Management Zones as a whole (fig. 30; tables 8, 9). In Management Zone I and 

II, most of the area within GRSG Priority Areas for Conservation is comprised of 

moderate to high breeding habitat probabilities with moderate resilience and resistance (fig. 30; table 9). In Management Zone VII, most of the area within the GRSG 

Priority Areas for Conservation is comprised of moderate to high breeding habitat 

probabilities with high resilience and resistance. Relatively small areas within the 

Priority Areas for Conservation have habitat probabilities that are unsuitable or low 

regardless of resilience and resistance class.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 69

Table 8—The area and percentage of breeding habitat probability class by resilience and 

resistance class for Greater sage-grouse for each Management Zone (MZ). Percentages within a 

Management Zone add to 100.

Breeding Resilience and resistance

habitat Low Moderate High

probability acres km2 % acres km2 % acres km2 %

MZ I

High 18,503 75 0 4,991,493 20,200 11 443,768 1,796 0

Moderate 69,366 281 0 12,986,234 52,554 29 720,665 2,916 2

Low 34,089 138 0 13,974,961 56,555 31 1,477,070 5,977 3

Unsuitable 12,319 50 0 7,503,099 30,364 17 3,241,274 13,117 7

Total 134,276 543 0 39,455,788 159,672 5,882,776 23,807

MZ II

High 796,172 3,222 2 4,586,273 18,560 13 1,121,366 4,538 3

Moderate 2,144,299 8,678 6 8,979,738 36,340 25 1,975,062 7,993 5

Low 2,313,881 9,364 6 6,325,700 25,599 18 2,411,600 9,759 7

Unsuitable 2,328,125 9,422 6 1,574,251 6,371 4 1,571,550 6,360 4

Total 7,582,478 30,685 21,465,962 86,870 7,079,578 28,650

MZ VII

High 1,530 6 0 4,277 17 0 108,532 326 9

Moderate 236,219 956 20 23,873 97 2 125,936 510 11

Low 173,717 703 15 102,109 413 9 256,693 1,039 22

Unsuitable 18,368 74 2 48,244 195 4 80,532 326 7

Total 429,833 1,739 178,503 722 571,693 2,200

Table 9—The area and percentage of breeding habitat probability class by resilience and resistance 

class for Greater sage-grouse for priority areas for conservation (PACs) within each Management 

Zone (MZ). Percentages within a Management Zone add to 100.

Breeding Resilience and resistance

habitat Low Moderate High

probability acres km2 % acres km2 % acres km2 %

MZ I PACs

High 17,400 70 0 3,507,329 14194 30 359,745 1456 3

Moderate 59,363 240 1 4,882,662 19759 42 301,332 1219 3

Low 20,147 82 0 1,919,033 7766 17 192,156 778 2

Unsuitable 911 4 0 238,578 965 2 47,959 194 0

Total 97,822 396 10,547,602 42,685 901,192 3,647

MZ II PACs

High 673,119 2,724 4 3,547,203 14,355 21 993,466 4,020 6

Moderate 1,268,264 5,132 8 4,858,003 19,660 29 1,140,357 4,615 7

Low 799,051 3,234 5 1,734,161 7,018 10 881,707 3,568 5

Unsuitable 131,216 531 1 244,175 988 1 431,869 1,748 3

Total 2,871,650 11,621 10,383,542 42,021 13,951

MZ VII PACs

High 206 1 0 2,320 9 1 94,452 382 41

Moderate 1,591 6 1 3,512 14 2 63,245 256 27

Low 267 1 0 10,799 44 5 44,166 179 19

Unsuitable 25 0 0 3,384 14 1 8,156 33 4

Total 2,089 8 20,016 81 210,019 850
70 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Intersecting the resilience and resistance categories with the breeding bird densities provides information similar to the breeding habitat probabilities for GRSG 

Priority Areas for Conservation, but allows greater focus on areas known to support 

large populations of birds (fig. 32; tables 10, 11). A high percentage of the breeding 

bird density within both the Management Zones and Priority Areas for Conservation 

is within areas characterized by moderate resilience and resistance in Management 

Zones I and II, and by high resilience and resistance in Management Zone VII 

(tables 10, 11).

Examination of other data layers shows that different persistent ecosystem and 

land use and development threats exist across the eastern portion of the range and 

allows managers to focus on the primary threats to sage-grouse habitat within targeted areas. Cropland conversion is clearly one of the primary threats in the northern 

portion of Management Zone I (fig. 19). Oil and gas development is a threat across 

much of the eastern range, particularly the southern portion of Management Zone 

I, large areas of Management Zone II, and the northern and eastern portion of 

Management Zone VII (fig. 17).

Differences in Resilience and Resistance and Breeding Habitat 

Probabilities for the Gunnison Sage-grouse Range plus Linkages

Examining the breeding habitat probabilities and resilience and resistance for the 

GUSG the range plus linkages shows a high degree of diversity in habitat characteristics. Breeding habitat probabilities are classified as unsuitable (54 percent) or low 

(20 percent) for a relatively high percentage of the GUSG range plus linkages, while 

lesser amounts are classified as moderate (12 percent) or high (14 percent) (fig. 24; 

table 12). Areas with low resilience and resistance (34 percent) are generally found 

in the western portion of the range plus linkages, and areas with moderate (14 percent) to high (52 percent) resilience and resistance occur largely in the east and 

center portion of the range plus linkages (fig. 29; table 13). Intersecting the breeding 

habitat probabilities with resilience and resistance shows that areas with moderate 

to high breeding habitat probabilities are generally characterized by moderate resilience and resistance (fig. 31; table 14). This indicates that these areas likely have the 

potential to recover after disturbance and respond favorably to management actions.

Table 10—Relative percentage of the Greater sagegrouse population by resilience and resistance class for 

Management Zones (MZ) I, II, and VII (A) and for priority 

areas for conservation (PACs) within each Management 

Zone (B).

A

Resilience and 

resistance MZ I MZ II MZ VII

- - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 High 10 20 92

 Moderate 90 70 6

 Low 0 10 2

B

Resilience and MZ I MZ II MZ VII 

resistance PACs PACs PACs

- - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 High 14 16 81

 Moderate 55 54 2

 Low 0 7 0
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 71

Table 11—Relative percentage of the Greater sage-grouse 

population with high and low breeding bird densities by resilience 

and resistance class for Management Zones (MZ) I, II, and VII 

(A) and for priority areas for conservation (PACs) within each 

Management Zone (B). High breeding bird density (High BBD) 

was defined as the smallest area that contained 80 percent of 

the breeding population of Greater sage-grouse within 26% to 

34% of occupied breeding habitat within a Management Zone 

(see figure 11 in Doherty et al. 2016). Low breeding bird density 

(Low BBD) was defined as the area that contained all remaining 

breeding sage-grouse. 

A

Breeding bird Resilience and resistance

density in MZs Low Moderate High

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MZ I 

High BBD 0 72 8

Low BBD 0 18 1

MZ II 

High BBD 6 57 17

Low BBD 4 13 3

MZ VII 

High BBD 2 3 76

Low BBD 1 2 16

B

Breeding bird Resilience and resistance

density in MZs Low Moderate High

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MZ I PACs 

High BBD 0 49 7

Low BBD 0 6 7

MZ II PACs 

High BBD 0 48 15

Low BBD 0 6 1

MZ VII PACs 

High BBD 0 1 68

Low BBD 0 1 13

Table 12—The area and percentage of Gunnison 

sage-grouse breeding habitat probability 

classes in the Gunnison sage-grouse rnage plus 

linkages. 

Class Acres Area (km2) Percent

High 261,317 1,058 12

Moderate 303,683 1,229 13

Low 400,177 1,619 18

Unsuitable 1,273,925 5,155 57

Total 2,239,102 9,061 100
72 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

8. Determining Appropriate Management Treatments at 

Local Scales

Once priority areas and overarching strategies are identified, higher resolution 

spatial data are combined with local information and knowledge to determine the 

most appropriate management strategies and identify project areas. The sage-grouse 

habitat matrix and the general criteria for prioritizing areas for management in Step 

7 of the prior section can aid in selecting areas for treatment that will benefit sagebrush ecosystems and species populations. Also, information on the resilience and 

resistance of the area and the predominant threats can help in determining appropriate management strategies and treatments (table 5).

8.1 Steps in the Process

Steps in the process of determining the suitability of an area for treatment and 

the most appropriate treatment(s) include: (1) identify the different ecological sites 

that occur across the area and determine their relative resilience to disturbance and 

resistance to invasive annual grasses; (2) evaluate the current ecological dynamics 

of the ecological sites and, where possible, their restoration pathways; and (3) select 

actions with the potential to increase ecosystem functioning and habitat connectivity 

(see Miller et al. 2014, 2015; and Pyke et al. 2015a,b for detailed descriptions of 

this process). Anticipating changes like climate warming and monitoring management outcomes can be used to adapt management practices over time. A general 

approach using questions to identify the information required in each step is shown 

in table 15. These questions can be modified to include the specific information 

needed for each project area and for treating different ecological sites.

Table 13—The area and percentage of resilience 

and resistance classes in the Gunnison sagegrouse range plus linkages. 

Class Acres Area (km2) Percent

High 1,268,414 5,133 52

Moderate 339,267 1,373 14

Low 831,168 3,364 34

Total 2,438,849 9,870 100

Table 14—The area and percentage of breeding habitat probability class by resilience and resistance class 

for the Gunnison sage-grouse range plus linkages. Percentages add to 100.

Resilience and resistance

Breeding habitat Low Moderate High

probability Acres Area (km2

) % Acres Area (km2) % Acres Area (km2) %

High 5,067 21 1 69,622 282 3 175,097 708 8

Moderate 64,865 262 3 60,723 246 3 163,007 659 7

Low 118,930 481 5 43,721 177 2 232,846 942 11

Unsuitable 547,486 2,216 25 161,010 652 7 561,051 2,270 25

Total 736,348 2,980 335,076 1,357 1,132,001 4,579
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 73

Ecological Site Descriptions

Ecological site descriptions (ESDs) and their associated state-and-transition 

models provide essential information for determining treatment feasibility and type 

of treatment. Ecological site descriptions are part of a land classification system that 

describes the potential of a set of climate, topographic, and soil characteristics and 

natural disturbances to support a dynamic set of plant communities (Bestelmeyer 

et al. 2009; Stringham et al. 2003). Soil survey data from the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (http://soils.usda.gov/survey/), including soil temperature/

moisture regimes and other soil characteristics, are integral to the development of 

ecological site descriptions. The Natural Resource Conservation service and their 

partners have developed ecological site descriptions to assist land management 

Table 15—Questions and considerations for conducting fuels management, fire rehabilitation, and 

restoration treatments (modified from Miller et al. 2014, 2015).

Steps in the process Questions and considerations

I. Assess potential treatment 

area and identify ecological 

sites

1. Where are priority areas for fuels management, fire rehabilitation or restoration within the focal area? Consider sage-grouse habitat needs and 

resilience and resistance.

2. What are the topographic characteristics and soils of the area? Verify 

soils mapped to the location and determine soil temperature/moisture 

regimes. Collect information on soil texture, depth and basic chemistry 

for restoration projects.

3. How will topographic characteristics and soils affect vegetation recovery, 

plant establishment and erosion? Evaluate erosion risk based on topography and soil characteristics. 

4. What are the potential native plant communities for the area? Match soil 

components to their correlated ESDs. This provides a list of potential 

species for the site(s).

II. Determine current state 

 of the site

5. Is the area still within the reference state for the ecological site(s)? 

III. Select appropriate action 6. How far do sites deviate from the reference state? How will treatment success be measured?

7. Do sufficient perennial shrubs and perennial grasses and forbs exist to 

facilitate recovery? 

8. Are invasive species a minor component? 

9. Do invasive species dominate the sites while native life forms are missing 

or severely under represented? If so, active restoration is required to 

restore habitat.

10. Are species from drier or warmer ecological sites present? Restoration 

with species from the drier or warmer sites should be considered. 

11. Have soils or other aspects of the physical environment been altered? 

Sites may have crossed a threshold and represent a new ecological site 

type requiring new site-specific treatment/restoration approaches.

IV. Determine posttreatment management12. How long should the sites be protected before land uses begin? In general, sites with lower resilience and resistance should be protected for 

longer periods. 

13. How will monitoring be performed? Treatment effectiveness monitoring 

includes a complete set of measurements, analyses, and a report.

14. Are adjustments to the approach needed? Adaptive management is 

applied to future projects based on consistent findings from multiple 

locations.
74 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

agencies and private landowners with making resource decisions and are often 

available for the sage-grouse Management Zones. For a detailed description of 

ESDs and access to available ESDs see: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/

main/national/technical/ecoscience/desc/.

Ecological site descriptions assist managers to step-down generalized vegetation 

dynamics, including the concepts of resilience and resistance, to local scales. For 

example, variability in soil characteristics and the local environment (e.g., average 

annual precipitation as indicated by soil moisture regime) can strongly influence 

both plant community resilience to disturbance as well as the resistance of a plant 

community to nonnative invasive species (tables 3, 4). Within a particular ecological site description, there is a similar level of resilience to disturbance and resistance 

to nonnative invasive species. This information can be used to determine the most 

appropriate management actions.

A tool has recently been developed through the Web Soil Survey that produces a 

Resilience and Resistance Score Sheet Soils Report for the Great Basin based on 

the approach developed in Miller et al. (2014, 2015) (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.

usda.gov/app/). This tool provides managers with necessary information to assess 

the soils characteristics of a project area and determine its relative resilience to 

disturbance and management treatments and resistance to nonnative invasive annual 

grasses. It can be adapted to the eastern range.

State-and-Transition Models

These models are a central component of ecological site descriptions and are 

widely used by managers to illustrate changes in plant communities and associated 

soil properties, causes of change, and effects of management interventions (Briske 

et al. 2005; Stringham et al. 2003; USDA NRCS 2015a). State-and-transition models have been developed for sagebrush ecosystems (Barbour et al. 2007; Boyd and 

Svejcar 2009; Chambers et al. 2014c; Forbis et al. 2006; Holmes and Miller 2010). 

These models describe the alternative states, ranges of variability within states, 

and processes that cause plant community shifts within states as well as transitions 

among states within ecological types or sites (Caudle et al. 2013).

State-and-transition models use the concepts of states (a relatively stable set 

of plant communities that are resilient to disturbance) and transitions (change 

among alternative states caused by disturbances or drivers) to describe the range in 

composition and function of plant communities within ecological site descriptions 

(Stringham et al. 2003; see Appendix 1 for definitions). The reference state is based 

on the natural range of conditions associated with natural disturbance regimes and 

often includes several plant communities (phases) that differ in dominant plant 

species relative to type and time since disturbance (Caudle et al. 2013). Alternative 

states describe new sets of communities that result from factors such as inappropriate livestock use, invasion by nonnative species, or changes in fire regimes. 

Changes or transitions among states often are characterized by thresholds or conditions that may persist over time without active intervention, potentially causing 

irreversible changes in community composition, structure, and function. Restoration 

pathways are used to identify the environmental conditions and management actions 

required for return to a previous state.

Generalized state-and-transition models that follow current interagency guidelines (Caudle et al. 2013) and that are aligned with the dominant ecological types 

in table 3 are provided in Appendix 6. These state-and-transition models are 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 75

generally applicable to Management Zone I (West-Central Semiarid Prairies) and 

Management Zones II and VII (Wyoming Basin and Central Middle Rockies, and 

Colorado Plateau and Southern Rockies).

8.2 Examples of How to Apply the Concepts and Tools

Examples of the approach discussed in this report are provided below for two 

areas that support GRSG populations and one area that supports GUSG populations. 

These areas differ in relative resilience and resistance as indicated by soil temperature and moisture regimes and the dominant habitat threat.

Example #1: East-central Montana

This area is characterized primarily by cool and summer moist bordering on 

dry soil temperature and moisture regimes (fig. 33) with moderate resilience and 

resistance (table 4 cells 2A, 2B, 2C). Most of the area is privately owned (fig. 34), 

Figure 33—Soil temperature and moisture regimes by soil moisture subclass for an area in eastern Montana. The soil temperature and moisture 

regime data used in this report and the soil temperature and moisture regime 

categories are explained in Appendix 2. The relationships of the soil temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant ecological types are in 

table 3.
76 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

and large cropland areas exist adjacent to Priority Areas for Conservation with 

moderate to high GRSG populations (fig. 35a, 36). Areas on private lands that 

support high breeding habitat probabilities and that have or are adjacent to high 

population concentration centers could be targeted for conservation easements, term 

easements, or other conservation options to keep native rangelands intact. Also, 

USDA and state-based initiatives may provide incentives for transitioning expiring 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or other cultivated lands to rangelands that 

support perennial plant communities. The Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI) Cultivation 

Risk layer (Smith et al. 2016; http://map.sagegrouseinitiative.com/) along with existing cropland cover maps can be used to help identify areas that have not yet been 

plowed but may be at high risk of future conversion due to suitable climate, soils, 

and topography (fig. 35b; Smith et al. 2016).

A generalized state-and-transition model for the dominant ecological type in 

this area identifies the alternative states and transitions for this type (fig. A6.3). 

Following prolonged drought, improper grazing, and frequent sagebrush control 

treatments, the site can transition to an alternative state that is dominated by low 

Figure 34—Surface land management for an area with agricultural conversion in eastern Montana (BLM 2015).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 77

statured cool season and sod-forming grasses (fig. A6.3). In the absence of fire and 

sagebrush control treatments, the site can transition to heavy sagebrush dominance 

with few grasses and forbs. These altered states are susceptible to a variety of nonnative invasive plants such as Russian Knapweed (Cenaurea repens), field brome, 

and cheatgrass (see http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/queryarea.asp for a complete county 

list), and early detection and rapid response can be used in all areas with high to 

moderate habitat probabilities and breeding bird concentrations to limit establishment of these invasive species (see table 5). Livestock management that maintains 

Figure 35—(A) Percent annually tilled agricultural land (NASS 2014) within 5.0 km of each 

pixel for an area in eastern Montana. (B) Percent risk of cultivation for the same area derived 

from the Sage-Grouse Initiative cultivation risk mapping tool (http://map.sagegrouseinitiative.

com/), which is based on climate, soils, and topography.
78 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

a balance of native perennial grasses (cool and warm season species) and forbs 

will allow natural regeneration of sagebrush and increase competitive ability with 

nonnative invasive plants. Also, an altered/seeded state exists where introduced 

perennial grasses such as crested wheatgrass were seeded onto former croplands. 

These introduced perennial grasses can prevent establishment of sagebrush and 

other native species and spread into and dominate sagebrush ecosystems (Lessica 

and Deluca 1996). Thus further seeding of these species following disturbances is 

not recommended.

Figure 36—Relative percent of Greater sage-grouse population based on 

breeding abundance during 2010 to 2014 (Doherty et al. 2016) intersected 

with resilience and resistance categories developed from soil temperature 

and moisture regimes for an area in eastern Montana. The soil temperature 

and moisture regime data used in this report and the soil temperature and 

moisture regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. The relationships 

of the soil temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant ecological 

types are in table 3. A threshold value of 80 percent is used to identify high 

breeding concentration centers.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 79

Example #2: Southwestern Wyoming

This area is characterized by mountainous terrain with sagebrush ecosystems that 

range from cold and summer moist to warm and dry bordering on summer moist 

and thus have high to low resilience and resistance (fig. 37). Surface land management is primarily USFS, BLM, and private (fig. 38). The area has wide-spread oil 

and gas development along with high GRSG concentration areas (figs. 39, 40).

In areas with high habitat probabilities and breeding concentration centers avoiding development and fragmentation where feasible and consistent with existing 

State and Federal conservation plans is recommended regardless of resilience and 

resistance category (table 4 cells 1C, 2C, 3C). Reducing energy and other transport 

corridors as well as vehicle access where consistent with the above mentioned plans 

can also minimize fragmentation. Exurban residential development is also fragmenting habitats and conservation easements can be an important tool for ameliorating 

this threat (fig. 41).

Figure 37—Soil temperature and moisture regimes by soil moisture subclass for an area in southwest Wyoming with oil and gas development. The 

soil temperature and moisture regime data used in this report and the soil 

temperature and moisture regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. 

The relationships of the soil temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant ecological types are in table 3.
80 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Because of the wide range of soil temperature and moisture regimes, the area supports several ecological types. Relevant state-and-transition models for these types 

are in Appendix A (figs. A.6.5, A.6.6, A.6.7, A.6.9, A.6.10). In general, continuous, 

heavy grazing of cool season grasses during the critical growth period can result in 

an alternative state dominated by grazing tolerant species. Further grazing can result 

in an eroded state that is highly susceptible to nonnative invasive species. Fire is 

rare, but multiple chemical or mechanical treatments or biological disturbances that 

reduce sagebrush can result in a sprouting shrub state. For these states, livestock 

grazing strategies can be designed to improve the condition of native plant communities and decrease nonnative invasive plant species. Strategies that include periodic 

rest during the critical growth period, especially for cool season grasses, can increase native species and minimize invasion. This strategy is particularly important 

in areas with low resilience and resistance. Given climate warming, management 

aimed at restoring understory grasses and forbs has the potential to increase resilience and resistance to both drought and fire.

Figure 38—Surface land management for an area with oil and gas development in 

southwest Wyoming (BLM 2015).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 81

Figure 39—Number of active oil and gas wells per square kilometer (IHS; BLM 

[AFMSS]) for an area in southwest Wyoming.

The area is susceptible to numerous nonnative invasive plants and proactive weed 

management is recommended in all areas with high habitat suitability and breeding 

concentration centers (see table 5). Nonnative invasives include several Bromus

species such as cheatgrass and field brome, Poa species such as bulbous bluegrass 

(P. bulbosa) and Kentucky bluegrass (P. pratense), spotted and Russian knapweed, 

diffuse knapweed (Centauria diffusa), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and bull 

thistle (Cirsium vulgare) among others (http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/queryarea.asp). 

Preventing the spread of large weed infestations from areas with lower habitat probabilities can protect higher quality habitat.

For disturbances that remove vegetation and cause soil disturbance such as well 

pads and roads, impacts can be minimized through best management practices 

identified in State and Federal conservation plans, such as top soil banking, using 

certified weed-free (including annual bromes) seed mixes, appropriate seeding 
82 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Figure 40—Relative percent of Greater sage-grouse population based on 

breeding abundance during 2010 to 2014 (Doherty et al. 2016) intersected 

with resilience and resistance categories developed from soil temperature 

and moisture regimes for an area in southwest Wyoming. The soil temperature and moisture regime data used in this report and the soil temperature 

and moisture regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. The relationships of the soil temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant 

ecological types are in table 3. A threshold value of 80 percent is used to 

identify high breeding concentration centers.

technologies, and monitoring. In low resilience and resistance areas, multiple 

interventions may be required to restore sagebrush habitat. Numerous introduced 

plant species including crested wheatgrass and several Medicago species, such as 

alfalfa and Trifolium species (clovers), occur in this area. Seeding these species for 

reclamation or restoration of sagebrush habitat can be avoided, especially in cooler 

and moister areas where native species establish well.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 83

Figure 41—A conservation easement near Pinedale, Wyoming (photo by Jeremy Roberts, 

Conservation Media; used with permission).

