Sage-Grouse Habitat

Assessment Framework

A Multiscale Assessment Tool

Technical Reference 6710-1

June 2015

Sage-Grouse Habitat

Assessment Framework

A Multiscale Assessment Tool

Technical Reference 6710-1

Edited by:

San J. Stiver

E. Thomas Rinkes

David E. Naugle

Paul D. Makela

Danelle A. Nance

Jason W. Karl

June 2015
Suggested citation:

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds. 2015. Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 6710-1. Bureau 

of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado.

Photo credits:

Paul Makela, Tom Rinkes, and Bureau of Land Management (stock photos). 

Disclaimer:

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

or recommendation for use by the federal government.

BLM/OC/ST-15/002+6710
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework iii

Foreword

The “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework” (HAF) was conceived by several 

managers in the early 2000s. They assembled 

a diverse group of habitat specialists and 

sage-grouse experts from state, federal, and 

nongovernmental organizations to develop this 

habitat evaluation tool. In 2006, the “Greater 

Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation 

Strategy,” published by the Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, highlighted the 

development and implementation of the HAF. 

That strategy outlined a number of objectives for 

the HAF, which included a temporal and spatial 

method for evaluating sagebrush habitats for 

sage-grouse suitability at various landscape 

scales. The HAF is a cornerstone of the habitat 

monitoring component of the sage-grouse 

conservation strategy.

Over the past several years, the BLM has 

developed a number of tools to help manage 

the public lands on a landscape basis. These 

tools include creating the capacity to synthesize 

large amounts of geospatial information to help 

the BLM and our partners develop a shared 

understanding of regional trends and identify 

conservation and development opportunities. 

The BLM is implementing this landscape 

approach in the Greater Sage-Grouse planning 

initiative, western solar plan, national cohesive 

wildland fire strategy, climate change strategy, 

regional mitigation, and other major initiatives. 

Incorporating the necessary adaptive management 

actions and understanding the success of these 

initiatives will require a coordinated approach 

to monitoring and assessments so information 

about multiple resources at multiple scales can be 

easily integrated. Thus, the HAF is timely as it fills 

the need for a multiple-scale, sage-grouse habitat 

assessment tool that can be easily integrated into 

the BLM landscape monitoring approach.

The HAF establishes indicators to determine the 

status of sage-grouse habitat needs at multiple 

scales and for seasonal habitats. The results of 

these assessments will provide the necessary 

information to evaluate whether the BLMmanaged lands are meeting the sage-grouse land 

health habitat standard. Since the HAF assesses 

habitat needs at multiple scales, various datasets 

are needed for the analysis and assessment. To 

this end, the editors of the HAF coordinated with 

the BLM assessment, inventory, and monitoring 

(AIM) team to ensure the data required for 

the HAF indicator values are consistent with 

information currently being collected as described 

in “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods,” 

Westwide monitoring efforts, and grass-shrub 

stewardship efforts. This coordination between 

HAF and AIM efforts addresses one of the critical 

monitoring challenges in the BLM today—field 

capacity to complete the monitoring 

data collection. 

To assess monitoring capacity and propose options 

to resolve this issue, the BLM initiated a review 

of its monitoring practices in 2006. The results 

of this survey, as discussed in “The Bureau of 

Land Management Assessment, Inventory, and 

Monitoring Strategy for Integrated Renewable 

Resources Management,” indicated the need to 

coordinate and integrate monitoring activities 

and implement a data management strategy 

to eliminate redundant and duplicative data 

collection activities. The principles necessary to 

accomplish this integrated monitoring approach 

are described in BLM’s “AIM-Monitoring: A 

Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, 

and Monitoring Strategy.” When applying the 

principles of AIM monitoring to the HAF, field 

offices can minimize additional monitoring 

workloads. Applying these principles also creates 

opportunities to enhance national data layers 

and meet one of our primary goals of integrating 

monitoring activities: to collect data once and use 

it many times. 

Foreword
iv Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

In summary, we commend the effort that has 

led to the development of the “Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Assessment Framework.” The HAF will 

prove to be a valuable tool as the BLM and our 

partners implement the landscape approach for 

the management of our public lands. When the 

HAF is implemented using the principles outlined 

in “AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the BLM 

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy,” 

the benefits to the BLM and our partners will 

be maximized and additional workloads will 

be minimized.

_____________________________________________

Ed Roberson

Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning

Bureau of Land Management

_____________________________________________

Virgil Moore

Director 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework v

Preface

This document provides policymakers, resource 

managers, and specialists with a comprehensive 

framework for assessing sage-grouse habitat 

in the sagebrush ecosystem. Four pillars 

form the foundation for the success of this 

approach: science, effective conservation policy, 

implementation, and adaptive management. 

Recent landscape evaluations indicate that 

conservation of sagebrush ecosystems has not 

been realized because large-scale mapping was 

not available to inform site-scale management 

actions. Advances in landscape ecology enable 

conservation planners to develop spatially explicit 

decision support tools that link populations 

with habitats for effective conservation 

planning, implementation, and evaluation at 

landscape scales. A shift from local to landscape 

conservation will empower decisionmakers to 

maximize the likelihood of achieving conservation 

by implementing site-scale actions within priority 

landscapes. Standardized methodologies provide 

consistency in terminology and techniques for 

site-scale assessments.

The habitat assessment framework (HAF) received 

progressive reviews during its development 

from 2000 to 2012. Those reviews focused and 

refocused the scope of the document, technical 

validity, and scientific rigor. The draft was edited 

for field use, and an outside peer review panel was 

contracted to evaluate the document. Appropriate 

comments, critiques, and suggestions were 

incorporated into the final document. In 2011, 

2012, and 2013, the input matrix and outputs were 

field tested, and appropriate modifications were 

made in this current iteration of the HAF.

The HAF was developed for use by resource 

managers working closely with specialists in range 

management, landscape ecology, geographic 

information system (GIS), botany, wildlife 

biology, and other associated disciplines. To be 

fully functional, the HAF requires input from 

policy and operational staff. Some flexibility is 

incorporated into the suggested procedures, where 

appropriate, and professional judgment is required 

in its application, hence the need for experience. 

An increased capacity to deliver conservation 

will need to be addressed regionally because 

actions necessary to enhance populations vary 

widely across management zones. Quantity and 

quality of population and distribution data also 

vary widely for individual populations and across 

management zones; therefore, users of the HAF 

may be required to make certain assumptions 

concerning local populations. Shortcomings in 

existing datasets highlight the need to identify and 

subsequently collect additional datasets. Datasets 

that may aid in identifying important habitat 

areas and features include population and habitat 

information on seasonal use patterns, home 

ranges, migratory and dispersal movements, 

and fitness.

Preface

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework vii

Acknowledgments

The habitat assessment framework is the 

culmination of many years of collaborative efforts. 