Example #3: Piñon Mesa Population of Gunnison Sage-Grouse in 

Central Colorado

This area is characterized by mountainous terrain with sagebrush ecosystems that 

range from cold and moist to warm and dry bordering on summer moist (fig. 42). 

Surface land management is primarily Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest 

Service, and private (fig. 43). This area has high GUSG breeding habitat probabilities with relatively large breeding concentration centers and is threatened by conifer 

expansion, primarily two-needle piñon and Utah juniper (figs. 44, 45).

A state-and-transition model for a dominant ecological type on the Piñon Mesa 

identifies the alternative states and transitions for the type (fig. A6.8). In general, 

improper livestock use, such as heavy grazing during the critical growth period, 

can decrease perennial grasses and forbs, increase woody biomass (fuel loads), and 

elevate susceptibility to invasive annual grasses. Research on the Uncompahgre 

Plateau indicates that old growth piñon and juniper stands are common and range 

from relatively open and juniper dominated at low elevations to closed canopied 

and piñon dominated at higher elevations (Shinneman and Baker 2009). Improper 

livestock grazing after Euro-American settlement in the late 1800s likely reduced 

understory grasses and forbs (Shinneman and Baker 2009). This, in turn, decreased 

competition with tree seedlings and facilitated tree establishment, primarily twoneedle piñon, during favorable climatic periods (Shinneman and Baker 2009). Tree 

infilling is occurring locally and fires in piñon and juniper stands at or near full tree 

stocking are typically of high severity (Baker and Shinneman 2004).
84 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Figure 42—The soil temperature and moisture regimes by soil moisture 

subclass for an area in the Gunnison sage-grouse range plus linkages 

(GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 2012; USFWS 2014a) with piñon and juniper expansion (Mesa County, Colorado). The soil temperature and moisture regime 

data used in this report and the soil temperature and moisture regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. The relationships of the soil temperature 

and moisture regimes to the predominant ecological types are in table 3.

Infilling of trees and/or improper livestock grazing can result in reductions in 

understory sagebrush and cool season grasses and increase susceptibility to invasion by cheatgrass. In southwestern Colorado in Mesa Verde National Park, piñon 

and juniper stands that had sparse understories prior to burning are now dominated 

largely by cheatgrass and other annual invaders (Floyd et al. 2006). Increases in 

invasive annual grasses may cause more frequent and continuous fires and result in 

conversion to alternative states dominated by annuals (Floyd et al. 2006). Proper 

management of livestock grazing can promote native perennial grass and forb 

growth and reproduction and maintain or enhance resilience to wildfires and resistance to invasive annual grasses.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 85

In areas with high habitat probabilities that occur adjacent to breeding concentration centers or that could increase connectivity, management activities may include 

(1) targeted tree removal in early to mid-phase (Phase I and II) post-settlement piñon and juniper expansion areas to maintain or increase shrub/perennial herbaceous 

cover and decrease fuel loads, and (2) targeted tree removal or thinning in later 

phase (Phase III) post-settlement piñon and juniper to decrease possibility of high 

severity fire. Following tree removal or thinning, relatively cool and moist areas 

with moderate to high resilience and resistance and residual understories of perennial grasses and shrubs are often capable of unassisted recovery after either treatment 

or disturbance. However, relatively warm and dry areas with low resilience and 

resistance may not recover in a reasonable amount of time and may be susceptible 

to invasion by nonnative annual grasses and other weeds. If post treatment areas 

lack sufficient perennial native vegetation to promote recovery, they can be seeded 

with perennial grasses and forbs with capacity to persist and stabilize ecosystem 

processes under altered disturbance regimes and in a warming environment.

Figure 43—Surface land management for an area in the Gunnison sage-grouse 

range plus linkages (GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 2012; USFWS 2014a) with piñon and 

juniper expansion (Mesa County, Colorado) (BLM 2015).
86 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Figure 44—Conifer-dominated ecological systems (USGS 2014) for an area in the 

Gunnison sage-grouse range plus linkages (GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 2012; USFWS 

2014a) with piñon and juniper expansion (Mesa County, Colorado). The dark brown 

colors represent conifer-dominated systems with the potential to expand into sagebrush-dominated systems (USDI BLM 2014).

Posttreatment seeding or postfire rehabilitation in low resilience and resistance 

areas may require more than one intervention for restoration success. This situation 

occurs in sage-grouse habitat along the Utah-Colorado border in the area known as 

Fish Park, where two fires recently occurred. In 1999, 3,580 ac (14.5 km2

) burned 

and in 2006, a second fire burned an additional 1,400 ac (5.7 km2

), of which 543 

ac (2.2 km2

) overlapped the first fire. Even with postfire rehabilitation treatments, 

invasion of nonnative annual grasses occurred and additional intervention is now 

necessary. Establishing sagebrush is often challenging in these warm and dry areas 

with low resilience and resistance and the Bureau of Land Management is currently 

conducting trials to ascertain the best procedure to reestablish sagebrush (Heidi 

Plank, Colorado BLM, Grand Junction Field Office, personal communication). 

Seeding of introduced species, in this case western wheatgrass, can retard recovery 

of native perennial grasses and forbs that are important to sage-grouse and should 

be avoided in these types of areas (e.g., Lesica et al. 1996).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 87

On the Piñon Mesa, areas with lower resilience and resistance and high to moderate breeding habitat probabilities, large, contiguous areas of sagebrush with intact 

understories are a high priority for conservation. In these areas, emphasis is on 

maintaining or increasing habitat conditions by minimizing stressors and disturbance. Appropriately managing livestock and recreational use in targeted areas is 

especially important to promote native perennial grass and forb growth and reproduction and to maintain or enhance resilience and resistance.

Figure 45—Gunnison sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse range plus linkages (GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 2012; 

USFWS 2014a) and surrounding area based on lek data from 1995 to 2015 

intersected with resilience and resistance categories developed from the soil 

temperature and moisture regimes. The area is in Mesa County, Colorado 

and is exhibiting piñon and juniper expansion. The breeding habitat probabilities were developed for this report based on Doherty et al. 2016. The 

soil temperature and moisture regime data used in this report and the soil 

temperature and moisture regime categories are explained in Appendix 2. 

The relationships of the soil temperature and moisture regimes to the predominant ecological types are in table 3. 
88 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Historically, drought likely had a greater influence on tree dynamics than fire 

in this area (Shinneman and Baker 2009). However, in some areas of the northern 

Colorado plateau, a decline in piñon-juniper woodlands over the past century may 

have occurred due to an excess of fire since Euro-American settlement (Arendt and 

Baker 2013). Management aimed at restoring understory grasses and forbs has the 

potential to increase resilience and resistance to both drought and fire given climate 

warming. Monitoring can provide the necessary information to track change and 

adapt management.

8.3 Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Monitoring programs designed to track ecosystem changes in response to both 

stressors and management actions can be used to increase understanding of ecosystem resilience and resistance, realign management approaches and treatments, and 

implement adaptive management (Herrick et al. 2012; Reever-Morghan et al. 2006). 

Information is increasing on likely changes in sagebrush ecosystems undergoing 

additional stress and climate warming, but a large degree of uncertainty still exists. 

Currently, two consistent national monitoring efforts inventory vegetation and soil 

attributes and describe land health at the landscape scale: the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, National Resource Inventory of non-Federal lands and the 

Bureau of Land Management, Landscape Monitoring Framework of public lands 

managed by the Bureau (part of the Bureau’s Assessment Inventory and Monitoring 

strategy).

Strategic placement of monitoring sites and repeated measurements of ecosystem 

status and trends (e.g., ground cover, vegetation height, phase of tree expansion, soil 

and site stability) can be used to decrease uncertainty and increase effectiveness of 

management decisions (Rowland and Vojta 2013). Ideally, monitoring sites span environmental/productivity gradients and sagebrush ecological types that characterize 

sage-grouse habitat. Of particular importance are (1) ecotones between ecological 

types where changes in response to climate are expected to be largest (Loehle 2000; 

Stohlgren et al. 2000), (2) ecological types with climatic conditions and soils that 

are exhibiting nonnative species invasion and increased fire risk, and (3) ecological types with climatic conditions and soils that are exhibiting tree expansion and 

increased fire risk. Monitoring the response of sagebrush ecosystems to management treatments, including both pre and posttreatment data, is a first order priority 

because it provides information on treatment effectiveness that can be used to adjust 

methodologies.

Monitoring activities are most beneficial when standard approaches are used 

among and within agencies to collect, analyze, and report monitoring data (Rowland 

et al. 2013). Currently, effectiveness monitoring databases that are used by multiple 

agencies do not exist. However, several databases have been developed for tracking 

invasive species management and restoration/rehabilitation activities.

The National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System is an interdepartmental 

and interagency database that accounts for hazardous fuel reduction, burned area 

rehabilitation, and community assistance activities. To our knowledge, this system is 

not capable of storing and retrieving the type of effectiveness monitoring information that is needed for adaptive management.

The FEAT FIREMON Integrated (https://www.frames.gov/partner-sites/ffi/

ffi-home/) is a monitoring software tool designed to assist managers with collection, storage, and analysis of ecological information. It was constructed through a 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 89

complementary integration of the Fire Ecology Assessment Tool (FEAT) and Fire 

Effects Inventory and Monitoring Protocol (FIREMON). This tool allows the user 

to select among multiple techniques for effectiveness monitoring. If agencies agreed 

on effectiveness monitoring techniques, FEAT FIREMON databases with standard 

structures could be used in interagency effectiveness monitoring.

The Database for Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment (http://jornada.nmsu.edu/

monit-assess/dima) is similar to FEAT FIREMON. This is a computer tablet-based 

data entry tool for field data entry directly into a database for later management and 

interpretation. This Microsoft Access database uses standardized plant nomenclature 

based on the current U.S. Department of Agriculture Plants Database. The data can 

be easily stored in the Land Treatment Digital Library (see below) to keep all treatment planning and implementation information together with the monitoring data. 

Also, the National Invasive Species Information Management System is designed to 

reduce redundant data entry regarding invasive species inventory, management, and 

effectiveness monitoring with the goal of providing information that can be used to 

determine effective treatments for invasive species. However, this tool is currently 

available only within the Bureau of Land Management.

Common databases can be used by agency partners to record and share monitoring data. The Land Treatment Digital Library (USGS 2015) provides a method of 

archiving and collecting common information for land treatments and might be used 

as a framework for data storage and retrieval. At present, interagency use is limited 

because of barriers affecting database access and data security. The Land Treatment 

Digital Library has demonstrated how this can work by accessing a variety of databases to populate useful information relating to land treatments.

To effectively evaluate treatments for adaptive management, the agencies involved will need to agree on monitoring methods and a common data storage and 

retrieval system. Once data can be retrieved, similar treatment projects can be evaluated to determine how well they achieve objectives for sage-grouse habitat, such as 

the criteria outlined in documents like the Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver 

et al. 2006) or those in the GRSG example in Goldstein et al. (2013). Results of 

monitoring activities on treatment effectiveness are most useful when shared across 

jurisdictional boundaries, and several mechanisms are currently in place to improve 

information sharing (e.g., the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, https://

lccnetwork.org/; and Fire Science Exchange Projects, https://www.firescience.gov/

JFSP_exchanges.cfm).

8.4 Sources of Management Information

Several resources exist to assist in developing effective management strategies 

for persistent ecosystem threats. Archived information from the Center for Invasive 

Species Management website provides a variety of resources for managing nonnative invasive species, including information on individual species, planning and 

prioritizing threats, inventory and monitoring, ecologically based invasive plant 

management, control methods, prevention, restoration, and revegetation (http://

www.weedcenter.org/). Also, a recent handbook on cheatgrass management is 

broadly applicable across the eastern portion of the range (Mealor et al. 2013). 

To address wildfire, invasive annual grasses, and conifer expansion in sagebrush 

ecosystems in the western portion of the range, field guides and handbooks have 

recently been developed that explicitly incorporate resilience and resistance concepts. These resources can be adapted to Management Zones II and VII to help 
90 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

guide managers through the process of determining both the suitability of an area 

for treatment and the most appropriate treatment. Three treatment types are emphasized: (1) conifer removal (Miller et al. 2014), (2) post-fire rehabilitation (Miller 

et al. 2015), and (3) rehabilitation/restoration (Pyke et al., 2015a,b). Additional information on implementing these types of management treatments is synthesized in 

Monsen et al. (2004) and Pyke (2011); additional information on treatment response 

is synthesized in Miller et al. (2013).

Resources also exist to assist in addressing land use and development threats. 

Information is available on grazing management from university extension services 

at Montana State University (http://animalrangeextension.montana.edu/range/

grazing-management.html), the University of Wyoming (Cagney et al. 2010), 

and Colorado State University (http://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/naturalresources/). Additional information on livestock management can be found at the 

national Grazing Lands Coalition website (http://www.grazinglands.org/) and Grass: 

The Stockman’s Crop (http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/coastalbend/files/2015/02/GrassThe-Stockmans-Crop.pdf). Finally, the Federal land management agencies each 

have guidelines for livestock grazing.

A variety of programs exist to help support ranchers and enhance their ability to maintain rangelands as working lands. Long-term conservation easements 

are available through the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program that can 

help maintain large and intact sagebrush ecosystems by preventing cropland 

conversion and residential development (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/

nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/acep/). Also, financial and technical assistance is available for planning and implementing conservation practices that 

can improve ecological conditions and natural resources on rangelands through 

the Environmental Quality Incentives Program offered by the National Resource 

Conservation Service (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/

programs/financial/eqip/).

9. Conclusions

This report provides a strategic, multiscale approach for prioritizing areas for 

management and determining effective management strategies in the eastern portion 

of sagebrush biome. The focus is on addressing persistent ecosystem and land use 

and development threats to sagebrush ecosystems, GRSG, and GUSG. A highly 

similar approach was developed for the western portion of the range (Chambers 

et al. 2014a). That approach was subsequently incorporated into the “Greater SageGrouse Wildfire, Invasive Annual Grasses, and Conifer Expansion Assessment” 

(USDI BLM 2014), and served as the basis for a multi-year program of work by the 

BLM in the Great Basin.

The approaches developed for the western portion of the range (Chambers et al. 

2014a) and for this report were used to develop an initial Science Framework 

(Chambers et al. 2016b) for the Conservation and Restoration Strategy of DOI 

Secretarial Order 3336 on Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration 

(USDI 2015a,b). The Science Framework will ultimately include sections that 

relate specific management issues/activities (climate change, wildfire, nonnative 

invasive plant species, grazing practices, seed strategy considerations, monitoring, mitigation) to the approach developed for prioritizing areas for management 

and determining effective management strategies. Sections on wildfire and fuels 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 91

management and climate change were developed for this report and are included in 

Appendices 7 and 8 because they are central to the issues facing sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse.

The approach described in this report and in the Science Framework is intended 

to be adaptive. As new science and information are developed for sagebrush ecosystems and on sagebrush obligate species, they will be used to improve our ability to 

prioritize areas for management and determine effective management strategies.

References

Aldridge, C.L.; Boyce, M.S. 2007. Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: Habitatbased approach for endangered Greater Sage-Grouse. Ecological Applications. 17: 

508–526.

Aldridge, C.L; Hanser, S.E.; Nielsen, S.E.; [et al.]. 2011. Chapter 6: Detectability adjusted 

count models of songbird abundance. In: Hanser, S.E.; Leu, M.; Knick S.T.; [et al.], eds. 

Sagebrush ecosystem conservation and management: Ecoregional assessment tools and 

models for the Wyoming Basins. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press: 141–220.

Aldridge, C.L.; Nielsen, S.E.; Beyer, H.L.; [et al.]. 2008. Range-wide patterns of Greater 

Sage-Grouse persistence. Diversity and Distributions. 14: 983–994.

Aldridge, C.L.; Saher, D.J.; Childers, T.; [et al.]. 2012. Crucial nesting habitat for Gunnison 

sage-grouse: A spatially explicit hierarchical approach. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

76: 391–406.

Allen, E.B.; Knight, D.K. 1984. The effects of introduced annuals on secondary succession 

in sagebrush-grassland, Wyoming. The Southwestern Naturalist. 29: 407–421.

Alexander, E.B.; Mallory, J.I.; Colwell, W.L. 1993. Soil-elevation relationships on a 

volcanic plateau in the southern Cascade Range, northern California, USA. Catena. 20: 

113–128.

Anderson, A.B.; Jenkins, C.N. 2006. Applying nature’s design: corridors as a strategy for 

biodiversity conservation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 256 p.

Arendt, P.A.; Baker, W.L. 2013. Northern Colorado Plateau piñon-juniper woodland decline 

over the past century. Ecosphere. 4(8): 103.

Arredondo, J.T.; Jones, T.A.; Johnson, D.A. 1998. Seedling growth of Intermountain 

perennial and weedy annual grasses. Journal of Range Management. 51: 584–589.

Bainbridge, D.A. 2007. A guide for desert and dryland restoration. Washington, DC: Island 

Press and Society for Ecological Restoration International. 391 p.

Baker, W.H. 2011. Pre-Euro-American and recent fire in sagebrush ecosystems. In: 

Knick S.T., Connelly, J.W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse—Ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University 

of California Press: 185–201.

Baker, W.H; Shinneman, D.J. 2004. Fire and restoration of piñon-juniper woodlands in the 

western United States: A review. Forest Ecology and Management. 189: 1–21.

Bakker, J.D.; Wilson, S.D.; Christian, J.M.; [et al.]. 2003. Contingency of grassland 

restoration on year, site, and competition from introduced grasses. Ecological 

Applications. 13: 137–153.
92 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Barbour, R.J.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Hayes, J.L. 2007. The Interior Northwest Landscape 

Analysis System: A step toward understanding integrated landscape analysis. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. 80: 333–344.

Barker, W.T.; Whitman, W.C. 1988. Vegetation of the Northern Great Plains. Rangelands. 6: 

266–272.

Baruch-Mordo, S.; Evans, J.S.; Severson, J.P.; [et al.]. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the 

trees: A proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological 

Conservation. 167: 233–241.

Baskin, J.M.; Baskin, C.C. 1981. Ecology of germination and flowering in the weedy winter 

annual grass Bromus japonicus. Journal of Range Management. 34: 369–372. 

Beck, J.L.; Mitchell, D.L. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28: 993–1002.

Beck, J.L.; Connelly, J.W.; Wambolt, C.L. 2012. Consequences of treating Wyoming 

big sagebrush to enhance wildlife habitats. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 65: 

444–455.

Beck, J.L.; Reese, K.; Connelly, J.W.; [et al.]. 2006. Movements and survival of juvenile 

Greater Sage-Grouse in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34: 1070–1078.

Bergquist, E.; Evangelista, P.; Stohlgren, T.J.; [et al.]. 2007. Invasive species and coal bed 

methane development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment. 128: 381–394.

Bestelmeyer, B.T.; Tugel, A.J.; Peacock, G.L.J.; [et al.]. 2009. State-and-transition models 

for heterogeneous landscapes: A strategy for development and application. Rangeland 

Ecology and Management. 62: 1–15.

Blank, R.S.; Morgan, T. 2012. Suppression of Bromus tectorum L. by established perennial 

grasses: Potential mechanisms—Part One. Applied Environmental Soil Science. 2012: 

Article ID 632172. 9 p. doi:10.1155/2012/632172. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/

aess/2012/632172/

Blus, L.J.; Staley, C.S.; Henny, C.J.; [et al.]. 1989. Effects of organophosphorus insecticides 

on sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 53: 

1139–1146.

Booth, M.S.; Caldwell, M.M.; Stark, J.M. 2003. Overlapping resource use in three Great 

Basin species: Implications for community invasibility and vegetation dynamics. Journal 

of Ecology. 91: 36–48.

Borell, A.E. 1939. Telephone wires fatal to sage grouse. Condor. 41(1): 85–86.

Boyd, C.S.; Svejcar, T.J. 2009. Managing complex problems in rangeland ecosystems. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management. 62: 491–499.

Boyd, C.S.; Beck J.L.; Tanaka, J. 2014a. Livestock grazing and sage-grouse habitat: Impacts 

and opportunities. Journal of Rangeland Applications. 1: 58–77.

Boyd, C.S.; Johnson, D.D.; Kerby, J.D.; [et al.]. 2014b. Of grouse and golden eggs: can 

ecosystems be managed within a species-based regulatory framework? Rangeland 

Ecology and Management. 67: 358–368.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 93

Bradford, J.B.; Lauenroth, W.K. 2006. Controls over invasion of Bromus tectorum: The 

importance of climate, soil, disturbance and seed availability. Journal of Vegetation 

Science. 17: 693–704.

Bradley, B.A. 2009. Regional analysis of the impacts of climate change on cheatgrass 

invasion shows potential risk and opportunity. Global Change Biology. 15: 196–208.

Bradley, B.A. 2010. Assessing ecosystem threats from global and regional change: 

Hierarchical modeling of risk to sagebrush ecosystems from climate change, land use and 

invasive species in Nevada, USA. Ecography. 33: 198–208.

Bradley, B.A.; Curtis, C.A.; Chambers, J.C. 2016. Bromus response to climate and projected 

changes with climate change. In: Germino, M.J.; Chambers, J.C.; Brown, C.S., eds. 

Exotic brome-grasses in arid and semi-arid ecosystems of the Western US: Causes, 

consequences and management implications. New York, NY: Springer: 257–274.

Bragg, T.B.; Steuter, A.A. 1996. Prairie ecology—The mixed grass prairie. In: Samson, F.B.; 

Knopf, F.L., eds. Prairie conservation—Preserving North America’s most endangered 

ecosystem. Washington, DC: Island Press: 53–66.

Braun, C.E.; Oedekoven, O.O.; Aldridge, C.L. 2002. Oil and gas development in western 

North America: Effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sagegrouse. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 

67: 337–349.

Braun, C.E.; Oyler-McCance, S.J.; Nehring, J.A.; [et al.]. 2014. The historical distribution of 

Gunnison Sage-grouse in Colorado. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 126: 207–217.

Briske, D.D.; Richards, J.H. 1995. Plant responses to defoliation: A physiological, 

morphological, and demographic evaluation of individual plants to grazing: Current 

status and ecological significance. In: Bedunah, D.J.; Sosebee, R.E., eds. Wildland plants: 

Physiological ecology and developmental morphology. Denver, CO: Society for Range 

Management: 635–710.

Briske, D.D.; Bestelmeyer, B.T.; Stringham, T.K.; [et al.]. 2008. Recommendations for 

development of resilience-based state-and-transition models. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management. 61: 359–367.

Briske, D.D.; Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Smeins, F.E. 2005. State-and-transition models, thresholds, 

rangeland health: A synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland 

Ecology and Management. 58: 1–10.

Briske, D.D.; Sayre, N.F.; Huntsinger, L.; [et al.]. 2011. Origin, persistence, and resolution 

of the rotational grazing debate: Integrating human dimensions into rangeland research. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management. 64: 325–334.

Brooks, M.L.; Brown, C.S.; Chambers, J.C.; [et al.]. 2016. Exotic brome-grasses in arid and 

semiarid ecosystems of the western U.S. In: Germino, M.J.; Chambers, J.C.; Brown, C.S., 

eds. Exotic brome-grasses in arid and semiarid ecosystems of the western U.S. New York, 

NY: Springer: 11–60.

Brooks, M.L.; Matchett, J.R.; Shinneman, D.J.; [et al.]. 2015. Fire patterns in the range 

of Greater Sage-Grouse, 1984–2013—implications for conservation and management. 

Open-File Report 2015-1167, U.S. Geological Survey. 66 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/

ofr20151167. [Accessed June 13, 2016].
94 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Cagney, J.; Bainter, E.; Budd, B.; [et al.]. 2010. Grazing influence, objective development, 

and management in Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Extension Bulletin B-1203. 

Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture.

Carwardine, J.; O’Connor, T.; Legge, S.; [et al.]. 2011. Priority threat management to protect 

Kimberley wildlife. Brisbane, Australia: CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences.

Caudle, D.; DiBenedetto, J.; Karl, M.; [et al.]. 2013. Interagency ecological site 

handbook for rangelands. 110 p. http://jornada.nmsu.edu/sites/jornada.nmsu.edu/files/

InteragencyEcolSiteHandbook.pdf. [Accessed June 13, 2016].

Chambers, J.C.; Beck, J.L.; Campbell, S.; [et al.]. 2016b. Science Framework for the 

Conservation and Restoration Strategy of the Department of Interior Secretarial Order 

3336. Using resilience and resistance concepts to assess threats to sagebrush ecosystems 

and sage-grouse, prioritize conservation and restoration actions, and inform management 

strategies. Version I. August 5, 2016. Unnumbered Publication. Fort Collins, CO: U.S 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 202 p.

Chambers, J.C.; Bradley, B.A.; Brown, C.A.; [et al.]. 2014b. Resilience to stress and 

disturbance, and resistance to Bromus tectorum L. invasion in the cold desert shrublands 

of western North America. Ecosystems. 17: 360–375.

Chambers, J.C.; Germino, M.J.; Belnap, J.; [et al.]. 2016a. Plant community resistance to 

invasion by Bromus species--the role of community attributes, Bromus interactions with 

plant communities and Bromus traits. In: Germino, M.J., Chambers, J.C., Brown, C.S., 

eds. Exotic brome-grasses in arid and semiarid ecosystems of the western U.S. New York, 

NY: Springer: 275–306.

Chambers, J.C.; Miller, R.F.; Board, D.I.; [et al.]. 2014c. Resilience and resistance of 

sagebrush ecosystems: Implications for state and transition models and management 

treatments. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 67: 440–454.

Chambers, J.C.; Pyke, D.A.; Maestas, J.D.; [et al.]. 2014a. Using resistance and resilience 

concepts to reduce impacts of annual grasses and altered fire regimes on the sagebrush 

ecosystem and sage-grouse—A strategic multi-scale approach. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-326. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 73 p.

Chambers, J.C.; Roundy, B.A.; Blank, R.R.; [et al.]. 2007. What makes Great Basin 

sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs. 77: 

117–145.

Chen, I.C.; Hill, J.K.; Ohlemueller, R.; [et al.]. 2011. Rapid range shifts of species associated 

with high levels of climate warming. Science. 333: 1024–1026.

Coates, P.S.; Casazza, M.L.; Blomberg, E.J.; [et al.]. 2013. Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse 

seasonal space use relative to leks: Implications for surface use designations in sagebrush 

ecosystems. Journal of Wildlife Management. 77: 1598–1609.

Coates, P.S.; Casazza, M.L.; Ricca, M.A.; [et al.]. 2016. Integrating spatially explicit 

indices of abundance and habitat quality: An applied example for Greater Sage-Grouse 

management. Journal of Applied Ecology. 53: 83–95.

Coates, P.S.; Howe, K.B.; Casazza, M.L.; [et al.]. 2014. Landscape alterations influence 

differential habitat use of nesting buteos and ravens within sagebrush ecosystem: 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 95

Implications for transmission line development. Condor: Ornithological Applications. 

116: 341–356.

Collins, S.L., Uno, G.E. 1985. Seed predation, seed dispersal, and disturbance in grasslands: 

A comment. American Naturalist. 125: 866–872. 

Commons, M.L.; Baydack, R.K.; Braun, C.E. 1999. Sage grouse response to pinyonjuniper management. In: Monsen, S.B.; Stevens, R., comps. Proceedings: Ecology and 

management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West; 1997 September 

15–18; Provo, UT. Proceedings RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 238–239.

Condon, L.; Weisberg, P.L.; Chambers, J.C. 2011. Abiotic and biotic influences on Bromus 

tectorum invasion and Artemisia tridentata recovery after fire. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 20: 1–8.

Connelly, J.W.; Hagen, C.A.; Schroeder, M.A. 2011a. Characteristics and dynamics of 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations. In: Knick, S.T.; Connelly J.W., eds. Greater SageGrouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in 

Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 53–68.

Connelly, J.W.; Knick, S.T.; Schroeder, M.A.; [et al.]. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report on file with: Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. 610 p.

Connelly, J.W.; Rinkes, E.T.; Braun, C.E. 2011b. Characteristics of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats: A landscape species at micro and macro scales. In: Knick, S.T.; Connelly, 

J.W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 

69–84.

Connelly, J.W.; Schroeder, M.A.; Sands, A.R.; [et al.]. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage 

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28(4): 967–985.

Cook, J.G.; Irwin, L.L. 1992. Climate-vegetation relationships between the Great Plains and 

Great Basin. American Midland Naturalist. 127: 316–326.

Coughenour, M.B. 1985. Graminoid responses to grazing by large herbivores: Adaptations, 

exaptations, and interacting processes. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 72: 

852–863.

Curtain, C.G.; Parker, J.P. 2014. Foundations of resilience thinking. Conservation Biology. 

4: 912–923.

Cushman, S.A.; Mersmann, T.J.; Moisen, G.G.; [et al.]. 2013. Using habitat models for 

habitat mapping and monitoring. Chapter 5. In: Rowland, M.M.; Vojta, C.D., tech. eds. 

2013. A technical guide for monitoring wildlife habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-89. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 

14 p.

Dahlgren, R.A.; Boettinger, J.L.; Huntington, G.L.; [et al.]. 1997. Soil development along an 

elevational transect in the western Sierra Nevada. Geoderma. 78: 207–236.

D’Antonio, C.M.; Thomsen M. 2004. Ecological resistance in theory and practice. Weed 

Technology. 18: 1572–1577.

David, E. 2013. Innovative snow harvesting technology increases vegetation establishment 

success in native sagebrush ecosystem restoration. Plant and Soil. 373: 843–856.
96 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Davies, G.M.; Bakker, J.D.; Dettweiler-Robinson, E.; [et al.]. 2012. Trajectories of change 

in sagebrush-steppe vegetation communities in relation to multiple wildfires. Ecological 

Applications. 22: 1562–1577.

Dinkins, J.B.; Conover, M.R.; Kirol, C.P.; [et al.]. 2012. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) select nest-sites and brood-sites away from avian predators. The Auk. 129: 

600–610.

Dinkins, J.B.; Conover, M.R.; Kirol, C.P.; [et al.]. 2014a. Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) select habitat based on avian predators, landscape 

composition, and anthropogenic features. The Condor: Ornithological Applications. 116: 

629–642.

Dinkins, J.B.; Conover, M.R.; Kirol, C.P.; [et al.]. 2014b. Greater Sage-Grouse hen survival: 

Effects of raptors, anthropogenic and landscape features, and hen behavior. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology. 92: 319–330.

Dinkins, J.B.; Smith, K.T.; Beck, J.L.; [et al.]. 2016. Microhabitat conditions in Wyoming’s 

sage-grouse Core Areas: Effects on nest site selection and success. PLoS ONE. 11(3): 

e0150798.

Doherty, K.E.; Beck, J L.; Naugle, D.E. 2011. Comparing ecological site descriptions 

to habitat characteristics influencing Greater Sage-Grouse nest site occurrence and 

success. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 64(4): 344–351.

Doherty, K.E.; Evans, J.S.; Coates, P.S. [et al.]. 2016. Importance of regional variation in 

conservation planning: A range-wide example of the Greater Sage-grouse. Ecosphere. 7: 

Article e01462.

Doherty, K.E.; Naugle, D.E.; Tack, J.D.; [et al.]. 2014. Linking conservation actions to 

demography: Grass height explains variation in Greater Sage-Grouse nest survival. 

Wildlife Biology. 20: 320–325.

Doherty, K.E.; Naugle, D.E.; Walker, B.L. 2010a. Greater Sage-Grouse nesting habitat: 

The importance of managing at multiple scales. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74: 

1544–1553.

Doherty, K.E.; Naugle, D.E.; Walker, B.L.; [et al.]. 2008. Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitat 

selection and energy development. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72: 187–195.

Doherty, K.E.; Tack, J.D.; Evans, J.S.; Naugle, D.E. 2010b. Mapping breeding densities 

of Greater Sage-Grouse: a tool for range-wide conservation planning. BLM completion 

report: Agreement # L10PG00911. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 31 p.

Donnelly, P.; Tack,J.D.; Doherty, K.E.; [et al.]. [In press]. Extending conifer removal and 

landscape protection strategies from sagegrouse to songbirds, a rangewide assessment. 

Rangeland Ecology.

Duncan, M.B. 2010. Sage-grouse and coal-bed methane: Can they coexist within the Powder 

River Basin? Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences. 39: 53–62.

Eckert, R.E.; Peterson, F.F.; Meurisse, M.S.; [et al.]. 1986. Effects of soil-surface 

morphology on emergence and survival of seedlings in big sagebrush communities. 

Journal Range Management. 39: 414–420

Eisenhart, K.S. 2004. Historic range of variability and stand development in piñon-juniper 

woodlands of western Colorado. Dissertation. Boulder: University of Colorado. 239 p.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 97

Evans, D.; Goble, D.D.; Scott, J.M. 2013. New priorities as the Endangered Species Act 

turns 40. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 11: 519.

Evans, J.S.; Murphy, M.A. 2014. rfUtilities. R package version 10-0, http://cran.r-project.

org/package=rfUtilities. [Accessed June 13, 2016].

Falkowski, M.J.; Evans, J.S.; Naugle, D.E.; [et al.]. [In Press]. Mapping tree canopy cover 

in support of proactive prairie grouse conservation in western North America. Rangeland 

Ecology and Management.

Fedy, B.C.; Aldridge, C.L.; Doherty, K.E.; [et al.]. 2012. Interseasonal movements of 

Greater Sage-Grouse migratory behavior and an assessment of the core regions concept 

in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 76: 1062–1071.

Fedy, B.C.; Doherty, K.E.; Aldridge, C.L.; [et al.]. 2014. Habitat prioritization across large 

landscapes, multiple seasons, and novel areas: An example using Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Wyoming. Wildlife Monographs. 190: 1–39.

Field, S.A.; Tyre, A.J.; Jonzen, N.; [et al.]. 2004. Minimizing the cost of environmental 

management decisions by optimizing statistical thresholds. Ecology Letters. 7: 669–675.

Finch, D.M.; Pendleton, R.L.; Reeves, M.C.; [et al.]. 2016. In: Vose, J.M.; Clark, J.S.; Luce, 

C.H.; [et al.], eds. Effects of drought on forests and rangelands in the United States: 

A comprehensive science synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-93b. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office: 155–194.

Finn, S.P.; Knick, S.T. 2011 Changes to the Wyoming Basins landscape from oil and 

natural gas development. In: Hanser, S.E.; Leu, M.; Knick, S. T.; [et al.], eds. Sagebrush 

ecosystem conservation and management: Ecoregional assessment tools and models for 

the Wyoming Basins. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press: 69–87.

Finney, M.A.; McHugh, C.W.; Grenfell, I. 2010. Continental-scale simulation of burn 

probabilities, flame lengths, and fire size distributions for the United States. In: Viegas, D.X., 

ed. Fourth international conference on forest fire research; 2010 November 13–18; Coimbra, 

Portugal. Associacao para o Desenvolvimento da Aerodinamica Industrial. 12 p.

Fischer, J.; Peterson G.D.; Gardner T.A.; [et al.]. 2009. Integrating resilience thinking and 

optimisation for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 24: 549–554.

Floyd, M.L.; Hanna, D.; Romme, W.H. 2006. Historical and recent fire regimes in piñonjuniper woodlands on Mesa Verde, Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 

198: 269–289.

Floyd, M.L.; Hanna, D.; Romme, W.H.; [et al.]. 2004. Predicting and mitigating weed 

invasions to restore natural post-fire succession in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, 

USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 15: 247–259.

Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; [et al.]. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity 

in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 35: 557–581.

Forbis, T.A.; Provencher, L.; Frid, L.; [et al.]. 2006. Great Basin land management planning 

using ecological modeling. Environmental Management. 38: 62–83.

Franco, A.M.A.; Hill, J.K.; Kitschke, C.; [et al.]. 2006. Impacts of climate warming and 

habitat loss on extinctions at species’ low-latitude range boundaries. Global Change 

Biology. 12: 1545–1553.

Freilich, J.E.; Emlen, J.M.; Duda, J.J.; [et al.] 2003. Ecological effects of ranching: A sixpoint critique. BioScience. 53: 759–765.
98 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Engle, D.M. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: Ecosystem 

management based on evolutionary grazing patterns. BioScience. 51: 625–632.

Gelbard, J.L.; Belnap, J. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid 

landscape. Conservation Biology. 17: 420–432.

Gibson, D.; Bomberg, E.J.; Sedinger, J.S. 2016. Evaluating vegetation effects on animal 

demographics: The role of plant phenology and sampling bias. Ecology and Evolution. 

6(11): 3621–3631. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.2148/full.

Goble, D.D.; Wiens, J.A.; Scott, J.M.; [et al.]. 2012. Conservation-reliant species. 

Bioscience 62: 869–873.

Goldstein, M.I.; Suring, L.H.; Vojta, C.D.; [et al.]. 2013. Developing a habitat monitoring 

program: Three examples from National Forest planning. Chapter 10. In: Rowland, 

M.M.; Vojta, C.D., tech. eds. 2013. A technical guide for monitoring wildlife habitat. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-89. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington Office. 74 p.

Greb, B.W. 1980. Snowfall and its potential management in the semiarid central Great 

Plains. ARM-W-18. Oakland, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural and 

Research, Western Region, Science and Education Administration. 64 p.

Gregory, A.J.; Beck, J.L. 2014. Spatial heterogeneity in response of male Greater SageGrouse lek attendance to energy development. PLoS ONE. 9(6): e97132.

Griffith, G. 2010. Level III North American Terrestrial Ecoregions: United States 

Descriptions. May 11, 2010 Version. https://archive.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/web/html/

na_eco.html#Level III. [Accessed June 13, 2016].

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee [GSGRSC]. 2005. Gunnison sagegrouse rangewide conservation plan. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife. 490 p.

Hagen, C.A.; Connelly, J.W.; Schroeder, M.A. 2007. Meta-analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse 

Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology. 13(sp1): 

42–50.

Hanser, S.E.; Knick, S.T. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse as an umbrella species for shrubland 

passerine birds: A multiscale assessment. In: Knick S.T.; Connelly, J.W., eds. Greater 

Sage-Grouse—Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies 

in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 473–487.

Hanser, S.E.; Leu, M.; Knick S.T.; Aldridge, C.L., eds. 2011. Sagebrush ecosystem 

conservation and management: Ecoregional assessment tools and models for the 

Wyoming Basins. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. 429 p.

Harju, S.M.; Dzialak, M.R.; Taylor, R.C.; [et al.]. 2010. Thresholds and time lags in the 

effects of energy development on Greater Sage-Grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 74: 437–448.

Hart, C.R.; Carpenter, B.B. 2005. Stocking rate and grazing management. Rangeland 

Drought Management for Texans E-64: 05- 01. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural 

Experiment Station. 3 p.

Havens, K.; Vitt, P.; Still, S.; [et al.]. 2015. Seed sourcing for restoration in an era of climate 

change. Natural Areas Journal. 35: 122–133.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 99

Herman-Brunson, K.M.; Jensen, K.C.; Kaczor, N.W.; [et al.]. 2009. Nesting ecology of 

Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus at the eastern edge of their historic 

distribution. Wildlife Biology. 15: 237–246.

Herrick, J.E.; Duniway, M.C.; Pyke, D.A.; [et al.]. 2012. A holistic strategy for adaptive land 

management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 67: 105A–113A.

Hess, J.E.; Beck, J.L. 2012a. Burning and mowing Wyoming big sagebrush: Do treated sites 

meet minimum guidelines for Greater Sage-Grouse breeding habitats? Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 36: 85–93.

Hess, J.E.; Beck, J.L. 2012b. Disturbance factors influencing Greater Sage-Grouse lek 

abandonment in northcentral Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 76: 1625–1634.

Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J.A. 2009. Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation 

and restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 24: 599–605.

Hockett, G.A. 2002. Livestock impacts on the herbaceous components of sage grouse 

habitat: A review. Intermountain Journal of Sciences. 8: 105–114.

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability in ecological systems. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics. 4: 1–23.

Holloran, M.J.; Anderson, S.H. 2005. Spatial distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse nests in 

relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor. 107: 742–752.

Holloran, M.J.; Heath, B.J.; Lyon, A.G.; Slater , S.J.; [et al.]. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse 

nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69: 

638−649.

Holmes, A.A.; Miller, R.F. 2010. State-and-transition models for assessing grasshopper 

sparrow habitat use. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74: 1834–1840.

Homer, C.G.; Xian, X.; Aldridge, C.L.; [et al.]. 2015. Forecasting sagebrush ecosystem 

components and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat for 2050: Learning from past climate 

patterns and Landsat imagery to predict the future. Ecological Indicators. 55: 131–145.

Howe, K.B.; Coates P.S.; Delehanty D.J. 2014. Selection of anthropogenic features and 

vegetation characteristics by nesting common ravens in the sagebrush ecosystem. 

Condor: Ornithological Applications. 116: 35–49.

Interagency Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Subteam [IGSDMS]. 2014. 

The Greater Sage-Grouse monitoring framework. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interion, Bureau of Land Management; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/21152/48421/52584/

GRSG-FINAL-Monitoring_Framework_20140530.pdf. [Accessed June 25, 2016].

James, F.C. 1971. Ordinations of habitat relationships among breeding birds. Wilson 

Bulletin. 83: 215–236.

James, J.J.; Drenovsky, R.A.; Monaco, T.A.; [et al.]. 2011. Managing soil nitrogen to restore 

annual grass-infested plant communities: Effective strategy or incomplete framework? 

Ecological Applications. 21: 490–502.

Jetz, W.; Wilcove, D.S.; Dobson, A.P. 2007. Projected impacts of climate and land-use 

change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biology. 5: 1211–1219.

Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating 

resource preference. Ecology. 61: 65–71.
100 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Johnson D.D.; Miller, R.F. 2006. Structure and development of expanding western juniper 

woodlands as influenced by two topographic variables. Forest Ecology and Management. 

229: 7–15.

Johnson, G.R.; Sorenson, F.C.; St. Clair, J.B.; [et al.]. 2004. Pacific Northwest forest tree 

seed zones: A template for native plants? Native Plants Journal. 5: 131–140.

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

barriers to Bromus tectorum L. establishment in the northern Great Basin, USA. 

In: Eldridge D.; Freudenberger D., eds. People and rangelands: building the future: 

Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress; 1999 July 19–23; Queensland, 

Australia. Aitkenvale, Queensland: International Rangeland Congress, Inc.: 109–111.

Kirol, C.P.; Beck, J.L.; Dinkins, J.B.; [et al.]. 2012. Microhabitat selection for nesting and 

brood rearing by the Greater Sage-Grouse in xeric big sagebrush. The Condor. 114: 

75–89.

Kirol, C.P.; Beck, J.L.; Huzurbazar, S.V.; [et al.]. 2015a. Identifying Greater Sage-Grouse 

source and sink habitats for conservation planning in an energy development landscape. 

Ecological Applications. 25: 968–990.

Kirol, C.P.; Sutphin, A L.; Bond, L.; Fuller, M.R.; Maechtle, T.L. 2015b. Mitigation 

effectiveness for improving nesting success of Greater Sage-Grouse influenced by energy 

development. Wildlife Biology. 21: 98–109.

Knapp, P.A. 1996. Cheatgrmonsenass (Bromus tectorum) dominance in the Great Basin 

Desert. Global Environmental Change. 6: 37–52.

Knick, S.T. 2011. Historical development, principal Federal legislation, and current 

management of sagebrush habitats—Implications for conservation. In: Knick S.T.; 

Connelly, J.W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse—Ecology and conservation of a landscape 

species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press: 13–31.

Knick, S.T.; Connelly, J.W. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush—An introduction 

to the landscape. In: Knick S.T.; Connelly, J.W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse—Ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 1–9.

Knick, S.T.; Hanser, S.E.; Miller, R.F.; [et al.]. 2011. Ecological influence and pathways 

of land use in sagebrush. In: Knick S.T.; Connelly, J.W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse—

Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 203–251.

Knick, S.T.; Hanser, S.E.; Preston, K.L. 2013. Modeling ecological minimum requirements 

for distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse leks: Implications for population connectivity 

across their western range, U.S.A. Ecology and Evolution. 3: 1539–1551.

Knight, D.H.; Jones, G.P.; Reiners, W.A.; [et al.]. 2014. Mountains and plains: The ecology 

of Wyoming landscapes. Second edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 404 p.

Knopf, F.L. 1996. Prairie legacies—Birds. In: Samson, F.B., Knopf, F.L., eds. Prairie 

conservation—Preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 135–148.

Knowles, N.; Dettinger, M.D.; Cayan, D.R. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the 

Western United States. Journal of Climate. 19: 4545–4559.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 101

Kunkel, K.E.; Stevens, L.E.; Stevens, S.E.; [et al.]. 2013a. Regional climate trends and 

scenarios for the U.S. national climate assessment. Part 4. Climate of the U.S. Great 

Plains, NOAA Tech. Rep. NESDIS 142-4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . 82 p.

Kunkel, K.E.; Stevens, L.E.; Stevens, S.E.; [et al.]. 2013b. Regional climate trends and 

scenarios for the U.S. national climate assessment. Part 5. Climate of the Southwest U.S., 

NOAA Tech. Rep. NESDIS 142-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . 79 p.