The editors participated in many of these efforts 

and would like to express our deep appreciation to 

the great number of individuals who helped 

develop this framework and who contributed to 

this document. This document would not have 

been possible without the forethought of Signe 

Sather-Blair, who led a group of Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) wildlife biologists in Idaho 

(Paul Makela, Tim Carrigan, and Loren Anderson) 

in drafting the initial site-scale analysis 

methodology of this habitat assessment in 2000. 

A year later, the BLM revised the site-scale 

methodology to be applicable for habitats in 

Wyoming. George Soehn led this effort, with 

input from an interdisciplinary team that included 

Vicki Herren, Pat Karbs, Bruce Parker, Mary Read, 

Tom Rinkes, Dave Roberts, Dennis Saville, 

Andy Warren, Chet Wheeless, Don Whyde, and 

Jim Wolf.

In 2004, following the release of the “Conservation 

Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush 

Habitats,” the need to assess habitats at multiple 

scales became apparent because sage-grouse use 

large landscapes and occur over a large 

geographical range in western North America. 

In January 2005, the directors of the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA) passed a resolution to coordinate 

with the BLM on the development of the 

sage-grouse habitat assessment framework. 

Again, Signe Sather-Blair brought together a 

team composed of BLM and Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game biologists (Michelle CommonsKemner, Tom Rinkes, and Alexis Carroll) to 

address sage-grouse at multiple habitat scales. 

An informal working group, with members from 

various disciplines, federal and state agencies, and 

universities, was convened to assist in addressing 

these issues, and their comments were valuable 

in the development of the final product. This 

working group was composed of the 

following individuals:

Cameron Aldridge, Colorado State University

Anthony Apa, Colorado Division of Wildlife

Alexis Carroll, BLM

Michelle Commons-Kemner, Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game

Jack Connelly, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game

Mike Gregg, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Kristine Hasselblad, BLM

Ann Hild, University of Wyoming

Mark Hilliard, BLM

Mike “Sherm” Karl, BLM

Steve Knick, U.S. Geological Survey

Don Major, BLM

Dick Mayberry, BLM

Clint McCarthy, U.S. Forest Service

Richard Miller, Oregon State University

Dave Naugle, University of Montana

Mike Pellant, BLM

Tom Rinkes, BLM

Roger Rosentreter, BLM

Paul Roush, BLM

Signe Sather-Blair, BLM

Pat Shaver, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

Jim Sedinger, University of Nevada, Reno

Others who provided valuable insight and 

comments during the development of this 

document include Brendan Moynahan, 

Mary Rowland, Cal McCluskey, Danielle Flynn, 

Barry Rose, Alan Sands, Jason Sutter, 

Susan Filkins, Paul Makela, Sarah McCord, and 

WAFWA’s Western States Sage and Columbian 

Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee 

(Tom Hemker, Christian Hagen, Joe Bohne, Shawn 

Espinosa, and Rick Northrup). Roger Rosentreter 

and Alan Sands significantly updated the list of 

forb species used by sage-grouse. Michael 

Schroeder, Fee Busby, Greg Neudecker, and David 

Pyke provided suggestions for improving the 

document in its final stages. Additional reviews 

and comments were incorporated by the BLM’s 

Washington Office Resources and Planning staff 

and the BLM’s National Operations Center staff.

Acknowledgments

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework ix

Contents

Chapter I: Conceptual Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A Landscape Vision for Implementing the Habitat Assessment Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Incorporating Scale into Sage-Grouse Policy and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Integrating Science into Habitat Assessment Framework Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Biological Underpinnings of the Habitat Assessment Framework: Habitat 

 Selection Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Habitat Suitability and Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 Broad Scale (First Order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 Mid Scale (Second Order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

 Fine Scale (Third Order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

 Site Scale (Fourth Order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Habitat Description Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

 Broad Scale (First Order) and Mid Scale (Second Order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

 Fine Scale (Third Order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 Site Scale (Fourth Order) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix A: Craters of the Moon National Monument Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Contents
x Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Figures

1. Current distribution and presettlement distribution of potential habitat of Greater an

 Gunnison Sage-Grouse in North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) population centers or “core areas” across th

species’ range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Priority areas for conservation (PACs) as identified by the Conservatio

 Objectives Team (COT) and Gunnison Sage-Grouse occupied habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. A hierarchical approach for implementing the habitat assessment framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Habitat selection by sage-grouse based on Johnson’s (1980) four orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Mid-scale (second-order) habitat selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

7. Sage-grouse management zones and populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

8. Habitat patches in two similar subpopulation areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

9. A habitat patch depicting a function of contrast and (dis)similarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

10. Fine-scale (third order) habitat selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

11. Site-scale (fourth-order) habitat selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

12. An example of a completed fine-scale (third-order) habitat description form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

13. Sagebrush shape is an important habitat cover indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

14. An example of a seasonal habitat fourth-order data summary form complete

 with data from field measurements for the cover types of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

15. An example of a completed lek suitability worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

16. An example of a Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass cover typ

 with suitable breeding habitat conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

17. An example of a threetip sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass cover type with margin

 breeding habitat conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

18. An example of a bluebunch wheatgrass cover type with unsuitable breedin

 habitat conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

19. An example of a completed seasonal habitat fourth-order suitability summa

 that includes information from the previous seasonal worksheet

 examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendix B Figures

B-1. The line-point intercept method can be used to measure foliar cover and vegetati

 height of all grass, forb, and shrub species at a site or foliar cover

 of a single life form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

B-2. Measuring plant species using the line-point intercept technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

B-3. Grass and forb height measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

B-4. The line intercept method can be used to measure canopy cover 

 sagebrush species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

B-5. Measuring shrub canopy cover using line intercept method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

B-6. The Daubenmire frame is used for estimating grass and forb canopy covers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

B-7. A line transect with Daubenmire frames positioned every 2 meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

B-8. Forb diversity transect layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework xi

Tables

1. Summary of habitat suitability indicators and descriptions for the mid, fine, an

 site scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Mid-scale (second-order) habitat indicators and suitability characteristi

 for sage-grouse habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Fine-scale (third-order) habitat indicators and suitability characteristics fo

 sage-grouse habitat seasonal use areas within home ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. Site-scale (fourth-order) breeding habitat indicators and suitability characteristic

 for lek sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. Site-scale (fourth-order) breeding habitat indicators and suitability characteristi

 for nesting and early brood-rearing sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6. Site-scale (fourth-order) habitat indicators and suitability characteristics fo

 summer/late brood-rearing habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7. Site-scale (fourth-order) habitat indicators and suitability characteristics fo

 winter habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

8. Rangewide and regional assessments containing information o

 sage-grouse or their habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

9. Summary of fine-scale (third-order) ecological processes, mapping features, an

 management levels for sage-grouse habitat descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

10. Example of basic sagebrush land cover types needed for mid-scale (second-order

 habitat descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

11. General seasonal habitat descriptions modified from Connelly et al. (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12. Summary of site-scale (fourth-order) ecological processes, mapping features, a

 management levels for sage-grouse habitat descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