Lauenroth, W.K.; Schlaepfer, D.R.; Bradford, J.B. 2014. Interactions between climate and 

habitat loss effects on biodiversity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ecosystems. 

17: 1469–1479.

LeBeau, C.W.; Beck, J.L.; Johnson, G.D.; [et al.]. 2014. Short-term impacts of wind energy 

development on Greater Sage-Grouse fitness. Journal of Wildlife Management. 78: 

522–530.

Lemoine, N.; Bauer, H.G.; Peintinger, M.; [et al.]. 2007. Effects of climate and land-use 

change on species abundance in a central European bird community. Conservation 

Biology. 21: 495–503.

Leonard, K.M.; Reese, K.P.; Conelly, J.W. 2000. Distribution, movements, and habitats 

of sage grouse Centrocercus uro- phasianus on the Upper Snake River Plain of Idaho: 

Changes from the 1950’s to the 1990’s. Wildlife Biology 6: 265–270.

Lesica, P.; Deluca, T.H. 1996. Long-term harmful effects of crested wheatgrass on Great 

Plains grassland ecosystems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 51: 408–409.

Leu, M.; Hanser, S.W. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape 

patterns: Implications for sage-grouse conservation. In: Knick, S.T.; Connelly, J.W., eds. 

Greater Sage-Grouse—Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 253–272.

Littell, J.S.; McKenzie, D.; Peterson, D.L.; [et al.]. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in 

the western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916–2003. Ecological Applications. 19: 1003–1021.

Lockwood, J.A.; DeBrey, L.D. 1990. A solution for the sudden and unexplained 

extinction of the Rocky Mountain Grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Environmental 

Entomology. 19: 1194–1205.

Loehle, C. 2000. Forest ecotone response to climate change: Sensitivity to temperature 

response functional forms. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 30: 1362–1645.

Lyon, A.G.; Anderson, S.H. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest 

initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 31(2): 486–491.

Mack, R.N.; Pyke, D.A. 1983. Demography of Bromus tectorum: Variation in time and 

space. Journal of Ecology. 71: 69–93.

Mack, R.N.; Thompson, J.N. 1982. Evolution in steppe with few large, hooved mammals. 

American Naturalist. 119: 757–773.

Maddox, J.G. 1937. The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. Law and Contemporary 

Problems. 4(4): 434–455.

Maestas, J.D.; Campbell, S.B.; Chambers, J.C.; [et al.]. 2016. Tapping soil survey 

information for rapid assessment of sagebrush ecosystem resilience and resistance. 

Rangelands. 38: 120–128.
102 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Maestas, J.D.; Knight, R.L.; Gilgert, W.C. 2003. Biodiversity across a rural land-use 

gradient. Conservation Biology. 17: 1425–1434.

Malainey, M.E.; Sherriff, B.L. 1996. Adjusting our perceptions: Historical and 

archaeological evidence of winter on the plains of Western Canada. Plains 

Anthropologist. 41:333–357.

Manier, D.J.; Aldridge, C.L.; Anderson, P.J.; [et al.]. 2011. Land use and habitat 

conditions across the southwestern Wyoming sagebrush steppe: Development impacts, 

management effectiveness and the distribution of invasive plants. Natural Resources and 

Environmental Issues. 17: Article 4. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol17/iss1/4. 

[Accessed June 13, 2016].

Manier, D.J.; Aldridge, C.L.; O’Donnell, M.; [et al.]. 2014. Human infrastructure and 

invasive plant occurrence across rangelands of Southwestern Wyoming, USA. Rangeland 

Ecology and Management. 67: 170–172.

Manier, D.J.; Wood, D.J.A.; Bowen, Z.H.; [et al.]. 2013. Summary of science, activities, 

programs and policies that influence the rangewide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus). Open-File Report 2013-1098. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 297 p.

Mantyka-Pringle, C.S.; Martin, T.G.; Rhodes, J.R. 2011. Interactions between climate 

and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global 

Change Biology. 18(4): 1239–1252. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02593.x.

Mealor, B.A.; Cox, S.; Booth, D.T. 2012. Post fire downy brome (Bromus tectorum) invasion 

at high elevation in Wyoming. Invasive Plant Science and Management. 5: 427–435.

Mealor, B.A.; Mealor, R.D.; Kelley, W.K.; [et al.]. 2013. Cheatgrass management handbook: 

Managing an invasive annual grass in the Rocky Mountain Region. Laramie, WY: 

University of Wyoming; Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 131 p.

Meinke, C.W.; Knick, S.T.; Pyke, D.A. 2009. A spatial model to prioritize sagebrush 

landscapes in the Intermountain West (U.S.A.) for restoration. Restoration Ecology. 17: 

652–659.

Meyer S.E.; Garvin, S.C.; Beckstead, J. 2001. Factors mediating cheatgrass invasion of 

intact salt desert shrubland. In: McArthur, D.E.; Fairbanks, D.J., comps. Shrubland 

ecosystem genetics and biodiversity: proceedings. Proc. RMRS-P-21. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 224–232.

Miller, R.F.; Eddleman, L.L. 2001. Spatial and temporal Changes of sage grouse habitat 

in the sagebrush biome. Tech. Bull. 151. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, 

Agricultural Experiment Station. 35 p.

Miller R.F.; Chambers, J.C.; Pellant, M. 2014. A field guide to selecting the most appropriate 

treatments in sagebrush and pinyon-juniper ecosystems in the Great Basin: Evaluating 

resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses and predicting 

vegetation response. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-322-rev. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 68 p.

Miller, R.F.; Chambers, J.C.; Pellant, M. 2015. A field guide for rapid assessment of postwildfire recovery potential in sagebrush and piñon-juniper ecosystems in the Great 

Basin: Evaluating resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses and 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 103

predicting vegetation response. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-338. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.75 p.

Miller, R.F.; Chambers, J.C.; Pyke, D.A.; [et al.]. 2013. A review of fire effects on vegetation 

and soils in the Great Basin Region: Response and ecological site characteristics. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-308. Fort Collins, CO: Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 126 p.

Miller R.F.; Knick, S.T.; Pyke, D.A.; [et al.]. 2011. Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and 

limitations to long-term conservation. In: Knick S.T.; Connelly, J.W., eds. Greater SageGrouse—Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in 

Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 145–185.

Monsen, S.B. 2005. Restoration manual for Colorado sagebrush and associated shrubland 

communities. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Monsen, S.B.; Stevens, R.; Shaw, N.L., eds. 2004. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121–154.

Moynahan, B.J.; Lindberg, M.S.; Thomas, J.W. 2006. Factors contributing to process 

variance in annual survival of female Greater Sage-Grouse in Montana. Ecological 

Applications. 16: 1529–1538.

Naugle, D.E.; Doherty, K.E.; Walker, B.L.; [et al.]. 2011. Energy development and Greater 

Sage-Grouse. In: Knick S.T., Connelly, J.W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse—Ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 489–504.

Nielson, S.E.; Aldridge, C.L.; Hanser, S.E.; [et al.]. 2011. Occurrence of non-native invasive 

plants: The role of anthropogenic features. In: Hanser, S.E.; Leu, M.; Knick, S.T.; [et al.], 

eds. Sagebrush ecosystem conservation and management: Ecoregional assessment tools 

and models for the Wyoming Basins. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press: 357–377.

Noss, R.F.; LaRoe, E.T., III; Scott, J.M., 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: 

A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Report 28. Washington, DC, National 

Biological Service.

Opdam, P.; Wascher, D. 2004. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking 

landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological 

Conservation. 117: 285–297.

Oregon Department of Forestry. 2013. West wide wildfire risk assessment: Final 

report. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. 105 p. http://www.odf.state.or.us/gis/

data/Fire/West_Wide_Assessment/WWA_FinalReport.pdf [Accessed 17 June 2014].

Oyler-McCance, S.J.; Burnham, K.P.; Braun, C.E. 2001. Influence of changes in sagebrush 

on Gunnison sage-grouse in Southwestern Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist. 46: 

323–331.

Parmesan, C.; Yohe, G. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts 

across natural systems. Nature. 421: 37–42.

Paruelo, J.M.; Lauenroth, W. 1996. Relative abundance of plant functional types in 

grasslands and shrublands of North America. Ecological Applications. 6: 1212–1224.

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. In: Knick, S.T., Connelly, 

J. W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and 
104 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 

531–548.

Pyke, D.A.; Chambers, J.C.; Pellant, M.; [et al.]. 2015a. Restoration handbook for sagebrush 

steppe ecosystems with emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat—Part 1. Concepts for 

understanding and applying restoration: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1416, 44 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1416.

Pyke, D.A.; Knick, S.T.; Chambers, J.C.; [et al.]. 2015b. Restoration handbook for 

sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat—Part 2. 

Landscape level restoration decisions. Circular 1418. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Geological Survey. 21 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1418.

Redford, K.H.; Amoto, G., Baillie, J.; [et al.]. 2011. What does it mean to successfully 

conserve a (vertebrate) species? Bioscience. 61: 39–48.

Reever-Morghan, K.J.; Sheley, R.L.; Svejcar, T.J. 2006. Successful adaptive management: 

The integration of research and management. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 59: 

216–219.

Rehfeldt, G.E.; Crookston, N.L.; Enz-Romero, C.M.; [et al.]. 2012. North American 

vegetation model for land-use planning in a changing climate: A solution to large 

classification problems. Ecological Applications. 22: 119–141.

Rehfeldt, G.E.; Crookston, N.L.; Warwell, M.; [et al.]. 2006. Empirical analyses of plantclimate relationships for the western United States. Journal of Plant Science. 167: 

1123–1150.

Reisner, M.D.; Doescher, P.S.; Pyke, D.A. 2015. Stress-gradient hypothesis explains 

susceptibility to Bromus tectorum invasion and community stability in North America’s 

semi-arid Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis ecosystems. Journal of Vegetation Science.

doi: 10.1111/jvs.12327.

Reisner, M.D.; Grace, J.B.; Pyke, D.A.; [et al.]. 2013. Conditions favouring Bromus 

tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Journal of Applied 

Ecology. 50: 1039–1049.

Rinehart, S.M.; Zimmerman, A.F. 2001. The Bullseye Study: A quantitative and qualitative 

assessment of vegetation community characteristics observed as a function of distance 

from water on the Little Missouri National Grassland, western North Dakota. Missoula, 

MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. 33 p.

Rogers, G.E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Tech. Publ. 16. Denver, CO: 

Colorado Game, Fish, and Parks Department.

Romme, W.H.; Allen, C.D.; Bailey, J.D.; [et al.]. 2009. Historical and modern disturbance 

regimes, stand structures, and landscape dynamics in piñon-juniper vegetation of the 

western United States. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 62: 203–222.

Root, T.L.; Price, J.T.; Hall, K.R.; [et al.]. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild 

animals and plants. Nature. 421: 57–60.

Roundy, B.A.; Young, K.; Cline, N.; [et al.]. 2014. Piñon-juniper reduction increases soil 

water availability of the resource growth pool. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 67: 

495–505.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 105

Rowland, M.M.; Vojta, C.D., tech. eds. 2013. A technical guide for monitoring wildlife 

habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-89. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Washington Office. 400 p.

Rowland, M.M.; Wisdom, M.J. 2009. Habitat networks for terrestrial wildlife: Concepts 

and case studies. Millspaugh, J.J., Thompson, F.R., III eds. Models for planning wildlife 

conservation in large landscapes. New York, NY: Elsevier: 501–531.

Rowland, M.M.; Kujawa, G.; Rickel, B.; [et al.]. 2013. Overview. Chapter 1. In: Rowland, 

M. M.; Vojta, C.D., tech. eds. 2013. A technical guide for monitoring wildlife habitat. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-89. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington Office. 16 p.

Rowland, M.M.; Wisdom, M.J.; Suring, L.H.; [et al.]. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse as an 

umbrella species for sagebrush-associated vertebrates. Biological Conservation. 129: 

323–35

Sage Grouse Initiative [SGI]. 2015. Reducing cultivation of grazing lands conserves sage 

grouse. Science to Solutions Series Number 8. Sage Grouse Initiative. 4 p. http://www.

sagegrouseinitiative.com/.

Sala, O.E.; Lauenroth,W.K.; Gollucio, R.A. 1997. Plant functional types in temperate semiarid regions. In: Smith, T.M.; Shugart, H.H.; Woodward, F.I., eds. Plant functional types. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 217–233.

Salo, L.F. 2005. Red brome (Bromus rubens subsp. madritensis) in North America: Possible 

modes for early introductions, subsequent spread. Biological Invasions. 7: 165–180.

Saunders, D.A.; Hobbs, R.J.; Margules, C.R. 1991. Biological consequences of 

fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5: 18–32.

Schlaepfer, D.R.; Lauenroth, W.K.; Bradford, J.B. 2012. Effects of ecohydrological variables 

on current and future ranges, local suitability patterns, and model accuracy in big 

sagebrush. Ecography. 35: 374–384.

Schrag, A.; Konrad, S.; Miller, S.; Walker, B.; Forrest, S. 2010. Climate-change impacts on 

sagebrush habitat and West Nile virus transmission risk and conservation implications for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. GeoJournal. doi 10.1007/s10708-010-9369-3.

Schroeder, M.A.; Vander Haegen, M. 2011. Response of Greater Sage-Grouse to the 

Conservation Reserve Program in Washington State. In: Knick S.T.; Connelly, J.W., eds. 

Greater Sage-Grouse—Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 517–530.

Scott, J.M.; Goble, D.D.; Haines, A.M.; Wiens, J.A.; Neel, M.C. 2010. Conservation-reliant 

species and the future of conservation. Conservation Letters. 3: 91–97.

Seager, R.; Ting, M.; Held, I.; [et al]. 2007. Model projections of an imminent transition to a 

more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science. 316: 1181–1184.

Shinneman, D.J.; Baker, W.L. 2009. Historical fire and multidecadal drought as context for 

piñon-juniper woodland restoration in Western Colorado. Ecological Applications. 19: 

1231—1245.

Smith, J.T.; Evans, J.S.; Baruch-Mordo, S.; [et al.]. 2016. Reducing cropland conversion 

risk to sage-grouse through strategic conservation of working rangelands. Biological 

Conservation. 201: 10–19.
106 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Smith, J.T.; Flake, L.D.; Higgins, K.F.; [et al.]. 2005. Evaluating lek occupancy of Greater 

Sage-Grouse in relation to landscape cultivation in the Dakotas. Western North American 

Naturalist. 65: 310–320.

Smith, K.T.; Kirol, C.P.; Beck, J.L.; [et al.]. 2014. Prioritizing winter habitat quality for 

Greater Sage-Grouse in a landscape influenced by energy development. Ecosphere. 

5(2):15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00238.1.

Smith, S.D.; Nowak, R S. 1990. Ecophysiology of plants in the Intermountain lowlands. 

In: Osmond, C.B.; Pitelka, L.F.; Hidy, G.M., eds. Plant Biology of the Basin and Range. 

Springer-Verlag: 179–242.

Soil Survey Staff. 2014a. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.

gov/ [Accessed June 13, 2016].

Soil Survey Staff. 2014b. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2) Database. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://

sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/ [Accessed June 13, 2016].

Stanley, T.R.; Aldridge, C.L.; Saher, D.J.; [et al.]. 2015. Daily nest survival rates of 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus): Assessing local- and landscape-scale 

drivers. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 127: 59–71.

Stevens, B.S.; Connelly, J.W.; Reese, K.P. 2012. Multi-scale assessment of Greater SageGrouse fence collision as a function of site and broad scale factors. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 76 (7): 1370–1380.

Still, S.M.; Richardson, B.A. 2015. Projections of contemporary and future climate niche 

for Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata subsp. wyomingensis): A guide for 

restoration. Natural Areas Journal. 35: 30–43.

Stiver, S.J.; Apa, A.D.; Bohne, J.R.; [et al.]. 2006. Greater Sage-grouse comprehensive 

conservation strategy. Unpublished report on file at: Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY.

Stohlgren, T.J.; Owen, A.J.; Lee, M. 2000. Monitoring shifts in plant diversity in response to 

climate change: A method for landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation. 9: 165–186.

Stringham, T.K.; Krueger, W.C.; Shaver, P.L. 2003. State and transition modeling: An 

ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management. 56: 106–113.

Suring, L.H.; Rowland, M.M.; Wisdom, M.J. 2005. Identifying species of conservation 

concern. In: Wisdom, M.J.; Rowland, M.M.; Suring, L.H., eds. Habitat threats in the 

sagebrush ecosystem: Methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great 

Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group: 50–162.

Swanson, C.C.; Rumble, M.A.; Grovenburg, T.W.; [et al.]. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse 

winter habitat use on the eastern edge of their range. Journal of Wildlife Management. 77: 

486–494.

Tack, J.D.; Naugle, D.E.; Carlson, J.C.; [et al.]. 2012. Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus 

urophasianus migration links the USA and Canada: A biological basis for international 

prairie conservation. Oryx. 46: 64.

Taylor, K.; Brummer, T.J.; Lavin, M.; [et al.]. 2014. Bromus tectorum response to fire varies 

with climate conditions. Ecosystems. 17: 960–973.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 107

Taylor R.L.; Tack, J.D.; Naugle, D.E.; [et al.]. 2013. Combined effects of energy 

development and disease on Greater Sage-Grouse. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71256.

Thomson, A.M.; Crowe, K.A.; Parker, W.H. 2010. Optimal white spruce breeding zones 

for Ontario under current and future climates. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 40: 

1576–1587.

Thompson, K.M.; Holloran, M.J.; Slater, S.J.; [et al.]. 2006. Early brood-rearing habitat 

use and productivity of Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming. Western North American 

Naturalist. 66: 332–342.

Travis, J.M.J. 2003. Climate change and habitat destruction: A deadly anthropogenic 

cocktail. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences. 270: 

467–473.

Umbanhowar, C.E., Jr. 1996. Recent fire history of the Northern Great Plains. American 

Midland Naturalist. 135: 115–121.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 2016. National cooperative 

soil survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey/

partnership/ncss/ [Accessed Sept. 1, 2016].

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 2015a. Ecological site 

descriptions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/

ecoscience/desc/ [Accessed June 13, 2016].

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 2015b. Sage grouse 

initiative. Wildlife conservation through sustainable ranching. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.

sagegrouseinitiative.com. [Accessed June 13, 2016].

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]. 2015a. An integrated rangeland fire management 

strategy. Final Report to the Secretary of the Interior. https://www.forestsandrangelands.

gov/rangeland/documents/IntegratedRangelandFireManagementStrategy_

FinalReportMay2015.pdf. [Accessed June 25, 2016].

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]. 2015b. Rangeland fire prevention, management, 

and restoration. Secretarial Order Number 3336. http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/

rangeland/documents/SecretarialOrder3336.pdf. [Accessed June 13, 2016].

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]. 2016. Safeguarding America’s lands and waters 

from invasive species: A national framework for early detection and rapid response, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 55 p. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.

gov/files/National%20EDRR%20Framework.pdf. [Accessed July 17, 2016]

USDI Bureau of Land Management [USDI BLM]. 2012. Burned areas emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation handbook (public). BLM Handbook H-1742-1. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 80 p. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/

blm_handbook.Par.52739.File.dat/h1742-1.pdf [Accessed June 13, 2016].

USDI Bureau of Land Management [USDI BLM]. 2009. Consolidated response to 2009 

Gunnison sage-grouse status review information request outline from the Colorado State 

Office, Gunnison Field Office, Uncompahgre Field Office, Dolores Public Lands Office, 
108 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

San Luis Valley, and Grand Junction Field Office. Washington, DC: Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 100 p.

USDI Bureau of Land Management [USDI BLM] 2014. Greater Sage-grouse Wildfire, 

Invasive Annual Grasses, and Conifer Expansion Assessment. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. http://www.nifc.gov/

fireandsagegrouse/mapsData.html [Accessed Aug. 3, 2016].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as threatened or endangered; proposed rule. Fed. Register 75, 13910–

14014. http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2010/2010-5132.pdf [Accessed June 13, 2016].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 91 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2014a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; threatened status for Gunnison sage-grouse; final rule. Fed. Register 79, 69192–

69310. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/11/20/2014-27109/endangered-andthreatened-wildlife-and-plants-threatened-status-for-gunnison-sage-grouse [Accessed 

June 13, 2016].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2014b. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse; final 

rule. Fed. Register 79 No. 224, 69312–69363. https://www.federalregister.gov/

articles/2014/11/20/2014-27113/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plantsdesignation-of-critical-habitat-for-gunnison [Accessed June 13, 2016].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as an endangered or threatened species; proposed rule. Fed. Register 

80, 59858–59942. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-02/pdf/2015-24292.pdf. 

[Accessed June 13, 2016].

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. 2015. Land treatment digital library. Reston, VA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. http://ltdl.wr.usgs.gov/ [Accessed 

June 13, 2016].

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. 2013: LANDFIRE 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. 

Updated 3/13/2013. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [Accessed June 13, 2016].

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources [UDWR] 2012. GUSG habitat GIS shapefiles for 

occupied and vacant-unknown habitat. Last updated March 2012. Salt Lake City, 

UT: State of Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources. http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/

downloadgis/disclaim.htm [Accessed June 13, 2016].

Vander Haegen, W.M.; Dobler, F.C.; Pierce, D.J. 2000. Shrub steppe bird response to 

habitat and landscape variables in eastern Washington, USA. Conservation Biology. 14: 

1145–1160.

Veblen, K.E.; Pyke, D.A.; Aldridge, C.L.; [et al.]. 2011. Range-wide assessment of livestock 

grazing across the sagebrush biome. Open-File Report 2011–1263. Reston, VA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 109

Vojta, C.D.; McDonald, L.L.; Brewer C.K.; [et al.]. 2013. Chapter 3: Planning and design 

for habitat monitoring. In: Rowland, M. M.; Vojta, C.D., tech. eds. 2013. A technical 

guide for monitoring wildlife habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-89. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 22 p.

Walker, B.L.; Apa, A.D.; Eichhoff, K. 2016. Mapping and prioritizing seasonal habitats for 

Greater Sage-Grouse in Northwestern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management. 80: 

63–76.

Walker, B.L.; Naugle, D.E.; Doherty K.E. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse population response to 

energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 2644–2654.

West, N. E. 1983a. Great Basin-Colorado Plateau sagebrush semi-desert. In: West, N.E., ed. 

Temperate deserts and semi-deserts. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Publishing 

Company: 331–350.

West, N.E. 1983b. Intermountain salt-desert shrubland. In: West, N.E., ed. Temperate deserts 

and semi-deserts. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Publishing Company: 375–378.

Western Governors Association. 2015. Sage grouse inventory: 2014 conservation 

initiatives. Special Report by Western Governors. http://www.westgov.org/images/

dmdocuments/2014_WGA_Sage_Grouse_Inventory_Final_lo_res.pdf [Accessed June 

13, 2016].