13. Seasonal timing of vegetation data collection associated with habitat indicator

 for site-scale descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

14. List of seasonal habitat measurements and associated data collection methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

15. Breeding (lek) habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories fo

 site-scale habitat descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

16. Breeding (prelaying, nesting, and early brood-rearing) habitat life requisites

 indicators, and suitability categories for site-scale habitat descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

17. Summer/late brood-rearing habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitabilit

 categories for upland sagebrush site-scale habitat descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

18. Summer/late brood-rearing habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitabilit

 categories for riparian or wet meadow site-scale habitat descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

19. Winter habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories fo

 site-scale habitat descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix B Table

B-1. Sagebrush community vegetation species and preferred forbs for sage-grouse . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 1

Chapter I: Conceptual Overview

Introduction

Sage-grouse provide resource managers with 

a unique impetus for conservation of the 

sagebrush ecosystem and species that depend 

upon that ecosystem. Sage-grouse select habitat 

at multiple scales and are sensitive to landscape 

change, making them an appropriate focal 

species, as defined by Mills (2013), for managing 

the sagebrush ecosystem (Wisdom et al. 2005; 

Rowland et al. 2006b; Hanser and Knick 2011). 

In 2004, scientists and managers remapped the 

current range of sage-grouse to evaluate change 

in presettlement distribution (figure 1; modified 

from Schroeder et al. 2004). The distribution 

of sage-grouse has declined by nearly half since 

presettlement, but they still occupy 668,400 km2

of the sagebrush steppe in 11 western states and 

2 Canadian provinces.

Loss and degradation of habitat from 

anthropogenic developments, fire, sodbusting, 

and invasive species are primary threats leading 

to isolation, reduction, and extirpation of 

populations (Connelly et al. 2000; Knick et 

al. 2013). These factors, combined with new 

constraints such as West Nile virus (Walker and 

Naugle 2011), climate change (Nielson et al. 2005) 

and genetic isolation (Knick and Hanser 2011; 

Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011), require an 

integrated approach to landscape conservation 

to assess and effectively conserve sage-grouse 

populations and their habitats.

Conservation concerns will continue to exist 

until managers demonstrate the effectiveness of 

actions that maintain and restore habitats at scales 

that match the species’ biological needs. Sagegrouse conservation can be daunting because 

the sagebrush sea is vast, threats to habitats are 

numerous and varied, and resources are limited. 

Maximizing return on conservation investment 

by targeting policy and implementation to the 

most biologically important places (Bottrill et al. 

2008) for this conservation-reliant species (Scott 

et al. 2010) is a proactive yet fundamental shift 

occurring in management philosophy.

Policymakers and practitioners alike are now 

using broad-scale planning tools to help guide 

limited resources to the most biologically 

important places. In 2010, the BLM published a 

report that included a breeding bird density map 

(Doherty et al. 2010), providing the foundation 

for the delineation of core areas rangewide. 

Core areas are locations of high bird abundance 

containing a majority of sage-grouse. Figure 2 

depicts the clumped distribution of males on 

leks within core areas that contain 25 percent, 

50 percent, 75 percent, and 100 percent of the 

known breeding population. Approximately 

75 percent of sage-grouse live within 25 percent 

of the occupied range.

Through time, 11 member states of the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA) improved the core area concept 

by delineating their boundaries to include all 

seasonal habitats instead of just breeding habitat. 

Many western states have incorporated newly 

approved core areas in their own state-based 

sage-grouse plans. In 2013, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service partnered with states to form 

the Conservation Objectives Team (COT). The 

team combined all the core areas across the range 

of the species into one new map (figure 3). This 

new map refers to core areas as priority areas 

for conservation (PACs) and the team’s report 

identifies PAC-specific threats to be addressed 

through conservation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2013). 

Chapter I
2 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter I: Conceptual Overview

Figure 1. Current distribution and presettlement distribution of potential habitat of Greater and Gunnison Sage-Grouse in North America

(as modified from Schroeder et al. 2004).
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 3

Chapter I: Conceptual Overview

Figure 2. Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) population centers or “core areas” across the species’ range. The lightest blue areas contain 25 percent of the breeding 

population, and each darker shade of blue indicates an additional 25 percent. Gunnison Sage-Grouse breeding bird density is not displayed.
4 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter I: Conceptual Overview

Figure 3. Priority areas for conservation (PACs) as identified by the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) and Gunnison Sage-Grouse occupied habitats. PACs are 

encircled by seven sage-grouse management zones established by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) based on populations within 

floristic provinces (Stiver et al. 2006).
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 5

Chapter I: Conceptual Overview

A Landscape Vision for

Implementing the Habitat 

Assessment Framework

Incorporating Scale into Sage-Grouse 

Policy and Implementation

The vision for this habitat assessment framework 

(HAF) is to empower managers to implement 

project-level actions that make sense at landscape 

scales. To achieve this vision, the HAF addresses 

two primary subjects: (1) applying the hierarchy 

for implementing landscape conservation, 

and (2) providing the inventory and outcomebased evaluation tools necessary for assessing 

effectiveness of resulting conservation actions. 

Sage-grouse habitats transcend jurisdictional 

boundaries and therefore require a coordinated 

approach to management. The HAF provides a 

blueprint for landscape conservation; success will 

be achieved through implementation with local 

stakeholder involvement.

The HAF’s hierarchical approach begins with a 

policy vision for management of the sagebrush 

ecosystem (figure 4). Such policy changes 

are underway at federal and state levels in 

collaboration with major land users and the 

public. Emerging policies vary by agency and 

state, but all aim to reduce threats to sage-grouse 

by reducing disturbance and implementing 

beneficial actions primarily inside PACs. New 

policy direction and resources at the broad scale 

facilitate conservation and empower state and 

regional managers.

At the second level in the hierarchy, state and 

regional managers design the future landscape 

through mid-scale policy direction aimed at 

reducing specific threats facing sage-grouse in 

their jurisdiction. Threats vary geographically, 

but generally, policy will include actions to 

protect, manage, and restore seasonal habitats

and to maintain connectivity of pathways that 

facilitate movement within and among 

populations. State and regional decisionmakers 

fulfill their place in the hierarchy by providing 

Figure 4. A hierarchical approach for implementing the habitat assessment framework.

National and state executives

Establish policy to manage landscapes

Rangewide perspective

State and regional managers

Informed by regional assessments and regional spatial evalutions

Envision a future set of functional landscapes

Sage-grouse management zone/population perspective

Field-level managers

Informed by science and local spatial analysts

Prioritize projects to meet the vision

Direct resources to projects

Sage-grouse seasonal range perspective

Project Implementation

Project Matrix Design

Landscape Vision

Ecosystem Policy

Project managers

Informed by science and management

Design and implement projects

Sage-grouse seasonal habitats perspective
6 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter I: Conceptual Overview

their field managers with direction and resources 

to meet the landscape vision.