Willard, E.E.; Bedunah, D.J.; Marcum, C.L.; [et al.]. 1988. Environmental factors affecting 

spotted knapweed. Biennial Report 1987–1988. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, 

School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 21 p.

Williams M.I.; Dumroese R.K. 2013. Preparing for climate change: Forestry and assisted 

migration. Journal of Forestry. 111: 287–297.

Winward, A.H. 2004. Sagebrush of Colorado: Taxonomy, distribution, ecology, and 

management. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife. 41 p.

Wisdom, M.J.; Chambers, J.C. 2009. A landscape approach for ecologically-based 

management of Great Basin shrublands. Restoration Ecology. 17: 740–749.

Wisdom, M.J.; Meinke, C.W.; Knick, S.T.; [et al.]. 2011. Factors associated with extirpation 

of sage-grouse. In: Knick, S.T.; Connelly, J.W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse—Ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 451–474.

Wisdom, M.J.; Rowland, M.M.; Suring, L.H., eds. 2005. Habitat threats in the sagebrush 

ecosystem: Methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. 

Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. 301 p.

Xian, G.; Homer, C.G.; Aldridge, C.L. 2011 Effects of land cover and regional climate 

variations on long-term spatiotemporal changes in sagebrush ecosystems. GIScience & 

Remote Sensing. 49: 378–396.

Young, K.R.; Roundy, B.A.; Eggett, D.L. 2013. Tree reduction and debris from mastication 

of Utah juniper alter the soil climate in sagebrush steppe. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 310: 777–785. 
110 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Appendix A1. Definitions of Terms Used in This 

Document

At-Risk Community Phase — A community phase that can be designated within 

the reference state and also in alternative states. This community phase is the 

most vulnerable to transition to an alternative state (Caudle et al. 2013). 

Community Phase — A unique assemblage of plants and associated soil properties 

that can occur within a state (Caudle et al. 2013).

Ecological Site (ES) — A conceptual division of the landscape that is defined as a 

distinctive kind of land based on recurring soil, landform, geological, and climate 

characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce 

distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its ability to respond similarly 

to management actions and natural disturbances (Caudle et al. 2013).

Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) — The documentation of the characteristics 

of an ecological site. The documentation includes the data used to define the 

distinctive properties and characteristics of the ecological site, the biotic and 

abiotic characteristics that differentiate the site (i.e., climate, physiographic, soil 

characteristics, plant communities), and the ecological dynamics of the site that 

describes how changes in disturbance processes and management can affect the 

site. An ESD also provides interpretations about the land uses and ecosystem 

services that a particular ecological site can support and management alternatives 

for achieving land management (Caudle et al. 2013).

Ecological Type — A category of land with a distinctive (i.e., mappable) 

combination of landscape elements. The elements making up an ecological type 

are climate, geology, geomorphology, soils, and potential natural vegetation. 

Ecological types differ from each other in their ability to produce vegetation and 

respond to management and natural disturbances (Caudle et al. 2013). 

Major Land Resource Area — A geographic area, usually several thousand acres 

in extent, that is characterized by a particular pattern of soils, climate, water 

resources, land uses, and type of agriculture.

Resilience — Ability of a species and/or its habitat to recover from stresses and 

disturbances. Resilient ecosystems reorganize and regain their fundamental 

structure, processes, and functioning when altered by stresses like increased CO2

, nitrogen deposition, and drought and to disturbances like land development and 

fire (Holling 1973). 

Resistance — Capacity of an ecosystem to retain its fundamental structure, 

processes, and functioning (or remain largely unchanged) despite stresses, 

disturbances, or invasive species (Folke et al. 2004).

Resistance to Invasion — Abiotic and biotic attributes and ecological processes of 

an ecosystem that limit the population growth of an invading species (D’Antonio 

and Thomsen 2004).

Restoration Pathways — Restoration pathways describe the environmental 

conditions and practices that are required to recover a state that has undergone a 

transition (Caudle et al. 2013).

State — A suite of community phases and their inherent soil properties that interact 

with the abiotic and biotic environment to produce persistent functional and 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 111

structural attributes associated with a characteristic range of variability (adapted 

from Briske et al. 2008). 

State-and-Transition Model —A method to organize and communicate complex 

information about the relationships between vegetation, soil, animals, hydrology, 

disturbances (fire, lack of fire, grazing and browsing, drought, unusually wet 

periods, insects and disease), and management actions on an ecological site 

(Caudle et al. 2013).

Thresholds — Conditions sufficient to modify ecosystem structure and function 

beyond the limits of ecological resilience, resulting in transition to alternative 

states (Briske et al. 2008). 

Transition — Transitions describe the biotic or abiotic variables or events, acting 

independently or in combination, that contribute directly to loss of state resilience 

and result in shifts between states. Transitions are often triggered by disturbances, 

including natural events (climatic events or fire) and/or management actions 

(grazing, burning, fire suppression). They can occur quickly as in the case of 

catastrophic events like fire or flood, or over a long period of time as in the 

case of a gradual shift in climate patterns or repeated stresses like frequent fires 

(Caudle et al. 2013).
112 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Appendix A2. Explanation of Soil Temperature and 

Moisture Regime Data

Soil climate regimes (temperature and moisture) are used in soil taxonomy to 

classify soils. They are important to consider in land management decisions because 

of their influence on (1) amounts and kinds of vegetation and (2) response to disturbance and management actions. Soil temperature and moisture regimes are assigned 

to soil map unit components as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey program. Abbreviated definitions of predominant soil temperature and moisture regime 

classes are listed below. Complete descriptions can be found in the 12th edition of 

the Keys to Soil Taxonomy (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/

download?cid=stelprdb1252094&ext=pdf).

Exhibit A2.1. Definitions of the dominant soil temperature and moisture regimes in 

the Eastern Range

Soil Temperature Regimes

Cryic (cold): Soils that have a mean annual soil temperature between 0 and 8 °C 

and do not have permafrost, at a depth of 50 cm below the surface or at a restrictive 

feature, whichever is shallower.

Frigid (cool): Soils that have a mean annual soil temperature between 0 and 8 °C 

and the difference between mean summer and mean winter soil temperatures is 

>6 °C at a depth of 50 cm below the surface or at a restrictive feature, whichever is 

shallower.

Mesic (warm): Soils that have a mean annual soil temperature of 8–15 °C and the 

difference between mean summer and mean winter soil temperatures is >6 °C at a 

depth of 50 cm below the surface or at a restrictive feature, whichever is shallower.

Soil Moisture Regimes

Udic (moist): Characteristic of high elevation areas with winter snowfall and/or 

summer precipitation. The soil is dry for less than 90 consecutive days in normal 

years.

Ustic (summer moist): Generally there is some plant-available moisture during 

the growing season, although significant periods of drought may occur. Summer 

precipitation allows presence of warm season plant species. The soil is dry for 90 or 

more cumulative days in normal years.

Xeric (winter moist; generally mapped at >12 inches mean annual precipitation): Characteristic of areas where winters are moist and cool and summers are 

warm and dry. The soil is dry for 45 or more consecutive days in the 4 months following the summer solstice but moist in some part for 90 or more consecutive days 

during the growing season.

Aridic (dry; generally mapped at <12 inches mean annual precipitation): 

Characteristic of arid regions. The soil is dry for at least half the growing season and 

moist for less than 90 consecutive days.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 113

Soil moisture regimes are further divided into moisture subclasses, which are 

often used to indicate soils that are transitional between moisture regimes. For 

example, a soil with an aridic moisture regime and a xeric moisture subclass may be 

described as “Aridic bordering on Xeric.” Understanding these gradients becomes 

increasingly important when making interpretations and decisions at the project 

scale where aspect, slope, and soils affect the actual moisture regime. More information on taxonomic moisture subclasses is available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcs142p2_053576. 

We used soil survey spatial and tabular data aggregated in October 2013 to 

facilitate broad scale analyses of resilience and resistance across the eastern range 

of sage-grouse (Maestas et al. 2016). Soils data were derived from two primary 

sources: (1) completed and interim soil surveys available through the Soil Survey 

Geographic Database (SSURGO) (Soil Survey Staff a), and (2) the State Soils 

Geographic Database (STATSGO2) (Soil Survey Staff b). Data for the eastern range 

were updated in January 2016 to reflect the most current soil survey information 

available (fig. 7). In some cases, abrupt changes in soil temperature and moisture 

regimes are apparent when merging together STATSGO2 and SSURGO soil survey 

areas due to differences in data collection and publication, scale of interpretation, 

or changes in application of regime concepts. The area near the border between 

southeastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming is in a transition zone between the 

frigid and mesic soil temperature regimes, which has resulted in an apparent abrupt 

change in temperature regime at the State border. Future updates to soil survey 

information will resolve these join issues along political boundaries, using current 

climate datasets and additional field data.

We used soil temperature regime and moisture regime subclass data to generate a simplified index of relative resilience and resistance for the eastern range that 

has three categories: high, moderate, and low. We used the relationship among the 

predominant ecological types in the eastern range, soil temperature and moisture 

regimes, and relative resilience and resistance (table 3) to inform these categories. 

Because of the distinct climatic regimes and vegetation responses in the West-Central Semiarid Prairies in MZ I and Cold Deserts in MZ II and VII, the rankings for 

these ecoregions were performed separately. The Mesic/Ustic bordering on Aridic 

and Mesic/Aridic bordering on Ustic regimes were ranked as moderate in the WestCentral Semiarid Prairies in MZ I and as low in the Cold Deserts in MZ II and VII.

Soils with high water tables, wetlands, or frequent ponding or uncommon regimes 

that would not typically support sagebrush were excluded. 

 Soils geodatabases and categorized resilience and resistance layers can be accessed at: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/538e5aa9e4b09202b547e56c.
114 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Exhibit A2.2. Resilience and resistance (R&R) rating for the soil temperature and 

moisture regimes.

Soil Taxonomic Name Common Name R&R Rating

Cryic/Udic-Typic Cold and moist High

Cryic/Ustic-Typic Cold and summer moist High

Frigid/Ustic-Typic Cool and summer moist High

Frigid/Xeric-Typic Cool and winter moist High

Frigid/Ustic bordering on Aridic Cool and summer moist bordering on dryModerate

Frigid/Aridic bordering on Ustic Cool and dry bordering on 

summer moist

Moderate

Frigid/Aridic-Typic Cool and dry Moderate

Mesic/Ustic-Typic Warm and summer moist Moderate

Mesic/Ustic bordering on Aridic Warm and summer moist 

bordering on dry

Moderate 

(Prairies)

Low (Cold 

Deserts)

Mesic/Aridic bordering on Ustic Warm and dry bordering on 

summer moist

Moderate 

(Prairies)

Low (Cold 

Deserts)

Mesic/Aridic-Typic Warm and dry Low
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 115

Appendix A3. Methods for Determining the Predominant 

Ecological Types 

The steps used to determine the ecological types that dominate the eastern range of 

Greater sage-grouse and the range of Gunnison sage-grouse are outlined below. 

1. National Soil Information System (NASIS) data were exported for each 

Environmental Protection Agency Level II Ecoregion, including Cold Deserts 

(10.1), Western Cordillera (6.2), and West Central Semiarid Prairies (9.3), 

within the eastern range of Greater sage-grouse, (Management Zones I, II, 

and VII), and the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. The information exported 

included acreages of the dominant Ecological Site (ES) within the Greater 

sage-grouse Priority Areas of Conservation (PACs) and Gunnison sage-grouse 

critical habitat as well as soil temperature regime, moisture regime, and moisture subclass assigned at the soil map unit component level. The analyses were 

conducted by Steve Campbell, NRCS, Portland, Oregon.

 2. Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) were first sorted by Major Land Resource 

Area (MLRA) and State and then by soil temperature regime, moisture 

regime, and moisture subclass to evaluate the ecological sites most often correlated with the PACs. A map was produced intersecting Level III Ecoregions 

with MLRAs and PACs (fig. A3.1). Each Level II Ecoregion spreadsheet was 

filtered by central MLRA concepts for the Ecoregion as follows:

 a. Cold Deserts MLRAs:

32—Northern Desertic Basins: Bighorn and Wind River Basins 

in Wyoming (96%), small amount in Montana (4%); average 

precipitation 5–12” (Aridic-Typic, Aridic bordering on Ustic, Ustic 

bordering on Aridic); and average annual temperature 4–9 °C 

(Frigid, Mesic)

34A—Cool Central Desertic Basins and Plateaus: Wyoming 

Basin in Wyoming (85%), small amounts in Colorado (13%) and 

Utah (2%); average precipitation 7–12” (Aridic bordering on Ustic, 

Ustic bordering on Aridic); and average annual temperature 5–7 °C 

(Frigid)

34B—Warm Central Desertic Basins and Plateaus: Uinta Basin 

and Colorado Plateau, mostly Utah (70%) with some in Colorado 

(30%); average precipitation 6–6” (Aridic-Typic, Aridic bordering 

on Ustic, Ustic bordering on Aridic); and average annual temperature 7–12 °C (Mesic)

36—Southwestern Plateaus, Mesas, and Foothills: Canyonlands 

and Colorado Plateau, mostly New Mexico (58%), Colorado (32%), 

and Utah (10%), but applicable areas for this analysis reside in 

Colorado/Utah in identified Gunnison sage-grouse areas; average 

precipitation 12–20” (Ustic bordering on Aridic, Ustic-Typic, Udic 

bordering on Ustic); and average annual temperature 7–14 °C 

(Mesic)
116 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

b. Western Cordillera MLRAs:

43B—Central Rocky Mountains: very large, covers Montana 

(38%), Idaho (32%), and Wyoming (30%), but applicable areas for 

this area mostly reside in Wyoming; average precipitation 25–60” 

(Udic); and average annual temperature <3 °C (Cryic)

46—Northern Rocky Mountain Foothills: conceptually occurs 

only in Montana, but concept has been proposed and accepted for 

use in Wyoming for foothills which are current grouped into 32, 

34A, or 43B but do not fit MLRA concept; average precipitation 

1–20” (Ustic bordering on Aridic, Ustic-Typic, Udic bordering 

on Ustic); and average annual temperature 1–9 °C (Cryic, Frigid, 

Mesic)

Figure A.3.1—Map of the Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) intersected with the Level III ecoregions, management zones, Greater 

sage-grouse Priority Areas for Conservation, and Gunnison sagegrouse range plus linkages (GSGRSC 2005; UDWR 2012; USFWS 

2014a).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 117

47—Wasatch and Uinta Mountains: mostly in Utah (86%) with 

small amounts in Wyoming (8%) and Colorado (4%); average 

precipitation 16-30+” (Xeric-Typic, Xeric bordering on Ustic, Ustic 

bordering on Xeric, Ustic-Typic, Udic bordering on Ustic, UdicTypic); and average annual temperature 1–7 °C (Cryic, Frigid) 

48A—Southern Rocky Mountains: mostly in Colorado (76%) 

with small amounts in New Mexico (11%), Utah (8%), and 

Wyoming (5%), but applicable areas for this analysis reside in 

Colorado and Wyoming and includes areas of importance to 

Gunnison sage-grouse as well as Greater sage-grouse; average precipitation 16–32 (50)” (Ustic bordering on Aridic, Ustic-Typic, Udic 

bordering on Ustic, Udic-Typic); and average annual temperature 

3–9 °C (Cryic, Frigid, warm Frigid)

48B—South Rocky Mountain Parks: mostly in Colorado (96%) 

with small amount in Wyoming (4%), includes Middle and South 

Parks; average precipitation 10–16” (Ustic bordering on Aridic, 

Ustic-Typic); and average annual temperature 1–6 °C (Cryic, 

Frigid)

 c. West-Central Semiarid Prairies MLRAs:

52—Brown Glaciated Plain: northern Montana above Hwy 2; average precipitation 10–17” (Ustic bordering on Aridic, Ustic-Typic); 

and average annual temperature 4–7 °C (Frigid)

54—Rolling Soft Shale Plain: mostly in North Dakota (64%), but 

some in South Dakota (33%) and Montana (3%); average precipitation 14–18” (Ustic bordering on Aridic, Ustic-Typic); and average 

annual temperature 3–8 °C (Frigid)

58A—Northern Rolling High Plains, Northern Part: mostly 

in Montana (99%) with small amount in Wyoming (1%); average 

precipitation 8–22” (Aridic bordering on Ustic, Ustic bordering on 

Aridic, Ustic-Typic, Udic bordering on Ustic); and average annual 

temperature 5–10 °C (Frigid, Mesic)

58B—Northern Rolling High Plains, Southern Part: mostly 

eastern Wyoming (95%) with some in Montana (5%); average 

precipitation 9–27” (Aridic bordering on Ustic, Ustic bordering 

on Aridic, Ustic-Typic, Udic bordering on Ustic, Udic-Typic); and 

average annual temperature 5–9 °C (Frigid, Mesic)

58C—Northern Rolling High Plains, Northeastern Part: mostly 

North Dakota (96%), but small amount in Montana (4%); average 

precipitation 14–17” (Ustic bordering on Aridic, Ustic-Typic); and 

average annual temperature 5–7 °C (Frigid)

58D—Northern Rolling High Plains, Eastern Part: mostly South 

Dakota (65%), but with some in Montana (21%) and North Dakota 

(14%); average precipitation 14–17” (Ustic bordering on Aridic, 

Ustic-Typic); and average annual temperature 6–7 °C (Frigid)
118 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

60A—Pierre Shale Plains: mostly South Dakota (70%) but with 

some in Wyoming (20%), NE (8%), and Montana (2%), but applicable areas for this analysis reside mostly in South Dakota; average 

precipitation 13–22” (Ustic bordering on Aridic, Ustic-Typic, Udic 

bordering on Ustic, Udic-Typic); and average annual temperature 

6–9 °C (Frigid, Mesic)

60B—Pierre Shale Plains, Northern Part: mostly in Montana 

(94%) with small amount in Wyoming (6%) and North Dakota; average precipitation 1–15” (Ustic bordering on Aridic); and average 

annual temperature 6–8 °C (Frigid)

 3. The Ecological Site Information System (ESIS) was used to query dominant 

ESDs supporting big sagebrush plant communities based on NASIS export, 

MLRA concept, and consultation with NRCS State Rangeland Management 

Specialists or equivalent. In some cases, ES concepts exist with no STM and/

or there are variable STM concepts depending on age of ESDs. The most contemporary STMs were prioritized for consideration, but older products were 

used when they were the best available product to represent a regime concept. 

Individuals consulted were:

 a. Kirt Walstead, Jon Siddoway, Tammy Decock, Montana

 b. Rachel Murph and Suzanne Mayne, Colorado

 c. Shane Green, Dean Stacy, Utah

 d. Jeff Prince, Jody Forman, North Dakota

 e. Stan Boltz, South Dakota 

 f. Karen Clause, Ray Gullion, Jim Haverkamp, George Gamblin, Ryan 

Murray, Marji Patz, and Bryan Christensen, Wyoming

 g. Brendan Brazee, Idaho

 4. Potentially representative ESs were downloaded to folders and organized by 

soil temperature/moisture regime concepts. Often the various resources used 

were not in agreement, and each area was reviewed to determine the best 

source of data. Resources used to determine the regime include:

 a. ESD climate section

 b. LRU concept or state ecological zones, when available

 c. MLRA Description climate section—edits to MLRA descriptions are 

anticipated by local staff providing input on these descriptions, and 

have been incorporated as appropriate

 d. NASIS assigned temperature and moisture regime by mapunit component and accompanying map—many areas in this region are populated 

with older mapping concepts or are not populated in NASIS 

 e. PRISM maps

 5. Regime concepts with representative MLRAs and ESDs listed here for 

reference:

 a. Cold Deserts

i. Frigid bordering on Cryic/Ustic bordering on Aridic (Cool bordering on Cold, Summer Moist bordering on Dry) 

Representative Area: Wyoming Basin—MLRA 34A in Wyoming 

west of continental divide into Rich County, Utah; Note: More 

applicable to Dillon Area than the Great Basin as described in 

Chambers et al. (2014a).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 119

Status of ESDs: Wyoming has draft Land Resource Unit concepts developed and a couple of contemporary STMs in Wyoming 

plus older vintage examples

1. R034AC122WY_LoamyPP_Provisional2014cold

2. R034AC150WY_SandyPP_Provisional2014cold

3. R034AY222WY_Loamy10-14W_Provisional2005

4. R034AY250WY_Sandy10-14W_Provisional2005

ii. Frigid/Ustic bordering on Aridic (Cool, Summer Moist bordering 

on Dry) 

Representative Area: Wyoming Basin—MLRA 34A in Wyoming’s 

lower Green River Basin (west of continental divide) and Great 

Divide Basin 

Status of ESDs: In Wyoming, 1 contemporary draft STM and 

older vintage sites; in Utah a contemporary draft STM

1. R034AF122WY_LoamyBR_DRAFT2015

2. R034AI122WY_LoamyPV_DRAFT2015warm

3. R034AY322WY_Loamy10-14SE_Provisional2005

4. R034AY350WY_Sandy10-14SE_Provisional2005

5. R046XA122WY_Loamy10-14E-Frigid_DRAFT-ALL

iii. Frigid/Aridic bordering on Ustic (Cool, Dry bordering on 

Summer Moist) 

Representative Area: Wyoming Basin—MLRA 34A in Green 

River Basin (west of continental divide) and Great Divide Basin 

Status of ESDs: In Wyoming, 1 contemporary draft STM and 

older vintage sites plus into Utah a contemporary draft STM

1. R034AB122WY_LoamyGR_DRAFT2015

2. R034AY122WY_LoamyGR_Provisional2005

3. R034AY150WY_SandyGR_Provisional2005

4. R034AY220UT_Semi-desertLoam_DRAFT

iv. Mesic/Ustic bordering on Aridic (Warm, Summer Moist bordering on Dry) 

Representative Area: Wyoming Basin—MLRA 32 foothills in 

Wyoming, MLRA 34B and 36 in Colorado and Utah; potential 

Gunnison sage-grouse; Potential for juniper or pinyon-juniper 

invasion. This is 10-14” ppt in Wyoming, but 12 to 16” ppt in 

Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico

Status of ESDs: Contemporary vintage STMs in Colorado and 

Wyoming

1. R032XD122WY_Loamy10-14BH_Provisional2014 

2. R034AY289CO_ClayeyFoothhills_DRAFT- – is really 

a 36 site –miss labeled in NASIS 

3. R036XY284CO – Loamy Foothills 

4. R036XY306UT_UplandLoam_2008Prov

v. Mesic/Aridic-Typic (Warm, Dry) 

Representative Area: Wyoming Basin—LRA 32 in Wyoming 

(Bighorn and Wind River Basins) ONLY 
120 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Status of ESDs: 1 contemporary STM and older examples of 

STMs included; Utah and Colorado sites in this zone are salt desert shrub sites and outside scope of analysis (no big sage)