At the third level in the hierarchy, field managers 

design a matrix of fine-scale conservation actions 

that satisfy state and regional directives. Field 

managers develop specific actions and prioritize 

them by importance, timing for implementation, 

and cost. Field managers fulfill their place in the 

hierarchy by providing project managers with 

project implementation priorities.

At the fourth and equally important level in 

the hierarchy, project managers implement 

the specified site-scale conservation actions. 

Implementing the right actions in the right 

places at biologically relevant scales is the key to 

conserving and restoring the sagebrush ecosystem. 

Successfully implementing the HAF will initiate 

and foster a new era in landscape conservation of 

the sagebrush ecosystem.

Integrating Science into Habitat 

Assessment Framework Implementation

Inventory and monitoring are integral components 

of the HAF. Inventory provides baseline data 

and may provide projections of future condition. 

Together, these inputs provide for science-based 

evaluations to measure the biological response of 

sage-grouse populations to conservation actions, 

assess effectiveness, and adaptively improve 

delivery. The level of monitoring reflects the 

scales at which sage-grouse populations use 

habitat resources year-round and transcends 

that of an individual project to encompass the 

larger landscape. Rather than focusing on acres 

treated, the approach is biologically based and uses 

sage-grouse habitat and population responses at 

multiple scales to evaluate conservation benefits.

Outcome-based evaluations are vital to quantifying 

the success of past actions, informing future 

actions, and garnering additional social and 

financial support for conservation (e.g., BaruchMordo et al. 2013; Copeland et al. 2013). Such 

evaluations are a primary tool for applying 

effective adaptive management strategies in 

conservation and fulfilling the commitments 

in the “Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive 

Conservation Strategy” (Stiver et al. 2006) and the 

“Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Conservation 

Plan” (Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide 

Steering Committee 2005). Shortcomings in 

existing datasets highlight the need to identify 

and subsequently collect additional information, 

including population and habitat information. 

For example, the HAF will be instrumental in 

assessing the effectiveness of a new management 

approach being implemented by the BLM Fire 

and Invasives Assessment Team (FIAT). The new 

management approach uses existing data to map 

soil temperature and moisture regimes along with 

the amount of sagebrush cover across landscapes 

to predict a sagebrush ecosystem’s resilience to 

disturbance and resistance to invasive species 

(Chambers et al. 2013; Sage Grouse Initiative 

2014). This tool helps prioritize and pinpoint 

management tactics across sagebrush landscapes, 

from fire and fuels management to restoration, 

and partners have already quickly engaged in 

implementation of this new strategic approach.

Biological Underpinnings 

of the Habitat Assessment 

Framework: Habitat 

Selection Processes

Landscape conservation is a scale-dependent 

process whereby priority landscapes are identified 

across the species range (broad scale) and 

appropriate conservation actions are implemented 

within seasonal habitats to benefit populations 

(site scale). The HAF has adopted the hierarchical 

orders of habitat selection as described by Johnson 

(1980). Johnson’s orders of selection are widely 

accepted and provide the foundation for the 

HAF to discuss scale in common and consistent 

terms. Johnson (1980) described four orders of 

habitat selection in which each higher order is 

dependent on the previous order (figure 5). For 

example, a food item is nested within a feeding 

site, which is nested within a seasonal use area, 

which is nested within a home range, which is 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 7

Chapter I: Conceptual Overview

nested within a population area, which is part of 

the species range. Sage-grouse select nesting and 

feeding areas within their seasonal range and that 

seasonal range is nested within their home range. 

An ecological or anthropogenic disturbance that 

changes their home range can affect nesting or 

feeding site selection.

First-order selection is described as “the selection 

of physical or geographical range of a species” 

(Johnson 1980). By definition, there is only one 

first-order habitat, the range of the species. For 

sage-grouse, the range is defined by populations 

of sage-grouse associated with sagebrush 

landscapes (Connelly et al. 2003). Populations 

or subpopulations within those populations are 

the second-order selection. The second-order 

selection habitats may include as many as 

39 discrete populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2013). Third-order selection is the home 

range of an individual bird. Location and size of 

a home range is determined in part by the quality 

and juxtaposition of resources within and between 

seasonal habitats. Fourth-order selection is the 

use of a particular nesting, feeding, or roosting 

site within one particular seasonal habitat. Spatial 

and temporal scales are evident throughout the 

selection process, becoming finer as orders of 

selection increase. 

Orders of habitat selection provide a unifying 

framework in which to evaluate populations and 

their habitats. At the second order, state and 

regional planners and decisionmakers have the 

flexibility to design a future landscape and the 

location and types of actions necessary to achieve 

desired conditions. The resource manager has 

significant flexibility in evaluating third- and 

fourth-order habitat selection. The manager 

must provide an accurate estimate of populations, 

subpopulations, seasonal-use habitats, and 

ecological site potentials to effectively coordinate 

and design appropriate conservation actions.

Figure 5. Habitat selection by sage-grouse based on Johnson’s (1980) four orders.

First-Order

Selection:

Species range

Second-Order

Selection:

Population 

areas; dispersal 

between 

subpopulations

Third-Order Selection:

Home range of small/

isolated populations, 

subpopulations, 

or groups of birds 

associated with a cluster 

of leks, movement 

between seasonal ranges 

(breeding to summer)

Fourth-Order 

Selection:

Seasonal habitats; 

movement between 

daily use areas 

(feeding to roosting, 

nesting to feeding, 

feeding to loafing)

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 9

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat

and Data Descriptions

Chapter II

Habitat Suitability

and Indicators

Sage-grouse habitat suitability is described at 

different spatial scales to address the ecological 

processes and population dynamics that occur 

at each scale. Although life requisites of space, 

food, water, and shelter are not easily segmented 

into spatial scales, they must be addressed for 

description and conservation planning purposes. 

The life requisite of space is significant at all 

scales though in different contexts. Pathways 

for movement within and between populations 

are critical for maintaining population viability. 

Having access to well-connected sagebrush 

patches that provide dispersal and movement 

among subpopulations is essential for sagegrouse population viability and persistence over 

the long term. However, a variety of natural or 

anthropogenic disturbances may interrupt or 

retard dispersal. Similarly, at the fine scale, habitat 

availability, security, and connectivity within 

home ranges are important for securing seasonal 

movements to shelter and food needs. Shelter 

and food availability at the site-scale within the 

seasonal ranges directly affects individual fitness, 

survival, and reproductive potential. Thus, the 

suitability of habitat at each scale has significant 

conservation implications on population health. 