1. R032XA122WY_Loamy5-9BH_Provisional2014

2. R032XY150WY_Sandy5-9BH_Provisional2005

3. R032XY222WY_Loamy5-9WR_Provisional2005

4. R032XY250WY_Sandy5-9WR_Provisional2005

vi. Mesic/Aridic bordering on Ustic (Warm, Dry bordering on 

Summer Moist) 

Representative Area: Wyoming Basin and Colorado Plateau—

MLRAs 32 foothills in Wyoming and MLRA 34B and 36 in 

Colorado and Utah; Gunnison sage-grouse potential in Colorado

Status of ESDs: Wyoming has a couple contemporary STMs and 

MLRA 34B in Utah and Colorado have some contemporary draft 

STMs

1. R032XY124WY_LoamyCalc10-14E_Provisional2014

2. R034A-BY327CO_SemidesertLoam_RangeSiteOnly

3. R034BY212UT_SemidesertLoam_DRAFT 

vii. Frigid bordering on Mesic/Ustic-Typic (Cool bordering on 

Warm, Summer Moist) 

Representative Area: Colorado Plateau—MLRA 48A/34A 

Piceance Basin-Book Cliffs in Colorado/Utah (This zone is treated as 48A, but some 34A shows on map); Gunnsion sage-grouse 

potential

Status of ESDs: Colorado has a draft contemporary STM 

1. R034AY285CO_FoothillSwale_DRAFT2014

 b. Western Cordillera

i. Cryic/Ustic-Typic (Cold, Summer Moist) 

Representative Area: Middle and Southern Rockies – MLRAs 

46/43B Foothills in Wyoming & Montana; MLRA 48A in 

Wyoming and Northern Colorado (north of Colorado River/I-70); 

MLRA 49 in Wyoming (not in Colorado); potential Gunnison 

sage-grouse in Colorado

Status of ESDs: MLRA 43B has contemporary draft STM from 

Idaho and older vintage from Wyoming; MLRA 49 has older vintage STM from Wyoming; MLRA 48 DRAFT site in Wyoming

1. R043BY009ID_Loamy 16-20_DRAFT

2. R043BY222WY_Loamy15-19W_Provisional2007

3. R043BY322WY_Loamy15-19E_Provisional2007

4. R048AY122WY_Loamy15-19SE_DRAFT

5. R049XA122WY_Loamy15-19SE_Provisional2008

ii. Cryic/Udic (Cold, Wet) 

Representative Area: Middle and Southern Rockies—MLRA 43B 

in Wyoming and Montana; areas of 48A in Colorado; MLRA 

47 (Wasatch north and south) high mountain valleys; potential 

Gunnison sage-grouse in Colorado
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 121

Status of ESDs: MLRA 43B has contemporary draft STM from 

Idaho and older vintage from Wyoming; MLRA 47 has contemporary STM from Utah and DRAFT site in 48A in Colorado 

1. R043BY003ID_Loamy 22+_DRAFT

2. R043BY122WY_Loamy20M_Provisional2007

3. R047XA516UT_HighMtnLoam_Provisional2012

4. R048AY250CO_SubalpineLoam_2015DRAFT

iii. Frigid/Ustic-Typic (Cool, Summer Moist) 

Representative Area: Middle Rockies—Uinta Mountains (MLRA 

47 LRU C) in Utah and Wyoming; Southern Rockies in Colorado 

and Utah – MLRA 48A south of Colorado River and I-70; potential Gunnison sage-grouse in Colorado

Status of ESDs: MLRA 47 has site concept with no STM from 

Utah, closest thing with an STM is a site that is more xeric; 

MLRA 48A has a draft contemporary STM from Colorado and 

another site concept from Utah with no STM

1. R047XA430UT_MtnLoam-Provisional2012Xeric

2. R047XC430UT_MtnLoam-Provisional-noSTM

3. R048A228CO_MountainLoam_2015DRAFT

4. R048A247CO_DeepClayLoam_2015DRAFT

5. R048AY405UT_MtnLoam_Provisional-noSTM

iv. Frigid/Xeric (Cool, Winer Moist) – MLRA 47 Wasatch 

Mountains – this regime was covered in Chambers et al. (2014a) 

so no analysis was conducted

 c. West-Central Semiarid Prairies

i. Frigid bordering on Cryic/Ustic bordering on Aridic (Cool bordering on Cold, Summer Moist bordering on Dry) 

Representative Area: Northwestern Glaciated Plains—MLRA 52 

in northern Montana 

Status of ESDs: MLRAs 52 has several draft contemporary 

STMS representing the cooler phase of Frigid with more summer 

precipitation

1. R052XC205MT_Clayey_10_to_14_inch_

pz_2005DraftCool

2. R052XC206MT_Dense_Clay_10_to_14_inch_

pz_2005DraftCool

3. R052XC217MT_Silty_10_to_14_inch_

pz_2005DraftCool

ii. Frigid/Ustic bordering on Aridic (Cool, Summer Moist bordering 

on Dry) 

Representative Area: Northwestern Great Plains—LRA 58A in 

Montana and 58D in South Dakota, 58C in North Dakota
122 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Status of ESDs: MLRA 58A, LRU C and LRU E represents most 

of eastern Montana with older vintage STMs; MLRA 58D has 

STMs from South Dakota to represent this regime (vintage?)

1. R058AC041MT_Clayey11-14ppz_Provisional

2. R058AC052MT_DenseClay11-14ppz_Provisional

3. R058AC054MT_Claypan11-14ppz_Provisional

4. R058AE002MT_Clayey10-14ppz_Provisional

5. R058DY011SD_Clayey_Provisional2009

6. R058DY013SD_Claypan_Provisional2010

7. R058DY015SD_ThinClaypan_Provisional2010

iii. Frigid/Ustic-Typic (Cool, Summer Moist) 

Representative Area: Northwestern Great Plains—MLRA 60A in 

South Dakota 

Status of ESDs: MLRA 54 has contemporary STM from North 

Dakota that may be applicable; MLRA 60A has several STMs 

from South Dakota (age uncertain)

1. R054XY021ND_Claypan_Provisional2011

2. R060AY011SD_Clayey-13-16ppz_Provisional2012

3. R060AY015SD_ThinClaypan_Provisional2012

4. R060AY018SD_DenseClay_Provisional2012

5. R060AY025SD_ShallowDenseClay_Provisional2012

iv. Mesic/Ustic bordering on Aridic (Warm, Summer Moist bordering on Dry) 

Representative Area: Northwestern Great Plains—drier portions 

of MLRA 58B in Wyoming, but could also apply to warmer portions of MLRA 58A, LRU C in Montana

Status of ESDs: MLRA 58B has older vintage STMs from 

Wyoming

1. R058BY104WY_Clayey10-14NP_Provisional2005

2. R058BY122WY_Loamy10-14NP_Provisional2005

3. R058BY158WY_ShallowClayey10-14NP_

Provisional2005

4. R058BY162WY_ShallowLoamy10-14NP_

Provisional2005

v. Mesic/Ustic-Typic (Warm, Summer Moist) 

Representative Area: Northwestern Great Plains—wetter portions 

of MLRA 58B in Wyoming near Black Hills 

Status of ESDs: MLRA 58B has older vintage STMs from 

Wyoming

R058BY222WY_Loamy15-17NP_Provisional2005
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 123

Appendix A4. Data Sources for the Maps in This Report

Annually tilled agriculture (cropland)

Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. 

2014. Published crop-specific data layer. UDSA-NASS, Washington, DC. http://

nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ [Accessed 16 Sept 2015].

Ecoregions

Source: U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Level II and III Ecoregions 

of North America. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregions-north-america

[Accessed 16 Sep 2015].

Precipitation and temperature data—30 year normals.

Source: PRISM Climate Group, Northwest Alliance for Computational Science 

and Engineering. 2016. 30-year Normals. http://prism.oregonstate.edu/normals

[Accessed 16 Sept 2015]. 

Fire perimeters—Geomac

Source: Walters, S.P.; Schneider, N.J.; Guthrie, J.D. 2011. Geospatial MultiAgency Coordination (GeoMAC) wildland fire perimeters, 2008. Data Series 612. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 6 p. 

http://www.geomac.gov/ [Accessed 1 Feb 2016].

Fire perimeters—MTBS

Source: Eidenshink, J.; Schwind, B.; Brewer, K.; [et al.]. 2007. A project for 

monitoring trends in burn severity: Fire Ecology. 3: 3–21. http://www.mtbs.gov/

nationalregional/burnedarea.html [Accessed 15 Sept 2015].

Greater sage-grouse breeding habitat model

Source: Doherty, K.E.; Evans, J.S.; Coates, P.S.; [et al.]. 2015. Importance of 

regional variation in conservation planning and defining thresholds for a declining 

species: A range-wide example of the greater sage-grouse. https://www.sciencebase.

gov/catalog/folder/560ea672e4b0ba4884c5ebb7 [Accessed 6 Oct 2015].

Greater sage-grouse population index model

Source: Doherty, K.E.; Evans, J.S.; Coates, P.S.; [et al.]. 2015. Importance of 

regional variation in conservation planning and defining thresholds for a declining 

species: A range-wide example of the greater sage-grouse. https://www.sciencebase.

gov/catalog/folder/560ea65de4b0ba4884c5ebb5 [Accessed 6 Oct 2015].

Greater sage-grouse lek data

Source: Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)

Contact: Tom Remington, WAFWA, 2700 W. Airport Way, Boise, ID 83705; remingtontom@msn.com.

Gunnison sage-grouse lek data

Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Contacts: Kathy Griffin, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 711 Independent 

Ave., Grand Junction, CO 81505; kathy.griffin@state.co.us; Avery Cook, Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 

84116; averycook@utah.gov.
124 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Gunnison sage-grouse range plus linkages shapefile

Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources [UDWR] 2012. Gunnison sagegrouse habitat GIS shapefiles for occupied and vacant-unknown habitat. Last 

updated March 2012. http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/downloadgis/disclaim.htm

[Accessed 7 June 2016].

Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2015. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

and linkage zones. Last updated November 2015. http://www.fws.gov/coloradoes/

GUSG/ [Accessed December 2015].

Human disturbance

Source: Human disturbance percent developed imperviousness: U.S. Geological 

Survey. 2014. NLCD 2011 Percent Developed Imperviousness (2011 Edition, 

amended 2014). Sioux Falls, SD: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey. http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_data.php [Accessed 11 May 2016]

Land cover—conifer (GRSG)

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. LANDFIRE 1.3.0 Existing 

Vegetation Type layer. Updated 12/17/2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Geological Survey. http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [Accessed 26 

Aug 2015].

Land cover—conifer (GUSG)

Source: Falkowski, M.J.; Evans, J.S.; Naugle, D.E.; [et al.]. [In press]. Mapping 

tree canopy cover in support of proactive prairie grouse conservation in western 

North America. Rangeland Ecology and Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

rama.2016.08.002 [Accessed 1 11511 5151].

Land cover—sagebrush

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. LANDFIRE 1.3.0 Existing 

Vegetation Type layer. Updated 12/17/2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Geological Survey. http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [Accessed 26 

Aug 2015].

Land ownership

Source: Surface Management Agency. Complied and maintained by the 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2015. http://www.geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm/ [Accessed 7 May 2016]. 

Oil and gas wells

Source: Point density analysis conducted by the Bureau of Land Management and 

derived from AFMSS currently active oil and gas well points 2015; IHS currently 

active oil and gas well points 2015. https://www.ihs.com/products/us-well-data.html

[Accessed 11 May 2016].

Roads

Source: Line density analysis conducted by the Bureau of Land Management and 

derived from ESRI street maps premium. Copyright © 1995–2014 ESRI. All rights 

reserved. Published in the United States of America. Online: http://www.esri.com/

data/streetmap [Accessed 11 May 2016].
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 125

Soil data (SSURGO)

Source: Soil Survey Staff. 2014a. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://

sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/ [Accessed 3 Oct 2015].

Soil data (STATSGO)

Source: Soil Survey Staff. 2014b. Soil Survey Geographic (STATSGO2) 

Database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

http://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/ [Accessed 3 Oct 2015].

 Soil temperature and moisture regime

Source: Campbell, S.B. 2016. Soil temperature and moisture regimes across 

sage-grouse range. Data product. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/

item/538e5aa9e4b09202b547e56c [Accessed 10 May 2016].
126 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Appendix A5. Explanation of the Use of Landscape 

Measures to Describe Sagebrush Habitat

Understanding landscape concepts of plant cover relative to typical management 

concepts of plant cover is important for prioritizing lands for management of sagegrouse. Ground-based measurements of sagebrush canopy cover (for example, using 

line-intercept measurements) should not be confused with landscape cover due to 

vast differences in measurement scale (e.g., square meters for management units 

and square kilometers for landscapes).

A landscape is defined rather arbitrarily as a large area in total spatial extent, 

somewhere in size between sites (acres or square miles) and regions (100,000s 

of square miles). The basic unit of a landscape is a patch, which is defined as a 

bounded area characterized by a similar set of conditions. A habitat patch, for example, may be the polygonal area on a map representing a single land cover type. 

Landscapes are composed of a mosaic of patches. The arrangement of these patches 

(the landscape configuration or pattern) has a large influence on the way a landscape 

functions and for landscape species, such as sage-grouse, sagebrush habitat patches 

are extremely important for predicting if this bird will be present within the area 

(Connelly et al. 2011).

Remotely sensed data of land cover is typically used to represent landscapes. 

These data may combine several sources of data and may include ancillary data, 

such as elevation, to improve the interpretation of data. These data are organized 

into pixels that contain a size or grain of land area. For example, Landsat Thematic 

Mapper spectral data used in determining vegetation cover generally have pixels 

that represent ground areas of 900 m2

 (30 m x 30 m). Each pixel’s spectral signature can be interpreted to determine what type of vegetation dominates that pixel. 

Groups of adjacent pixels with the same dominant vegetation are clustered together 

into polygons that form patches. 

Landscape cover of sagebrush is determined initially by using this vegetation 

cover map, but a “rolling window” of a predetermined size (e.g., 5 km2

 or 5,556 

pixels that are 30 m by 30 m in size) is then moved across the region one pixel at a 

time to smooth the data. In this process, the central pixel of the “window” is reassigned a value equal to the proportion of pixels in the window for which sagebrush 

is the dominant vegetation. The process is repeated until the value for each pixel 

within the analysis region has been reassigned to represent the landscape cover of 

sagebrush within a 5-km2

 window.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 127

Appendix A6. State-and-Transition Models for the 

Predominant Sagebrush Ecological Types in the WestCentral Semiarid Prairies, Western Cordillera, and Cold 

Desert 

The characteristics and relative resilience and resistance of the ecological types 

in the state-and-transition models are in table 3. Large boxes illustrate states that 

are comprised of community phases (smaller boxes). Transitions among states are 

shown with arrows starting with T; restoration pathways are shown with arrows 

starting with R. The “at risk” community phase is most vulnerable to transition to an 

alternative state.

T5

R5

1a

1b

2

3

Altered/Seeded State

Clubmoss State

 Sagebrush increases and proporon of cool

 season mid-grass Funconal/Structural Group

decreases due to disturbances such as drought (3-5

years) and spring grazing.

 Normal precipitaon paerns favor herbaceous

 understory. Grazing intensity and/or duraon is

reduced to allow for herb recovery.

 Sagebrush increases and proporon of cool and

 warm season mid-and short-grass Funconal/

Structural Groups increases due to prolonged drought

(5-7 years), increased grazing intensity and duraon, and

lack of fire. Plant community is at-risk of leaving

reference state with extended drought and connued

grazing pressure.

 With favorable precipitaon, disturbance such as

 fire, and a grazing system that provides rest and

recovery of preferred species, cool season mid-grass

Funconal/Structural Groups increase.

 Extended drought (>7 years) along with high 

 intensity and long duraon grazing result in

transion to a state resistant to grazing that is

dominated by cool and warm season short-grass

Funconal/Structural Groups. Silver sagebrush cover is

at its highest, and early seral forbs are present. There is

potenal for invasive species such as field brome in high

moisture years and/or due to removal of grazing, lack of

fire, and other condions causing accumulaon of

excessive lier.

 Normal precipitaon paerns, fire or fire surrogates

 (herbicides and/or mechanical treatments), and a

grazing regime with proper ming and intensity that varies

season of use can return the site to the reference state.

 Extended drought (>7 years) may result in dense

 stands of clubmoss. However, no grazing, light

grazing, and rotaonal grazing combined with drought

can result in more rapid increase in clubmoss than

drought alone. Lack of fire may contribute to this

transion as well. Potenal for invasives such as field

brome is minor, and this transion occurs more oen on

older, more developed soils with an argillic horizon.

 Extended periods of normal and above average

 precipitaon, mechanical renovaon, chemical

treatment, ferlizer/manure applicaon, seeding (if an

adequate seedbank does not exist), fire, and/or periods

of rest or light grazing can return the site to the

reference state.

 Former cropland seeded to introduced and/or

 nave perennial grasses, largely funded by

government programs. In the 1960-1970s seedings were

primarily introduced species such as crested wheatgrass,

intermediate wheatgrass, and smooth brome. From

1985 to present both introduced and nave species were

used, mainly under the Conservaon Reserve Program.

Sagebrush is largely absent from this state. There is

potenal for invasive species such as field brome in high

moisture years and/or due to removal of grazing, lack of

fire, and other condions that would result in an

accumulaon of excessive lier.

A.6.1 WEST CENTRAL SEMIARID PRAIRIES

FRIGID BORDERING ON CRYIC/USTIC BORDERING ON ARIDIC

GRASS DOMINATED W/ SILVERSAGEBRUSH (10-14 IN PZ)

High Resilience and Resistance

Perennial Cool Season

Mid-and Warm Season

Short Grasses/Perennial

Forbs/Sagebrush

Perennial Cool Season

Mid-Grasses/Perennial

Forbs/Sagebrush 

Reference State

Unsustainable

Grazing State

T6

Perennial Warm Season

Short-and Cool Season MidGrasses /Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Sagebrush (at-risk)

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season ShortGrasses/ Annual and

Perennial

Forbs/Sagebrush/

Invasives

Go Back Land

(former cropland,

seeded to perennial

grasses)

Clubmoss/Perennial

Cool and Warm

Season ShortGrasses/Early

Successional Forbs/

Minor Invasives

R4 T4

1a

1b

2

3

T4

R4

T5

R5

T6
128 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

T7

T6

R5 T5

R4

T4

1b

1a

Altered/Seeded State

Grazing Resistant

without Fire State

 Proporon of cool and warm season tall and mid-grass

 Funconal/Structural Groups decreases due to

disturbances such as drought and spring grazing with a lack of

disturbances such as fire.

 Fire and normal precipitaon paerns favor herbaceous

 understory. Reduced grazing intensity and/or duraon

allows for herbaceous recovery.

 Extended drought, high intensity and long duraon

 grazing, and a normal fire regime or fire surrogate

(herbicides and/or mechanical treatments) will result in a

transion to a grazing resistant state dominated by warm and

cool season short-grass Funconal/Structural Groups and silver

sagebrush and prickly pear cactus. Forbs are early seral.

 Normal precipitaon paerns and proper ming and

 intensity of grazing that varies season of use can return the

site to the reference state. Mechanical treatments are oen

used to renovate and return the site to one resembling the

reference state.

 Extended drought, high intensity and long duraon grazing,

 and lack of fire will result in a transion to a grazing resistant

state dominated by short-statured warm and cool season grasses.

Forbs are early seral.

 Extended periods of normal precipitaon, possibly seeding

 (if an adequate seedbank does not exist), mechanical

renovaon, and reduced grazing pressure that varies season of

use can return the site to one resembling the reference state.

 Introducon of fire results in loss of Wyoming big sagebrush

 and an increase in silver sagebrush. Connued high intensity

and long duraon grazing results in the increase of undesirable

species like prickly pear cactus.

 Former cropland seeded to introduced and/or nave

 perennial grasses, largely funded by government programs.

In the 1960-1970s seedings were primarily introduced species

such as crested wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, and

smooth brome. From 1985 to present seedings used both

introduced and nave species, mainly under the Conservaon

Reserve Program. An invaded plant community is possible if

seed source is introduced or adjacent to area. Dominant species

include field brome, smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, thistles,

bindweed, knapweed, leafy spurge, hoary cress, and other

introduced weedy species. Sagebrush is largely absent from

this state.

A.6.2 WEST CENTRAL SEMIARID PRAIRIES

FRIGID/USTIC GRASS DOMINATED (13-18 IN PZ)

Moderate to High Resilience and Resistance

Reference State

Unsustainable Grazing

with Fire State

Go Back Land

ALL STATES

Invaded

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season Mid-and

Short-Grasses/

Perennial Forbs/Minor

silver sagebrush

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season Tall and

Mid-Grasses/

Perennial Forbs/Minor

silver sagebrush

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season ShortGrasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs/ silver

sagebrush/Prickly

pear cactus

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season ShortGrasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Sagebrush

1a

1b

T4

R4

T5

R5

T6

T7
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 129

R3

T3

T4

R2 T2

1b

1a

Altered/Seeded State

Non-fire State

 Sagebrush decreases due to fire and normal

 precipitaon pa
erns that favor the herbaceous

understory. Grazing intensity and/or duraon is reduced

to allow for herbaceous recovery.

 Sagebrush increases and proporon of cool season

 grasses decrease due to disturbances such as drought

and grazing, along with a lack of disturbances such as fire.

 Prolonged drought, improper grazing, and frequent

 sagebrush control using fire or fire surrogates

(herbicides and/or mechanical treatments) will result in

transion to a grazing resistant state dominated by warm

and cool season short-and sod-forming grass Funconal/

Structural Groups and undesirable species such as prickly

pear cactus. Invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass, field

brome) can occur in disturbed areas. Field brome invasion

can occur in undisturbed rangelands at the upper end of

the precipitaon range.

 Normal precipitaon pa
erns, reducing the

 frequency and severity of disturbances that kill

sagebrush, and proper ming and intensity grazing

regime that varies season of use can return the site to the

reference state.

 Extended drought, frequent and severe grazing, and

 removal of fire and fire surrogates (herbicides and/or

mechanical treatments) will result in transion to a state

dominated by sagebrush with minor warm and cool

season short-grass and forb Funconal/Structural Groups.

Invasion can occur as bare ground increases in sagebrush

canopy interspacesin disturbed areas.

 Extended periods of normal precipitaon, treatment

 with fire surrogates, seeding (if adequate seedbank

does not exist), and reduced grazing pressure that varies

season of use can return the site to the reference state.

 Former cropland that has been seeded to introduced

 and/or nave perennial grasses, largely funded by

government programs. In the 1960-1970s seedings were

primarily introduced species such as crested wheatgrass,

intermediate wheatgrass, and smooth brome. From 1985

to present both introduced and nave grasses were used,

mainly under the Conservaon Reserve Program.

Sagebrush is largely absent.