Biologists use measurable habitat characteristics, 

procedural steps, and habitat models to 

standardize techniques for preparing habitat 

descriptions that reflect life requisite needs 

(United States Department of the Interior 1980; 

Cooperrider et al. 1986; Gilbert and Dodds 

1987; Morrison et al. 1998). Habitat indicators 

are often used to characterize the environment 

in terms of suitability for shelter, food, water, 

and space. The indicators must be sensitive to 

the ecological processes operating at the scale of 

interest. They are based on scientific research 

findings and should be quantitatively repeatable 

for data summarization and to avoid bias. A 

single habitat indicator does not necessarily define 

habitat suitability for an area or particular scale. 

Once measured or described, indicators must 

be collectively reviewed and put into context to 

correctly determine habitat suitability. In many 

cases, more than one scale with multiple indicators 

will be of interest. This chapter describes the 

important habitat indicators for each scale (table 

1) and considerations for integrating information 

for within- and between-scale habitat descriptions. 

Habitat indicators for the mid and fine scales are 

generally evaluated based on trends of each of 

the scale indicators. Habitat indicators for the 

site scale are generally compared from the range, 

mean, proximity, shape, and stability of the various 

seasonal habitat components.
10 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Table 1. Summary of habitat suitability indicators and descriptions for the mid, fine, and site scales. Suitability descriptions appropriate for each scale are based on 

the habitat indicator measurements for that scale.

Mid-Scale (Second-Order) Descriptions – Isolated/small population, subpopulation, or home range of group of leks

Habitat 

Indicators

1. Habitat Availability

2. Patch Size and Number

3. Patch Connectivity 

4. Linkage Area Characteristics

5. Landscape Matrix and Edge Effect

6. Anthropogenic Disturbances

General 

Suitability 

Descriptions

Suitable: Landscapes have connected mosaics of sagebrush shrublands that allow for bird dispersal and migration movements within the 

population or subpopulation area. Anthropogenic disturbances that can disrupt dispersal or cause mortality are generally not widespread or

are absent. 

Marginal: Landscapes have patchy, fragmented sagebrush shrublands that are not well connected for dispersal and migration in portions of the 

population or subpopulation area. Anthropogenic disturbances that disrupt dispersal or cause mortality are present throughout all or portions of 

the landscape. Some lek groups or subpopulations are isolated or nearly isolated.

Unsuitable: Landscapes were former shrubland habitat now converted to predominantly grassland or woodland cover or other unsuitable

land cover or use. Remaining sagebrush patches are predominantly unoccupied or have few remaining birds. Portions of the population or

subpopulation area may become occupied in the foreseeable future through succession or restoration.

Fine-Scale (Third-Order) Descriptions – Seasonal habitats within home ranges 

Habitat 

Indicators

1. Seasonal Habitat Availability

2. Seasonal Use Area Connectivity 

3. Anthropogenic Disturbances

General 

Suitability 

Descriptions

Suitable: Home ranges have connected seasonal use areas. Anthropogenic features that can disrupt seasonal movements or cause mortality are 

generally absent or at least not widespread. 

Marginal: Home ranges have poorly connected or disjunct seasonal use areas. Anthropogenic features that can disrupt seasonal movements or 

cause mortality may occur within the home range. 

Unsuitable: Home ranges have seasonal use areas with predominantly grasslands, woodlands, or incompatible land uses (anthropogenic features) 

not conducive to sage-grouse seasonal movements or habitat use. Most leks have been abandoned or have few remaining birds. 

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Descriptions – Use areas within seasonal habitats 

Habitat 

Indicators

1. Sagebrush Cover (all seasons)

2. Sagebrush Height (all seasons)

3. Predominant Sagebrush Shape (breeding only)

4. Perennial Grass and Forb Heights (breeding)

5. Perennial Grass Cover (breeding and summer/late brood-rearing)

6. Perennial Forb Cover (breeding and summer/late brood-rearing)

7. Preferred Forb Availability (breeding and summer/late brood-rearing)

8. Riparian Stability (summer/late brood-rearing)

9. Availability of Sagebrush Cover (leks and summer/late brood rearing – riparian/wet meadow)

10. Proximity of Detrimental Land Uses (leks)

11. Proximity of Trees or Other Tall Structures (leks)

General 

Suitability 

Descriptions

Suitable: Seasonal habitat has a preponderance of sagebrush cover types with sufficient shrub and herbaceous cover to protect sage-grouse from 

predators and weather and successfully raise young. Food resources are present or in close proximity to cover. 

Marginal: Seasonal habitat has a preponderance of sagebrush cover types with sparse shrub and/or herbaceous cover that does not provide the 

shelter needs for protection from predators and weather. Food resources are present but are either not at levels expected for ecological site 

potential or not in close proximity. 

Unsuitable: Seasonal habitat has a preponderance of land cover types that do not provide sufficient cover or food resources to meet the life 

requisite needs though there is potential to meet them in the future. 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 11

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Broad Scale (First Order)

The broad-scale (first-order) habitat selection 

is the rangewide potential presettlement habitat 

of both species of sage-grouse (Schroeder et al. 

2004) (figure 1). Connelly et al. (2004) provided 

figures that demonstrate the extent of the first 

order. Habitat suitability was demonstrated by 

evaluating sage-grouse numbers at leks distributed 

across the landscape (figure 2). This figure and its 

underlying dataset provide decisionmakers and 

conservation planners with a baseline from which 

they may begin the broad process of “visioning” 

the configuration of the landscape. 

Connelly et al. (2004) discussed first-order sagegrouse habitat suitability in terms of characteristics 

such as availability of large expanses of sagebrush 

or grass/sagebrush habitat, presence of migration 

corridors, and juxtaposition of other habitats and 

land uses within these large expanses. 

Mid Scale (Second Order)

Second-order habitat descriptions are linked 

to bird dispersal capabilities in population and 

subpopulation areas (figure 6). These population 

areas have been geographically described in a 

general manner for the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Connelly et al. 2004; figure 7) and Gunnison 

Sage-Grouse (Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide 

Steering Committee 2005; figure 1). A detailed 

description of the distribution of Greater SageGrouse populations and subpopulations is 

provided by Connelly et al. (2004). Secondorder descriptions are generally appropriate 

for subpopulations. However, some isolated 

populations may warrant second- or third-order 

habitat descriptions. 

The mix of sagebrush or grassland/sagebrush 

patches on the landscape at the second order 

also provides the life requisite of space for sagegrouse dispersal needs. The configuration of 

sagebrush or grassland/sagebrush habitat patches 

and the land cover or land use between the 

habitat patches within a subpopulation defines 

Figure 6. Mid-scale (second-order) habitat selection. The map demonstrates 

a series of interconnected subpopulations in mountain valleys.

suitability. Landscape suitability at the mid scale 

for populations and subpopulations can generally 

be described by the following scenarios:

• Suitable habitats within landscapes have 

connected mosaics of sagebrush shrublands 

that allow for bird dispersal and migration 

movements within the population and 

subpopulation area. Anthropogenic 

disturbances that can disrupt dispersal or 

cause mortality are generally not widespread 

or are absent. 