A.6.3 WEST CENTRAL SEMIARID PRAIRIES

FRIGID/USTIC BORDERING ON ARIDIC

WYOMING BIG SAGEBRUSH (10-14 IN PZ)

Moderate to High Resilience and Resistance

Reference State

Unsustainable

Grazing State Go Back Land

(former cropland,

seeded to perennial

grasses)

Sagebrush/Perennial

Cool and Warm Season

Grasses/

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season

Grasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season

Grasses, sodforming/Annual and

Perennial Forbs

Heavy Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season

Grasses/ Perennial

Forbs

1a

1b

T2

R2

T3

R3

T4
130 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

1a

1b

T2

R2 R3

T3

T6

T5

T4

Altered/Seeded State

Non-fire State

 Sagebrush increases and proporon of cool season

 grasses decrease due to disturbances such as

drought and grazing with a lack of disturbances such

as fire.

 Sagebrush decreases due to fire and normal

 precipitaon paerns that favor an herbaceous

understory. Reduced grazing intensity and/or duraon

allows for herbaceous recovery.

 Extended drought, frequent and severe grazing,

 and frequent sagebrush control using fire or fire

surrogates result in a transion to a grazing resistant

state dominated by warm and cool season short-and

sod-forming grass Funconal/Structural Groups and

undesirable species such as prickly pear cactus. Invasion

of cheatgrass and/or field brome can occur.

 Normal precipitaon that reduces the frequency

 and severity of sagebrush killing disturbances, and

proper ming and intensity grazing that varies season of

use can return the site to the reference state.

 Extended drought, frequent and severe grazing, and

 removal of fire and fire surrogates will result in

transion to a state dominated by sagebrush with minor

warm and cool season short-grass and forb Funconal/

Structural Groups. Invasion oen occurs as bare ground

increases in sagebrush canopy interspaces.

 Extended periods of normal precipitaon, treatment

 with fire surrogates, seeding (if adequate seedbank

does not exist), and reduced grazing pressure that varies

season of use can return the site to the reference state.

 Former cropland that has been seeded to introduced

 and/or nave perennial grasses, largely funded by

government programs. In the 1960-1970s seedings were

primarily introduced species such as crested wheatgrass,

intermediate wheatgrass, and smooth brome. From 1985

to present seedings used both introduced and nave

grasses, mainly under the Conservaon Reserve Program.

Sagebrush is largely absent.

 Fire and fire surrogates, followed by warm and

 wet springs and year-long grazing can result in an

 invaded state co-dominated by annual grasses

 (cheatgrass) and short-stature warm and cool

season perennial grasses. Shrubs are largely absent.

A.6.4 WEST CENTRAL SEMIARID PRAIRIES

MESIC/USTIC BORDERING ON ARIDIC

WYOMING BIG SAGEBRUSH (10-14 IN PZ)

Low to Moderate Resilience and Resistance

Reference State

Unsustainable

Grazing State

Go Back Land

(former cropland,

seeded to

perennial grasses)

Invaded State

Sagebrush/Perennial

Cool and Warm Season

Grasses/

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season

Grasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season

Grasses, sodforming/Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Invasives

Heavy Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool and

Warm Season

Grasses/ Perennial

Forbs/Invasives

Perennial Warm and

Cool Season Grasses -

Invasives

1a

1b

T2

R2

T3

R3

T4

T5

T6
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 131

R5 T5 R4

T4

2b

2a

3b 3a

1

T8

Sagebrush/

sproung shrubs

perennial grass/forb

Reference State

Sproung Shrub State

Grazing Resistant State

 Perennial grass, forbs and sproung shrubs increase and

 dominate due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush,

primarily wildfire.

 Sagebrush and other shrubs increase with me unl

 co-dominant with herbaceous species.

 Perennial grass, forbs, and sproung shrubs increase due to

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush, e.g., wildfire, insects,

and disease.

 Sagebrush and other shrubs increase with me.

 Perennial grass, forbs, and sproung shrubs increase due to

 minor disturbances that decrease sagebrush like cool fire,

insects, and disease.

 Connuous grazing with cale during the crical growth

 period of cool season grasses results in dominance of

sagebrush and an increase in grazing tolerant nave forbs (e.g.,

lupine, pussy-toes). As bare ground increases, surface erosion

(e.g., rills, sheet erosion) may occur, resulng in loss of the

surface soil horizon, and pedestalled plants.

 Sagebrush treatment via chemical, mechanical, or prescribed

 fire combined with a grazing system that allows periodic

deferment during the crical growth period can result in return

to the reference.

 Increased disturbance frequency and/or intensity (e.g., fire,

 fire surrogates, and/or mechanical types of disturbance,

and/or high density/frequency grazing) will result in dominance

of root-sproung shrubs.

 Removal of disturbances and a grazing regime that allows

 for adequate rest and recovery of nave perennial grasses

and forbs can eventually result in a return to the reference state.

 Perennial cool season short-stature bunchgrasses and

 rhizomatous grasses, mat-forming forbs, and sproung

shrubs increase in dominance due to disturbances that decreased

sagebrush (e.g., wildfire, insects, disease).

 Sagebrush, non-browsed shrubs, and mat-forming forbs

 increase with me.

 An increase in disturbance frequency, fire, fire surrogates,

 mechanical types of disturbance and/or high density/

frequency grazing will result in dominance of root-sproung shrubs.

 Introducon of grazingtolerant non-nave species, such as

 Kentucky bluegrass during homesteading days or smooth

brome during reclamaon results in transion to this state.

 Grazing tolerant non-nave species are seeded, and

 disturbances are removed reducing sagebrush.

 Sagebrush and other shrubs increase.

 Perennial grass, forbs, and sproung shrubs increase due to

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush (e.g., wildfire,

insects, disease).

 Sproung shrubs, forbs, and non-nave perennial grasses

 increase due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush (e.g.,

wildfire, insects, disease) or treatments that remove or

reduce sagebrush.

 Sagebrush and other shrubs increase.

 High levels of fuel reducon through grazing and fire

 suppression can lead to conifer expansion outside the

normal range of variability for a site.

 Above average precipitaon and/or reduced grazing

 pressure allow fine fuel accumulaon, and the use of fire

or fire surrogates can result in return to the Grazing Resistant

State, but return to the Reference State is only achievable

through (R4) with the appropriate grazing prescripon.

A.6.5 WESTERN CORDILLERA – CRYIC/TYPIC USTIC

MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH/

MIXED MOUNTAIN SHRUBS (15 -19 IN+ PZ)

High Resilience and Resistance

Altered/Seeded State

Wooded State

Conifer Expansion

Perennial cool

season bunch

grasses/annual and

perennial forbs/

sproung shrubs

Perennial cool

season bunch

grasses-sproung

shrubs-sagebrush/

 perennial forbs

Root-sproung

shrubs/perennial

cool season

grasses/annual and

perennial forbs

Root-sproung

shrubs/Perennial

cool season

grasses/annual and

perennial forbs/

sagebrush

Sagebrush/root

sproung shrubs,

perennial cool

season short-stature

bunchgrasses and

rhizomatous

grasses/mat-forming

forbs

Perennial cool

season short-stature

and rhizomatous

grasses/mat-forming

forbs/

Sagebrush - root

sproung shrubs

Sagebrush/root

sproung shrubs/

non-nave Perennial

grass

Sproung shrubs/

annual and

perennial forbs/

non-nave Perennial

grass

T7

10a 10b

6b 6a

11a 11b

T9

T12 T13

1

2a

2b

3a

3b

T4

R4

T5

R5

6b

6a

T7

T8

T9

10a

10b

11a

11b

T12

T13
132 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

15

2a

3a

3b

1

Altered/Seeded State

Eroded State

 Perennial grass, sproung shrubs, and forbs become

 dominant due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush like

prolonged or severe drought, freezing, flooding, wildfire, insects,

disease, and pathogens. Fire is rare.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl it is co-dominant with

 the herbaceous understory.

 Perennial grass, sproung shrubs, and forbs become

 dominant due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush like

prolonged or severe drought, freezing, flooding, wildfire, insects,

disease, and pathogens.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl dominant.

 Perennial grass and forbs increase due to minor

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Connuous spring grazing during the crical growth period

 of cool season grasses results in dominance of grazing

tolerant species, like short-statured bunchgrasses (e.g. Sandberg

bluegrass) and rhizomatous species. As bare ground increases,

surface erosion (e.g., rills, sheet erosion) and pedestalled plants

(especially bunchgrasses) result.

 Light to moderate grazing with periodic rest during crical

 growth periods along with fire, herbicides, and/or

mechanical treatments result in return to reference state.

 An increase in fire, fire surrogates, mechanical disturbance,

 and/or high density/frequency grazing results in disturbanceadapted sproung shrubs like rabbitbrush.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl dominant.

 Grazing tolerant perennial cool season grasses increase

 due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Perennial grasses and forbs are eliminated and sagebrush

 increases with high density/frequency grazing by cale,

resulng in altered bioc, hydrologic, and soil funcon. This state

is at-risk of invasion by annuals aer a catastrophic sagebrush

killing event.

 Chemical or mechanical treatments to reduce sagebrush in

 the 1940s through 70s followed by improper stocking rates

and seasons of use resulted in a shi toward sproung shrubs,

such as rabbitbrush.

 Sagebrush increases with removal of disturbances over

 me unl co-dominant with sproung shrubs.

 Perennial cool season grasses and sproung shrubs

 increase due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Chemical or mechanical treatments to reduce sagebrush in

 the 1940s through 70s followed by improper stocking rates

and seasons of use resulted in a shi toward sproung shrubs,

such as rabbitbrush.

 All states are subject to disturbance from oil and gas

 exploraon or other mechanical disturbances that remove

surface soils. Restoraon success on good soil management,

proper seeding techniques, and weather. Due to nave seed

availability, grass and shrubs can be restored, but forb diversity

and applicability to site condions can be a liming factor for

bioc integrity. Something resembling the reference state may

be achieved with key differences in soil and hydrologic funcon.

 Many abandoned oil and gas wells without proper

 reclamaon pracces (no top soil management/replacement

or seeding) from the 1980s are now in the Eroded State.

 Sagebrush increases with me and no disturbances unl

 co-dominant with the herbaceous understory.

 Perennial grass and forbs become dominant due to

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Sagebrush increases with no disturbances over me.

 Perennial grass and forbs become dominant due to minor

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Annual forbs become dominant due to disturbances that

 remove exisng perennial vegetaon.

A.6.6 COLD DESERTS – FRIGID BORDERING ON

CRYIC/USTIC BORDERING ON ARIDIC

WYOMING BIG SAGEBRUSH (9-14 IN PZ)

Moderate to Low Resilience and Moderately High Resistance

Reference State

Perennial cool season 

rhizomatous & short 

grasses/sagebrush

a 6

Grazing Resistant State

9b

Sproung Shrub State

Annual Forbs/Bare

Ground

Perennial grassesSagebrush/

Sagebrush/

Perennial Grasses

All States

Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/Sproung

Shrubs/

Annual and Perennial

Forbs

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses-Sagebrush/

Perennial Forbs

Sagebrush/

Perennial cool season

rhizomatous & short

grasses/mat-forming

forbs

Sagebrush/Bare

Ground/

(at-risk phase)

Sproung Shrubs/

Perennial cool season

grasses/annuals

Sproung ShrubsSagebrush/

Perennial cool season

grasses

2b

T4

R4

T5

6a 6b

T7

T8

14a 14b

T12

T10

9b 9a

R11

13a 13b

13a

13b

14a

14b

15

R11

T10

9a

9b

T8

T7

6b

6a

T5

R4

T4

3b

3a

2b

2a

1

T12
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 133

15

T11

3a

Invaded State

Altered/Seeded State

Sagebrush/Bare

Ground/

(at-risk phase)

Eroded State

 Perennial grass, sproung shrubs, and forbs become

 dominant due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush like

prolonged or severe drought, freezing, flooding, wildfire, insects,

disease, and pathogens.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl co-dominant with the

 herbaceous understory.

 Perennial grass, sproung shrubs, and forbs become

 dominant due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl dominant.

 Perennial grass and forbs increase due to disturbances that

 decrease sagebrush.

 Connuous spring grazing with cale during the crical

 growth period of cool season grasses results in dominance

of grazing tolerant species that may include warm season grasses

(e.g., blue grama). As bare ground increases, surface erosion

(e.g., rills, sheet erosion) and pedestalled plants (especially

bunchgrasses) may result.

 Light to moderate grazing with periodic rest during crical

 growth periods along with fire, herbicides, and/or

mechanical treatments can result in return to reference state.

 An increase in the disturbance cycle by fire, fire surrogates,

 mechanical types of disturbance, and/or high density/

frequency grazing will favor sproung shrubs such as rabbitbrush.

Annual invasives can occur.

 Sagebrush increases with me. Cheatgrass and other weeds

 can be present, but do not dominate.

 Perennial cool season grasses increase due to disturbances

 that decrease sagebrush. A temporary flush of annual

invaders is expected.

 Sagebrush increases with me and removal of disturbances

 unl co-dominant with herbaceous understory.

 Perennial cool season grasses and sproung shrubs

 increase due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Perennial grasses and forbs are eliminated and sagebrush

 increases with high density/frequency grazing by cale,

resulng in altered bioc, hydrologic, and soil funcon. This

state is at-risk to invasion by annuals such as cheatgrass,

especially aer a stand-replacing, sagebrush killing event.

 If a cheatgrass seed source is introduced, and weather

 condions are conducive to establishment (warm wet

spring), it will invade, especially aer a stand-replacing event

that eliminates sagebrush.

 Fire and fire surrogates that kill sagebrush will dramacally

 increase cheatgrass.

 Mulple chemical and/or mechanical treatments or

 biological disturbances that reduce sagebrush will result in

a shi toward sproung shrub dominance with potenal for

cheatgrass to invade.

 Catastrophic climac events and/or fire can result in

 cheatgrass dominance, especially when in the sagebrush

dominant phase of the altered state.

 A restoraon treatment, including chemical treatment for

 cheatgrass and seeding can restore a perennial grass

community and eventually support an altered sagebrush

community with invaders.

 Sagebrush increases with me and no disturbances unl

 co-dominant with the herbaceous understory, but

cheatgrass will be present.

 Perennial grass and forbs become dominant due to

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Sagebrush increases with me and no disturbances unl

 dominant, but cheatgrass may be present.

 Perennial grass and forbs become dominant due to minor

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Perennial grass and annual/perennial forbs become

 dominant due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

A.6.7 COLD DESERTS – FRIGID/USTIC BORDERING ON ARIDIC

WYOMING BIG SAGEBRUSH (10-14 IN PZ)

Moderate Resilience and Resistance

Reference State

a

Grazing Resistant State

Sproung Shrubs/

Perennial cool season

grasses/ Annuals

Sproung ShrubsSagebrush/

Perennial cool season

grasses

Sproung Shrub State

Sagebrush/

Annual invasives

Cheatgrass

Perennial grassesSagebrush/

Cheatgrass

Sagebrush/

Perennial Grasses/

Cheatgrass

(at-risk phase)

13a 13b

14a 14b

R12

7a 7b

T8

T9

6b 6a

T5 R4 T4

3b

2b 2a

1

T12

Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/

Minor Warm Season

Sod-forming Grasses/

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses-Sproung

Shrubs/Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Warm Season Sodforming Grasses

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses-Sagebrush/

Warm Season Sod-forming

Grasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs

Sagebrush/

Perennial cool season

rhizomatous, short

and/or sod-forming

warm season grasses/

mat-forming forbs

Perennial cool season

rhizomatous, short

and/or sod-forming

warm season grassesSagebrush

Perennial grasses/

Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Sproung Shrubs

Cheatgrass

10

1

2a

2b

3a

3b

T4

R4

T5

6a

6b

7a

7b

T8

T11

T12

R12

T9

10

13a

13b

14a

14b

15
134 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

14

8

3

1a

1b

2

T4 R4 T5

T7

Reference State

Phase II

Wooded State

Trees dominant

Bare ground

understory

Eroded State

 Disturbances such as wildfire, insects, disease, and

 pathogens result in less sagebrush and more perennial cool

season grasses, forbs, and sproung shrubs like rabbitbrush.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl dominant.

 Time without fire or fire surrogates combined with seed

 sources for piñon and/or juniper trigger a Phase I

Woodland invasion and an at-risk phase.

 Fire and/or fire surrogates (herbicides and/or mechanical

 treatments) that remove trees may restore perennial cool

season grasses and forbs, but these acvies oen also reduce

sagebrush temporarily.

 Increasing tree abundance results in a Phase II woodland

 with decreasing sagebrush cover due to compeon for

sunlight, water and nutrients, and a transion to a tree- dominated

state. Cheatgrass invasion is common during this transion.

 Fire and fire surrogates (herbicides and/or mechanical

 treatments) that remove trees may restore perennial cool

season grasses, annual/perennial forbs, and eventually sagebrush

dominance if treated during Phase II invasion.

 An increase in fire, fire surrogates, mechanical types of

 disturbance and/or high density/frequency grazing will favor

sproung shrubs like rabbitbrush. Cheatgrass oen invades.

 Removal of disturbances can result in a restored state over

 me. Seeding may be necessary depending on the type and

amount of disturbance.

 Infilling of trees and/or improper grazing can result in

 further increase in tree canopy cover, resulng in near complete

loss of sagebrush component, decreased perennial cool season

grasses, and increased risk of high severity crown fires.

Cheatgrass will likely increase with favorable climate condions.

 As crown canopy increases, all other vegetaon, including

 perennial understory and cheatgrass decrease unl trees are

almost the only remaining vegetaon.

 Seeding aer fire or fire surrogates may be necessary on

 sites with depleted perennial cool season grasses, forbs,

and shrubs. If soils are not highly altered and nave species

seeded, it is possible to transion to a state that is similar to the

Reference State, but with altered bioc funcon.

 Catastrophic fire without proper rehabilitaon can result

 in an abioc hydrologic and bioc threshold crossing to an

eroded state depending on soils, slope, and understory species.

Key soil properes can change, altering site potenal.

Cheatgrass dominates the system and it burns before perennial

vegetaon becomes established.

 Seeding aer catastrophic fire or fire surrogates will be

 necessary due to lack of a perennial cool season grass, forb,

and shrub seedbank. Seeding with nonnaves may decrease

annual invasives, but will also reduce nave species. Bioc and

hydrologic funcon may be irreversibly altered. Restoraon

could be cost prohibive.

 Disturbances result in less sagebrush and more perennial

 cool season grasses, forbs, and sproung shrubs like

rabbitbrush. Increases is soil water and nutrient availability

result in increased cheatgrass.

 Sagebrush increases unl co-dominant with the herbaceous

 species. Cheatgrass decreases, but is present.

 Time combined with seed sources for piñon and/or juniper

 trigger a Phase I Woodland and an at-risk phase.

 Fire and or fire surrogates (herbicides and/or mechanical

 treatments) that remove trees may restore perennial cool

season grasses and annual/perennial forbs, but these acvies

oen reduce sagebrush and increase cheatgrass temporarily.

 Increasing tree abundance results in a Phase II woodland

 with decreasing sagebrush due to compeon, resulng in

a transion to a Phase I Wooded State.

Altered/Seeded State

A.6.8 COLD DESERTS – FRIGID BORDERING ON MESIC/USTIC

WYOMING BIG SAGEBRUSH (14-18 IN PZ)

Piñon pine and/or juniper potenal

Moderate to High Resilience and Moderate Resistance

Cheatgrass

dominant

Sproung Shrubs

dominant

Cheatgrass invasion

Sproung Shrub State

Phase III

Wooded State

Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool

Season Grasses/

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Sproung Shrubs

Phase I Woodland

Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/Trees

(at-risk phase)

Phase II Woodland

Trees/

Perennial cool

season grasses/

Shrubs minor

Phase III Woodland

Trees dominant/

Perennial cool

season grass rare/

Cheatgrass

increases

(at-risk phase)

Phase I Woodland

Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool

Season Grasses/

Trees/Cheatgrass

(at-risk phase)

SagebrushPerennial cool

season grasses/

Perennial Forbs/

Cheatgrass

Perennial cool

season grasses/

Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Sproung Shrubs

Cheatgrass

T10

12b

R11

R9

12a

13

T15 T6

1a

1b

2

3

T4

R4

T5

T7

T6

R9

8

T10

R11

12a

12b

13

14

T15
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 135

T15

14

6a 6b

1

3a

3b

R4 T4

T7 Altered/Seeded State

Eroded State

 Perennial grass and forbs become dominant due to disturbances

 that decrease sagebrush like prolonged or severe drought,

freezing, flooding, wildfire, insects, disease, and pathogens. Fire is

rare in this system.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl co-dominant with the

 herbaceous understory.

 Perennial grass/annual and perennial forbs become dominant

 due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush like prolonged or

severe drought, freezing, flooding, wildfire, insects, disease, and

pathogens. Fire is rare.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl dominant.

 Perennial grass and forbs increase due to minor disturbances

 that decrease sagebrush.

 Connuous spring grazing with cale during the crical growth

 period of cool season grasses results in dominance of grazing

tolerant species which may include warm season grasses (e.g., blue

grama). As bare ground increases, surface erosion (e.g., rills, sheet

erosion and pedestalled plants [especially bunchgrasses] result.

 Light to moderate grazing that includes periodic rest during

 crical growth periods along with herbicide and/or mechanical

treatments can result in return to the Reference State.

 An increase mechanical treatments, high density/frequency

 grazing, or fire/fire surrogates will favor sproung shrubs such

as rabbitbrush and/or greasewood. Fire is rare. Cheatgrass can

occur.

 Sagebrush increases with me. Cheatgrass is oen present

 with other weedy species.

 Perennial cool season grasses increase due to disturbances

 that decrease sagebrush. Cheatgrass is oen present with

other weedy species.

 Perennial grasses and forbs are eliminated and sagebrush

 increases with high density/frequency grazing, resulng in

altered bioc, hydrologic, and soil funcon. This state is at-risk

to invasion by annual grasses.

 Mulple chemicalor mechanical treatments, or biological

 disturbances to reduce sagebrush can result in a shi toward

sproung shrub dominance with potenal for cheatgrass to invade.

 Sagebrush increases with me and removal of disturbances

 unl co-dominant with sproung shrubs.

 Perennial cool season grasses, sproung shrubs, and annuals

 increase due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Mulple treatments of chemical, mechanical, or biological

 disturbances to reduce sagebrush will result in a shi toward

sproung shrub dominance with potenal for cheatgrass to occur.

 A restoraon treatment, including chemical treatment for

 cheatgrass and seeding can restore a perennial grass

community and eventually support an altered sagebrush

community with some invaders.

 Sagebrush increases with me and no disturbances unl

 co-dominant with the herbaceous understory, but cheatgrass

may be present.

 Perennial grass/annual and perennial forbs become dominant

 due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush like drought,

freezing, flooding, insects, disease, and pathogens. There may be

a temporary flush of annuals.

 Sagebrush increases with me and no disturbances unl

 dominant, but cheatgrass will be present.

 Perennial grass and forbs become dominant due to minor

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush. There may be a temporary flush of annuals.