• Marginal habitats within landscapes have 

patchy, fragmented, sagebrush shrublands or 

grasslands/sagebrush areas that are not well 

connected for dispersal and migration in 

portions of the population or subpopulation 

area. Marginal habitats could also include 

shrubland areas experiencing encroachment by 

junipers or other tree species. Anthropogenic 
12 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

disturbances that disrupt dispersal or cause 

mortality may be common throughout all or 

portions of the landscape. Some lek groups or 

subpopulations are isolated or nearly isolated.

• Unsuitable habitats often include large areas

of former shrublands that have been largely 

converted to annual grasslands or shrublands 

or other land uses. Remaining habitat patches 

are predominantly or nearly unoccupied

by sage-grouse. The area may or may not

have some potential to become occupied in

the foreseeable future through succession

or restoration.

At the second order, sage-grouse occupancy and 

dispersal are dependent on the extent and pattern of 

sagebrush shrublands within a landscape matrix of 

nonhabitat and unsuitable habitat. Other habitats 

such as grasslands, wet meadows, and riparian 

areas provide important habitat for sage-grouse but 

only when they are in close proximity to sagebrush 

habitat (Connelly et al. 2004). The importance of 

these habitats is more appropriately addressed with 

seasonal habitat needs at the site scale. 

Six second-order habitat indicators influence 

habitat use, dispersal, and movement across 

population and subpopulation areas (table 2): 

1. Availability of sagebrush habitat. 

2. Size and number of habitat patches.

3. Connectivity of habitat patches.

4. Characteristics of linkage areas

between patches.

5. Landscape matrix and edge effects.

6. Anthropogenic disturbances.

Habitat suitability thresholds are poorly 

understood at the second order of habitat 

selection (Connelly et al. 2004). The relationships 

among indicators likely confound thresholds. 

Consistently describing subpopulation areas using 

these indicators across the range of the species 

may provide insights important in conservation 

planning. Comparing changes in these secondorder indicators over time (e.g., between existing 

Figure 7. Sage-grouse management zones and populations (Stiver et al. 2006).
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 13

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Table 2. Mid-scale (second-order) habitat indicators and suitability characteristics for sage-grouse habitats. 

Habitat Indicators Metric Description Habitat Suitability Characteristics

1. Habitat Availability The amount of sagebrush habitat in the area. The more sagebrush habitat relative to potential habitat, the greater the 

area’s suitability.

2. Patch Size and 

Number

The average size of habitat patches and the number of 

patches within the area.

Generally, the larger and more contiguous the habitat patches relative to the 

area, the greater the suitability of that area. 

3. Patch Connectivity The average distance from one habitat patch to the 

nearest similar patch within the area.

As the average distance between sage-grouse habitat patches in the area 

decreases, suitability increases. 

4. Linkage Area

Characteristics

Percent shrub cover in relation to tree or grass/forb 

cover of areas between habitat patches through which 

sage-grouse move.

As linkage areas between habitat patches increase in shrub cover rather 

than tree or grass/forb cover, habitat suitability increases. Presence of 

anthropogenic features between patches also decreases linkage area 

suitability.

5. Landscape Matrix and 

Edge Effect

The amount of edge in contact with plant 

communities or land uses with positive or negative 

influences on the habitat patch. 

As the amount of sagebrush edge in contact with plant communities or 

land uses that positively influence shrubland patch habitat increases, the 

landscape matrix and edge suitability increase.

6. Anthropogenic 

Disturbances

The fragmentation of contiguous sagebrush 

patches in the area through land use changes and 

infrastructure development. Measured as the number, 

length, or area (or area of influence) of embedded 

anthropogenic features per unit patch area.

As the number and intensity of anthropogenic features within the habitat 

patches in the area decrease, suitability increases.

conditions and those of an earlier reference 

period) provides information on habitat trends. 

Knick et al. (2013) have identified ecological 

minimums required by sage-grouse in the 

western portion of their range. Both land cover of 

sagebrush and anthropogenic features including 

human activity were the primary variables that 

defined those minimums. Taylor et al. (2013) 

reported on anthropogenic stressors from oil and 

gas development and West Nile virus and their 

effects on sage-grouse at this scale. Patch size, 

connectivity, habitat linkage, and landscape matrix 

thresholds for sage-grouse need further study. 

Quantifying existing habitat conditions using the 

six indicators and population monitoring will 

help reveal habitat and population relationships, 

and comparing existing conditions over time or a 

reference period could be helpful for describing 

habitat trends associated with second-order 

indicators. However, the spatial analysis skills 

or tools and availability of adequate vegetation 

datasets needed for these types of analyses are 

limited in many cases, so agencies, academia, and 

other conservation partners are encouraged to 

work together to build capacity in this regard.

Habitat availability, patch size, and patch 

connectivity are major components of suitability 

in the second order. The amount of occupied 

habitat within the landscape matrix of nonhabitat 

and unsuitable habitat is important to describe 

(table 2, indicator 1). In some areas, the ratio of 

suitable to marginal to unsuitable habitat would 

be an important conservation statistic for 

measuring habitat restoration progress. The more 

sagebrush habitat relative to potential habitat, the 

greater the area’s suitability. Whether the available 

habitat is contained in one large habitat patch or 

several patches (indicator 2) could influence sagegrouse use and dispersal between subpopulations 

(figure 8). Dispersal could be uninterrupted in 

large habitat patches, whereas movement between 

smaller patches may be disrupted, depending on 

the configuration of the patches and landscape 

matrix in which they are embedded. Generally, 

the larger and more contiguous the sagebrush 

patches of a population or subpopulation are, the 

greater the suitability of that area. The closer the 
14 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

suitable habitat patches are to each other, the more 

likely sage-grouse can move freely between them 

(indicator 3).

Habitat linkage and patch edges forming a matrix 

on the landscape can greatly influence habitat 

use and dispersal within and between occupied 

areas. The landscape context in which patches 

are located has a bearing not only on habitat 

suitability for dispersal between patches but also 

on the likelihood that the habitat patches will 

persist into the future (Morrison et al. 1998). 

Resource managers, planners, and decisionmakers 

should evaluate existing or potential pathways 

from habitat patch to habitat patch. Barriers that 

compromise sage-grouse movements between 

habitat patches are not completely understood and 

are variable (Connelly et al. 1988; Leonard et al. 

2000; Beck et al. 2006; Knick and Hanser 2011). 

Linkage area suitability is believed to improve 

as the percent of shrub cover (not necessarily 

sagebrush) increases relative to tree or grass cover 

in the areas between the habitat patches (indicator 

4). The cover type or land use immediately 

adjacent to a habitat patch can positively or 

negatively affect the quality of that patch’s 

suitability as sage-grouse habitat. Adjacent land 

cover types also differ in (1) mortality risks posed 

to birds occupying the habitat patch, (2) influence 

on existing patch quality, and (3) influence on 

patch and habitat persistence. As the amount of 

sagebrush edge in contact with plant communities 

or land uses that positively influence shrubland 

patch habitat increases, the landscape matrix and 

edge suitability increase (figure 9) (indicator 5). 

This is termed “positive edge” (Ries et al. 2004). 

Edge effects associated with roads and other linear 

anthropogenic features within habitat patches are 

discussed later as a component of fragmentation 

within the habitat patch.

Figure 8. Habitat patches in two similar subpopulation areas. Areas A and B have similar total area and habitat quality, but area A has one large habitat patch 

while area B has several smaller ones. In area A, sage-grouse can freely disperse. The distance between patches in area B is great enough to limit sage-grouse 

movement between the patches, potentially affecting habitat suitability.

Subpopulation Area A

Area = 3,500 km2

Habitat = 1,500 km2

# Patches = 1

Average Patch Size = 2,428 km2

Subpopulation Area B

Area = 3,500 km2

Habitat = 1,500 km2

# Patches = 6

Average Patch Size = 250 km2

Habitat Patch

Unsuitable Patch
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 15

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Figure 9. A habitat patch depicting a function of contrast and (dis)similarity. 

These communities greatly affect future risks to sage-grouse populations and 

habitat suitability.

Anthropogenic disturbances influence sage-grouse 

habitat, numbers, and distribution at each order 

of habitat selection (indicator 6). Anthropogenic 

features can affect sage-grouse demographics or 

habitat use in two significant ways: 

• Anthropogenic features may directly and 

indirectly cause mortality, which can then 

affect the long-term sustainability of the 

population or subpopulation. The mortality 

significance of the features depends on their 

scope and intensity. However, an increase in 

anthropogenic features in otherwise suitable 

habitat increases the probability that the 

habitat will become a sink habitat rather than 

a source habitat (Aldridge 2005). Effects of the 

human footprint may not be readily apparent 

in the immediate population response, but 

over time, and if the scope and intensity 

of these features increase, there will likely 

be a negative impact on population trend 

(Connelly et al 2004; Aldridge 2005; Holloran 

2005; Wisdom et al. 2005).

• Sage-grouse eventually avoid areas with a 

high density of anthropogenic features even 

if site-scale conditions are suitable (Connelly 

et al. 2004). While there is still much to learn 

about the dispersal and home range selection 

process, there is mounting evidence that sagegrouse are sensitive to human disturbances 

and will avoid areas they once used if those 

areas have been altered by anthropogenic 

features that exceed some threshold (Connelly 

et al. 2004; Aldridge 2005; Holloran 2005; 

Johnson et al. 2011; Knick et al. 2011; Knick 

et al. 2013). The anthropogenic feature 

thresholds that affect these selection processes 

likely vary depending on type of use, seasons 

of use, intensity of use, cumulative extent 

of features, topography, and other factors. 

However, if these changes occur quickly on the 

landscape, sage-grouse may not recognize the 

risks associated with these features and may 

not show an immediate avoidance response 

(Aldridge 2005; Aldridge and Boyce 2007).

Fine Scale (Third Order)

Sage-grouse select seasonal habitats (third-order 

habitats) within their home ranges, including 

breeding, summer, and winter habitats (figure 10) 

(Johnson 1980; Connelly et al. 2004). For many 

wildlife species with large home ranges, including 

sage-grouse, seasonal life requisite needs differ, 

and movement is required to meet seasonal shelter 

and food needs. Sage-grouse are generally 

traditional in their seasonal movement patterns 

(Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2004; 

Holloran 2005). Some sage-grouse may move long 

distances (>30 km) from breeding to summer and 

from summer and to winter habitats. Fedy 

et al. (2012) reported high variability of movement 

distances within and among seasonal habitats. 

Sage-grouse diets shift from insects and forbs 

during breeding and summer seasons to sagebrush 

during winter (Berry and Eng 1985; Schroeder 

et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2004). The life requisite 
16 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

“space” is still a predominant need for sage-grouse 

to access their seasonal food and shelter needs at 

the fine scale.

Third-order habitat descriptions should address 

factors that affect sage-grouse use of, and 

movements between, seasonal use areas. Seasonal 

home ranges for sage-grouse associated with a lek 

or lek group within a population or subpopulation 

area should be the habitat focus. In some cases, 

small isolated populations or subpopulations may 

be the focus of fine-scale descriptions. Habitat 

suitability at the fine scale can generally be 

described as follows:

• Suitable habitats within home range areas have 

contiguous mosaics of sagebrush shrublands 

or grassland/sagebrush connecting seasonal 

use areas. Anthropogenic features within 

home ranges that can disrupt seasonal 

movements or cause mortality are generally 

absent or at least not widespread. 

• Marginal habitats within home range areas 

have patchy, disjunct sagebrush shrublands 

or grassland/sagebrush between seasonal 

use areas or may exhibit some degree of 

tree/conifer encroachment. Anthropogenic 

features that can disrupt seasonal movements 

or cause mortality may occur within the 

home range.

• Unsuitable habitats within a home range 

area are potential shrublands currently 

dominated by perennial or annual grasses, 

invasive woodlands (e.g., western juniper), or 

incompatible land uses (some anthropogenic 

features) not conducive to sage-grouse 

seasonal movements or habitat use. Most leks 

have been abandoned or have few remaining 

birds. Other unsuitable habitat examples 

include conifer encroachment (>4 percent 

canopy cover); severe topographical features 

such as deep canyons; and lands converted to 

farmland, urban areas, reservoirs, etc. 

Figure 10. Fine-scale (third-order) habitat selection. 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 17

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Table 3. Fine-scale (third-order) habitat indicators and suitability characteristics for sage-grouse habitat seasonal use areas within home ranges (in terms of 

potential barriers to movement, reproduction, and survival).

Habitat Indicators Metric Description Habitat Suitability Characteristics

1. Seasonal Habitat 

Availability

The amount of sagebrush shrubland in seasonal use 

areas. The amount of other forb-rich habitats in 

summer/fall seasonal use areas.

The more sagebrush shrubland within seasonal use areas in the home range, 

the greater the area’s suitability. Other forb-rich habitats in summer/fall 

seasonal use areas are available.

2. Seasonal Use Area 

Connectivity 

The extent of sagebrush connectivity between 

seasonal use areas.

As areas between seasonal use areas increase in sagebrush cover, habitat 

suitability increases. 

3. Anthropogenic 

Disturbances

The disruption of movement between or use of 

seasonal use areas within a home range due to land 

use changes and infrastructure development. 

Measured as the number, length, or area of 

anthropogenic features within a home range area.

As the number and significance of anthropogenic features within a home 

range decrease, suitability increases.

At this scale, sage-grouse select seasonal ranges 

to meet their life requisite needs (Johnson 1980; 

Connelly et al. 2003). Sage-grouse generally 

inhabit large interconnected areas of sagebrush 

habitat, thus, there are three fine-scale (thirdorder) habitat indicators that influence sagegrouse use of and movements between seasonal 

use areas (table 3):

1. Seasonal habitat availability.

2. Seasonal use area connectivity.

3. Anthropogenic disturbances and habitat 

loss and fragmentation. 