 Perennial grass/annual and perennial forbs become dominant

 due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush. There may be a

temporary flush of annuals.

 Perennial grasses and forbs are eliminated and sagebrush

 increases with high density/frequency grazing, resulng in

altered bioc, hydrologic, and soil funcon. Cheatgrass is oen

present in the understory, and could be considered an “invaded”

state, except that it does not alter fire regimes and ecological

dynamics of the site.

A.6.9 COLD DESERTS – FRIGID/ARIDIC BORDERING ON USTIC

WYOMING BIG SAGEBRUSH (7-10 IN PZ)

Moderate to Low Resilience and Moderate Resistance

Reference State

Grazing Resistant State Sproung Shrub State

ALL STATES

Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Sproung Shrubs

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses-Sagebrush/Annual

and Perennial Forbs

Sagebrush/

Perennial cool season

rhizomatous & short

grasses/mat-forming

forbs

Perennial cool season

rhizomatous & short

grasses/Sagebrush

Sagebrush/Bare

Ground/

(at-risk phase)

Sagebrush/

Perennial Grasses/

Cheatgrass

(at-risk phase)

Perennial grassesSagebrush/

Cheatgrass

Annual Forbs/Bare

Ground

Sproung Shrubs/

Perennial cool season

grasses/Annuals

Sproung ShrubsSagebrush/

Perennial cool season

grasses

2a

2b

T8

9a 9b

T10

12b

R11

12a

T5

13b 13a

1

2a

2b

3a

3b

R4

T4

T5

6b

6a

T7

T8

9b

9a

T10

R11

12b

12a

13b

13a

14

T15
136 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

10

3b 2b

Invaded State

Altered/Seeded State

Eroded State

 Perennial grass/annual and perennial forbs become dominant

 due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush like prolonged or

severe drought, freezing, flooding, wildfire, insects, disease, and

pathogens.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl co-dominant with the

 herbaceous understory.

 Perennial grass and forbs become dominant due to

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl dominant.

 Perennial grass and forbs increase due to minor

 disturbances that decrease.

 Connuous spring grazing with cale during the crical growth

 period of cool season grasses results in dominance of grazing

tolerant species and increases in warm season species. As bare

ground increases, surface erosion (e.g., rills, sheet erosion) and

pedestalled plants (especially bunchgrasses) result.

 Light to moderate grazing that includes periodic rest during

 crical growth periods along with fire, herbicides, and/or

mechanical treatments can restore perennial cool season perennial

grasses and eventually sagebrush.

 An increase in fire, fire surrogates, mechanical types of

 disturbance, and or high density/frequency grazing favors

sproung shrubs like rabbitbrush. Cheatgrass can invade.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl dominant. Cheatgrass

 and other weedy species are oen present.

 Perennial cool season grasses increase due to disturbances

 that decrease sagebrush.

 Sagebrush increases with me and removalof disturbances

 unl co-dominant with sproung shrubs.

 Perennial cool season grasses and sproung shrubs increase

 in dominance due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush.

 Perennial grasses and forbs are eliminated and sagebrush

 increases with high density/frequency grazing, resulng in

altered bioc, hydrologic, and soil funcon. This state is at-risk to

invasion by annuals such as cheatgrass, especially with loss

 of sagebrush.

 If a cheatgrass seed source is introduced, and climac

 condions are conducive to establishment (warm wet spring),

cheatgrass will invade.

 A sagebrush killing event, such as fire and fire surrogates results

 in conversion to cheatgrass. Some perennial species may be

present, but the system dynamics will be driven by annual invasives.

 Mulple treatments of chemical, mechanical, or biological

 disturbances to reduce sagebrush will result in a shi toward

sproung shrub dominance with potenal for cheatgrass to occur.

 Catastrophic climac events and/or fire can result in

 cheatgrass dominance, especially when in the sagebrush

dominant phase of the altered state.

 A restoraon treatment aer severe ground disturbing

 acvies, including mechanical treatment, seeding with

non-nave perennials can restore a perennial grass community

and eventually support an altered sagebrush community with some

invaders present. Sagebrush will be slow to reestablish.

 Sagebrush increases with me and no disturbances unl

 co-dominant with the herbaceous understory, but cheatgrass

will be present.

 Perennial grass and forbs become dominant due to

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush. There will likely be a temporary flush in annual invasives.

(T16) A restoraon treatment aer ground disturbing acvies,

including mechanical treatment, seeding with nave perennials

adapted to site condions can result in a perennial grass community

and eventually support an altered sagebrush community with some

invaders present. Sagebrush will be slow to reestablish.

A.6.10 COLD DESERTS – MESIC/ARIDIC BORDERING ON USTIC

WYOMING BIG SAGEBRUSH (8-12 IN PZ)

Moderate to Low Resilience and Low Resistance

Reference State

Grazing Resistant State

Sproung Shrubs/

Perennial cool season

grasses/ Annuals

Sproung ShrubsSagebrush/

Perennial cool season

grasses

Sproung Shrub State

Sagebrush/

Annual invasives

Cheatgrass

ALL STATES

1

3a 2a

R4 T4 T5

6a 6b

T9

T8

7b 7a

T11

13a 13b

R12

Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/

Minor Warm Season

Sod-forming Grasses/

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Warm Season Sodforming Grasses/

Sproung Shrubs

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses-Sagebrush/Warm

Season Sod-forming

Grasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs

Sagebrush/

Perennial cool season

rhizomatous, short

and sod-forming

warm season grasses/

mat-forming forbs

Perennial cool season

rhizomatous, short

and sod-forming

warm season

grasses/Sagebrush

Sagebrush/Bare

Ground/

(at-risk phase)

Perennial grasses

Sagebrush/

Cheatgrass

Perennial grasses/

Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Sproung Shrubs

Cheatgrass

T12

1

2a

2b

3a

3b

R4

T4

T5

6b

6a

7b

7a

T9

T8

10

T11

T12

R12

13b

13a
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 137

7a

3b 2b

Invaded State

Sagebrush/Bare Altered/Seeded State

Ground/

(at-risk)

Eroded State

 Perennial grass/annual and perennial forbs become dominant

 due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush like prolonged or

severe drought, freezing, flooding, wildfire, insects, disease, and

pathogens. Fire is rare in this system.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl co-dominant with the

 herbaceous understory.

 Perennial grass and forbs becomedominant due to

 disturbances that decrease sagebrush. Fire is rare.

 Sagebrush increases with me unl dominant.

 Perennial grass and forbs increase due to minor disturbances

 that decrease sagebrush.

 Frequent and severe grazing coupled with frequent brush

 management and/or drought results in dominance of grazing

tolerant and sod-forming warm and cool season species. As bare

ground increases, surface erosion (e.g., rills, sheet erosion) and

pedestalled plants (especially bunchgrasses) result.

 Improper grazing, consisng of frequent and severe grazing

 without other disturbances such as fire or drought, results in

dominance of sagebrush with excessive bare ground, resulng in

altered hydrologic funcon and compromised soil stability.

 Annual invasives are introduced to the site through ground

 disturbing acvity. Site is dominated by sproung shrubs such

as rabbitbrush and/or greasewood.

 Sagebrush increases with me and removal of disturbances

 unl dominant.

 Perennial cool season sod-forming grasses and cactus increase

 due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush such as sagebrush

treatment, drought, freezing, flooding, insects, disease, and

pathogens.

 Perennial grasses and forbs are eliminated and sagebrush

 increases with high density/frequency grazing by cale and

absences of sagebrush killing disturbances, resulng in altered

bioc, hydrologic, and soil funcon. This state is at-risk of

cheatgrass invasion.

 If a cheatgrass seed source is introduced, and catastrophic

 event occurs to kill perennial vegetaon, such as drought

followed by wet spring, cheatgrass can invade and dominate.

 A sagebrush killing event, such as fire and fire surrogates will

 dramacally increase cheatgrass while removing sagebrush

from the system.

 A restoraon treatment, including chemical treatment for

 cheatgrass and seeding (nave or introduced mix), favorable

climac condions (wet spring), rest from grazing during

establishment, and a grazing system that allows for adequate rest

and recovery of perennial forage species can restore a perennial

grass community and eventually support an altered sagebrush

community with invaders present. Sagebrush will not likely

dominate in the foreseeable future. The Altered/Seeded State is

possible from any state aer a severe ground disturbing acvity

such as mineral extracon.

 A catastrophic event such as fire or drought, followed by a

 wet spring can result in a system dominated by annual

invasive species.

 Sagebrush increases with me and no disturbances unl

 co-dominant with the herbaceous understory, but cheatgrass

will be present. Introduced species are likely present if seeded

during a restoraon acvity.

 Perennial grass/annual and perennial forbs become dominant

 due to disturbances that decrease sagebrush. There will

commonly be a temporary flush of annual invasives.

Reference State

Grazing Resistant State

Annual and perennial

invasives

Perennial grassesSagebrush/

Cheatgrass

A.6.11 COLD DESERTS – MESIC/ARIDIC

WYOMING BIG SAGEBRUSH (5 TO 9 IN PZ)

Low Resilience and Resistance

Sproung Shrub State

Sproung

shrubs/Annuals

ALL STATES

1

2a 3a

T4 T5

7b

T6

T8

T10

R11

13b 13a

T12

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Warm Season Sodforming Grasses

Sagebrush/

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses/

Minor Warm Season

Sod-forming Grasses/

Perennial Forbs

Perennial Cool Season

Grasses-Sagebrush/

Warm Season Sod-forming

Grasses/Annual and

Perennial Forbs

Sagebrush/

Perennial cool and

warm season sodforming grasses

Perennial cool and

warm season sodforming grasses/

Prickly pear cactus

Perennial grasses/

Annual and

Perennial Forbs/

Sproung Shrubs

Cheatgrass

1

2b

2a

3b

3a

T4

T5

T6

7a

7b

T8

13b

13a

T12

R11

T10

T9

T9
138 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Appendix A7. Informing Wildfire and Fuels Management 

Strategies to Conserve Sagebrush Ecosystems and 

Sage-Grouse 

Vegetation and fuels management projects are important for the conservation, 

maintenance, and restoration of sagebrush landscapes. Resilience and resistance 

concepts provide a science-based background that can inform strategic placement 

of fuels treatments, augment effective fire operations, and inform allocation of 

scarce assets during periods of heightened fire activity across the Interior West. 

Collectively, fuels management includes vegetation projects that mitigate wildfire 

risk, improve resilience to disturbance, and restore habitat, as well as habitat 

protection projects intended to protect intact sage-grouse habitat (fig. A7.1, A7.2). 

Mechanical treatments are typically applied to reduce fuel loading or to change species composition consistent with land management objectives. Prescribed burning 

is used to improve habitat conditions or create fuel conditions that reduce negative 

impacts from wildfire. Also, chemical and seeding treatments are conducted to 

reduce invasive plant species and to shift species composition to native or more fire 

resistant species. 

In fire operations, firefighter and public safety is the overriding objective in all decisions; land managers, however, also consider numerous other values at risk, including 

the wildland-urban interface, species habitats, and infrastructure when allocating assets 

and prioritizing efforts. In each case, managers are designing management activities 

that reflect the unique ecosystem responses that occur across environmental gradients. 

Resilience and resistance concepts are especially relevant for evaluating tradeoffs related 

to current ecological conditions, rates of recovery, and possible ecological consequences 

of different fire management activities. For example, prioritizing initial attack efforts 

based on ecological types and their resilience and resistance at fire locations is one application of resilience and resistance concepts. Also, fire prevention efforts can be focused 

on intact, high quality habitats with inherently low resilience and resistance where human ignitions have commonly occurred. 

Fuels management projects are often applied on a landscape scale to (1) constrain 

or minimize fire spread; (2) alter species composition; (3) modify fire intensity, 

severity, or effects; (4) create fuel breaks or anchor points that augment fire management efforts; (5) improve wildlife habitat; (6) create resilient landscapes; and 

(7) restore habitats or vegetation conditions (see table 5). These activities are selectively used based on the projected ecosystem response, anticipated fire patterns, and 

probability of success. For example, in areas that are difficult to restore due to low 

to moderate resilience, fuel treatments can be placed to minimize fire spread and 

conserve sagebrush habitat. In cooler and moister areas with moderate to high resilience and resistance, mechanical or prescribed fire treatments may be appropriate to 

prevent conifer expansion and dominance. 

Given projected climate change and longer fire seasons across the western United 

States, fuels management represents a proactive approach for modifying large fire 

trends and maintaining desired vegetation patterns. Fire operations and fuels management programs contribute to a strategic, landscape approach when coupled with 

data that illustrate the likelihood of fire occurrence, potential fire behavior, and risk 

assessments (Finney et al. 2010; Oregon Department of Forestry 2013). In tandem 

with resilience and resistance concepts, these data can further inform fire operations 

and fuels management decisions.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 139

Figure A7.1—Common fuels management practices to improve sage-grouse habitat. Photos A and B show conifer 

mastication using a bobcat and bullhog. Photo C shows hand removal of conifers using a chainsaw. Photo D shows 

targeted prescribed burning in a mountain big sagebrush area exhibiting conifer expansion. Adjacent, intact sagebrush communities are intentionally avoided. Photos E and F show targeted prescribed burning of masticated and 

standing juniper fuels while intentionally avoiding sagebrush communities (Bureau of Land Management file photos).

A B

D

F

C

E
140 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Figure A7.2—Before (A) and after (B) photos of mechanical conifer 

removal within Greater sage-grouse habitat southeast of Lander, 

Wyoming. This project had the objectives of moderating fire behavior 

characteristics and improving Greater sage-grouse and mule deer 

habitat. Fuels managers have been successful in restoring Greater 

sage-grouse habitats through mechanical treatments that reduce conifer 

dominance (Bureau of Land Management file photos).

Fire managers and researchers are closely analyzing wildfire trends in the eastern 

range of GRSG and the entire range of GUSG. Recent fire history, climate trends, 

wildfire probability, and vegetation changes are key sources of data that are being 

used to develop proactive measures being implemented by the fire operations and 

fuels management programs. Concerns of fire and fuels managers in the eastern 

range include large fires in or adjacent to sage-grouse habitats, increases in woody 

plant expansion, and increases in the extent of nonnative annual grass populations. Currently there is little evidence of the same type of feedback cycle between 

wildfires, annual grasses, and larger fire size as exists in the western portion of the 

range (Taylor et al. 2014). Managers are aware of this potential, however, and are 

monitoring trends in fire size, postfire community composition, and rehabilitation 

success to detect the development of this type of cycle and adapt management to ensure positive future trends. Several large, severe fires have burned in sagebrush and 

grass ecosystems or sagebrush ecosystems exhibiting piñon and juniper expansion 

since 2000, including: Alkali, Colorado, (2014; 22,000 ac [8,903 ha]); Wolf Den, 

A

B
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 141

Utah (2012; 19,865 ac [8,039 ha]); Cato, Wyoming (2012; 27,680 ac [11,202 ha]); 

Sheep Mountain, Wyoming (2000; 34,346 ac [13,899 ha]); and Wildhorse Basin, 

Wyoming (2000; 36,762 ac [14,877 ha]). 

Proactive fuels management practices in the eastern range of GRSG differ from 

those in the western range. For example, roadside linear fuel breaks are seldom used 

in the eastern range, but are more commonly used in the western range. Conifer 

expansion in the western range is largely pinñon and juniper species; expanding 

conifers in the eastern range include limber pine (Pinus flexilus), Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). In addition, successional advancement of mountain shrubs in Management Zone VII (e.g., gambel 

oak [Quercus gambelii], serviceberry [Amelanchier spp.], curlleaf mountain 

mahogany [Cercocarpus ledifolius], snowberry [Symphoricarpos spp.], and cliff 

fendlerbush [Fendlera rupicola]) into sagebrush communities are treated as a vegetation management issue. 

Mechanical treatments of expanding conifers, which include mastication and 

chainsaw treatments, are increasingly used in the eastern range to retain sagebrush 

cover. Prescribed burning, a fuels management tool, is selectively applied in eastern 

range GRSG habitats, typically to: (1) reduce downed woody fuels resulting from 

mechanical treatments; (2) treat expanding conifers; (3) convert conifer woodlands 

to shrub-steppe; (4) reduce the dominance of mountain shrub communities to favor 

sagebrush; (5) create age class and structural diversity within sagebrush communities; and (6) restore riparian systems through multi-phased treatments. Managers 

are cognizant of the tradeoffs related to sagebrush removal through burning and 

apply this tool in consultation with wildlife managers and in consideration of site 

conditions. Additional fuels management practices in the eastern range include 

monitoring and treating areas with invasive annual grass populations with herbicides and seedings where insufficient perennial grasses and forbs exist for recovery, 

and installing fuels breaks, which can complement fire suppression effectiveness. 

In the eastern range, cooperators such as rural, city, and State agencies contribute to GRSG conservation through their roles in both fire suppression and fuels 

management. Unlike areas in the western range where there are unprotected lands, 

in the eastern range, States and counties have jurisdictional responsibilities for 

wildfires on State and private lands. There are isolated, underprotected lands in the 

eastern range where opportunities exist to develop additional, non-Federal capacity, 

particularly by providing training and equipment, should Federal funding be made 

available. 

The tools and data presented in this section can be used by fire and fuels managers, in cooperation with resource managers, to inform strategies for fire operations 

and fuels management related to suppression responses, treatment planning, and 

postfire management. Postfire rehabilitation in the eastern range is a cross-cutting 

effort involving disciplines such as range, wildlife, fire, and fuels management. 

Managers apply knowledge of seed zones, resilience and resistance, and ecological 

sites to inform rehabilitation strategies. The postfire emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation handbook and manual (USDI BLM 2012) provide technical guidance 

on considerations in rehabilitation practices. The importance of GRSG and GUSG 

habitats is recognized in dispatch procedures and allocation of resources for wildfire 

incident management. These efforts align with the recommendations/guidance in the 

Final Report for the DOI Secretarial Order 3336 (USDI 2015). 
142 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016.

Appendix A8. Informing Management Strategies in the 

Face of Climate Change

Assessing the projected magnitude of climate change for a given area provides a 

basis for informed management into the future. The degree to which climate change 

and other stressors interact influences the approaches that can be taken to minimize 

losses. In those areas where climate change interactions are expected to be relatively 

small, and knowledge and capacity high, a logical approach might be to continue to 

use best management practices. In areas where the effects of climate change and its 

interactions with stressors are expected to be severe, our current suite of management actions may be ineffective. 

Where climate change-stressor interactions are expected to be small, the logical 

approach is to use best management practices to build resilience to climate change 

into sagebrush ecosystems. Maintaining and restoring habitat, conservation actions to facilitate species of interest, and an increased emphasis on managing other 

stressors, such as nonnative invasive plants, improper grazing, and fire, are key 

components of building resilience. 

As climate change progresses and temperatures increase, the frequency and 

magnitude of drought is expected to increase. Implementing measures to reduce the 

interacting negative effects of habitat loss and climate change and facilitate recovery 

from drought will become increasingly important. Drought adaptation measures 

may include changes in land uses such as a reduction in livestock stocking rates 

because plants that have been overgrazed or cropped too frequently are less able to 

recover after drought (Hart and Carpenter 2005). An increased emphasis on early 

detection and rapid response to address nonnative invasive plants may be needed 

as climate suitability for species like cheatgrass is likely to increase in many areas 

(Bradley et al. 2016). Also, habitat modifications such as creating and protecting 

migration corridors in fragmented landscapes may be necessary to facilitate persistence of sage-grouse and other species that use sagebrush habitats such as mule deer 

(Anderson and Jenkins 2006). 

Drought adaptation may require modifying or delaying restoration practices during droughts. For example, it may be best to focus restoration efforts on removal of 

undesirable plants as opposed to planting treatments. In the West-Central Semiarid 

Prairies, efforts to restore native grassland may be more effective when crested 

wheatgrass control measures are implemented in drier years and native species are 

seeded in wetter years (Bakker et al. 2003). In the Cold Desert, juniper removal 

by mastication (shredding) can both decrease competition for water and enhance 

soil moisture beneath shredded debris benefitting herbaceous species (Young et al. 

2013), potentially offsetting the effects of drought. If planting is deemed necessary during a drought year, a variety of strategies and techniques can be employed 

to increase the probability of successful plant establishment in the short term and 

species persistence in the long term (see review in Finch et al. 2016). For example, 

snow fences were constructed and arranged to maximize snow capture and increase 

sagebrush establishment on abandoned natural gas pads in the Wyoming Basin 

(David 2013). Stubble from winter-sown annual crops has been shown to capture 

snow and may benefit seedling establishment in the West-Central Semiarid Prairies 

(Greb 1980). Also, pitters and imprinters can be used to create micro-catchments in 

the soil that capture and concentrate water (Bainbridge 2007). 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-356. 2016. 143

Regardless of the seeding or planting technique used, plant materials should be 

carefully selected to ensure that the species and ecotypes are adapted to both site 

conditions and drought and that they are resilient if drought is episodic or long-term 

climate change is projected. Transplanting has been found to be effective for establishing shrubs and forbs in water-limited environments, especially if transplants 

are hardened prior to planting and provided with supplementary water afterwards 

(Bainbridge 2007). 

Current management strategies may be ineffective where the effects of climate 

change and its interactions with stressors are expected to be severe. In this case 

more proactive strategies for habitat management may be necessary to facilitate 

transition to a new site potential. Assisted migration, the purposeful movement of 

individuals or propagules of a species to facilitate or mimic natural range expansion or long distance gene flow within the current range, may become integral to 

conservation strategies as the rate of climate change increases (Havens et al. 2015). 

Assisted migration can encompass a broad range of goals, from minimizing loss of 

biodiversity to preventing extinction, and it can operate at a range of spatial scales, 

from local to continental (Williams and Dumroese 2013). Seed transfer guidelines 

can be used to determine transfer distances that avoid maladaptation (Johnson 

et al. 2004). These guidelines can be reprojected using models of expected future 

environmental conditions (Thomson et al. 2010) and will play an integral role in the 

planning of assisted migration efforts under climate change. 

Management and research studies coupled with landscape monitoring can provide 

the basis for developing cost-effective and feasible management strategies for 

adapting to climate change. Carefully designed studies can increase our understanding of viable approaches for adaption measures such as appropriate grazing regimes 

for drought conditions, conservation actions to facilitate species persistence during 

climate warming, seeding and transplanting techniques during drought, and species 

and ecotypes for assisted migration. Monitoring to detect the rates and magnitudes 

of change occurring across the landscape can preemptively identify both populations and habitats that may suffer decline (Carwardine et al. 2011; Field et al. 2004). 

Monitoring can also identify potential new or novel combinations of species that 

constitute a functioning ecosystem under climate change. Increased understanding of both the changes occurring and viable strategies for addressing that change 

can reduce uncertainty and provide direction for proactive management strategies 

(Hobbs et al. 2009).


In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact 

the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or 

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program 

information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_

cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the 

letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, 

call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us