Seasonal habitat availability is the initial habitat 

indicator at this scale. Although sage-grouse are 

considered a landscape species, the amount of 

habitat required has not been determined due to 

the variability in quality and juxtaposition within 

the landscape (Connelly et al. 2011). Generally, 

the more sagebrush shrubland within seasonal 

use areas in the home range, the more suitable the 

habitat (indicator 1).

The availability and connectivity of sagebrush 

within seasonal use areas of sage-grouse home 

ranges can affect suitability. To address this, 

seasonal use areas need to be identified and 

mapped. Descriptions of the availability of other 

forb-rich habitats in summer and fall areas is 

also important at this scale, particularly if these 

habitats are in close proximity to sagebrushdominated communities.

Following nesting, hens often move chicks to 

summer ranges for food. Connectivity between 

breeding and summer brood-rearing habitats is 

particularly important due to the restricted flight 

capability of chicks at this time. In general, the 

more contiguous the sagebrush cover between 

seasonal use areas, the more suitable the habitat 

(indicator 2). In some areas, other shrub 

communities may provide important connecting 

habitat between seasonal use areas.

There is increasing evidence that anthropogenic 

disturbances within a home range can cause local 

extirpations even if other habitat conditions 

appear suitable (Aldridge 2005; Holloran 2005; 

Aldridge et al. 2008). Anthropogenic features can 

affect sage-grouse in two significant ways at the 

fine scale. Anthropogenic features directly and 

indirectly increase mortality or decrease 

recruitment, and sage-grouse may eventually 

avoid seasonal use areas with a high density of 

anthropogenic features even if site-scale 

conditions are suitable (indicator 3). 

Anthropogenic features can also facilitate the 

intrusion of avian and mammalian species that 

directly depredate sage-grouse, or they may 

promote the spread of exotic plant species such as 

cheatgrass or noxious weeds that alter the 
18 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

suitability of habitats (Lyon 2000; Lyon and 

Anderson 2003; Holloran 2005; Aldridge 2005). 

Site Scale (Fourth Order)

Habitat suitability at the site scale (fourth order) 

describes the more detailed vegetation indicators 

of seasonal habitat such as canopy cover and 

height of sagebrush (nesting and wintering); 

the associated understory vegetation (breeding, 

nesting, and early brood-rearing); and vegetation 

associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, 

and other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush 

(summer/late brood-rearing) (figure 11). Based 

on extensive research in many western states, 

Connelly et al. (2000) developed and Hagen et 

al. (2007) reviewed habitat criteria or indicators 

required by sage-grouse for specific seasonal needs 

(breeding, summer, and wintering). While general 

criteria were recommended, Connelly et al. (2000) 

recognized that ecological site potential should 

be considered at the site scale. Hagen et al. 2007 

provided a meta-analysis of existing research on 

nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Generalized 

seasonal habitats are characterized as (1) breeding 

habitat—habitat for prelaying hens, leks, nesting, 

and early brood-rearing; (2) summer/late broodrearing habitat; (3) fall habitat; and (4) winter 

habitat. Connelly et al. (2000) provided extensive 

treatment of each of these seasonal ranges. Tables 

4 through 7 summarize seasonal habitat indicators 

at the fourth order. 

The various site-scale seasonal habitat criteria or 

indicators referenced above have been further 

interpreted in the HAF to provide a range of 

habitat categories that facilitate sage-grouse habitat 

evaluations and conservation planning. Suitable 

habitats provide the appropriate protective cover 

(sagebrush and herbaceous plants), food (forbs, 

insects, and sagebrush), and security (few or no 

trees or tall structures for predators) needs for 

sage-grouse to survive and reproduce (Connelly 

et al. 2000; Sather-Blair et al. 2000). Marginal 

habitats include habitat components to support 

sage-grouse, but habitat conditions are lower in 

quality compared to suitable habitats and does 

not provide shelter from predators and weather. 

Survival and reproduction rates are assumed lower 

in marginal habitats compared to suitable habitats 

(Cooperrider et al. 1986; Morrison et al. 1998). 

Unsuitable habitats are currently missing one or 

more of the basic life requisites of food or shelter, 

though they may have the potential to provide 

these life requisites in the future. In all cases, 

professional judgment and experience are needed 

to describe suitability in the appropriate context.

Table 4. Site-scale (fourth-order) breeding habitat indicators and suitability characteristics for lek sites (Connelly et al. 2000). 

Habitat Indicators Metric Description Habitat Suitability Characteristics

1. Availability of

Sagebrush Cover Lek has adjacent sagebrush cover in close proximity. Adjacent sagebrush cover within 100 meters.

2. Proximity of

Detrimental Land Uses

The distance to land uses that have detrimental effects 

on lek use. Sonic and physical disturbances such as 

highways, railroads, and industrial parks are examples.

Detrimental land uses are not within line of sight of lek and absent to 

uncommon within 3 km of lek.

3. Proximity of Trees or 

Other Tall Structures 

The presence of trees or other tall structures within 

line of sight of leks.

Trees or other tall structures are not within line of sight of lek and absent or 

uncommon within 3 km of the lek. 

Figure 11. Site-scale (fourth-order) habitat selection.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 19

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Table 5. Site-scale (fourth-order) breeding habitat indicators and suitability characteristics for nesting and early brood-rearing sites. 

Habitat Indicators Metric Description Habitat Suitability Characteristics

Arid Sites1 Mesic Sites1

1. Sagebrush Cover Average percent cover for land cover type. 15–25% 15–25%

2. Sagebrush Height Average sagebrush height for land cover type. 30–80 cm

(12–30 inches)

40–80 cm

(15–30 inches)

3. Predominant

Sagebrush Shape2

Number of sagebrush plants by shape and most 

common sagebrush shape for land cover type. Spreading Spreading

4. Perennial Grass and 

Forb Heights Average maximum heights in land cover type. >18 cm(>7 inches)

>18 cm

(>7 inches)

5. Perennial Grass Cover Average percent cover for land cover type. >10% >15%

6. Perennial Forb Cover Average percent cover for land cover type. >5% >10%

7. Preferred Forb

Availability Number of preferred forbs in land cover type.

Good abundance and

availability relative to

ecological site potential

1 Mesic and arid sites should be defined on a local basis; annual precipitation, herbaceous understory, and soils should be considered (Connelly et al. 2000).

2 Sagebrush plants that are more tree- or columnar-shaped, with no or few lower branches, provide less protective cover near the ground than sagebrush plants with a spreading 

shape. Basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. tridentata) plants often have this columnar shape, as do other sagebrush species or subspecies that have been heavily browsed 

or rubbed. Sagebrush communities in which the columnar shrub shape is predominant are assumed likely to require more herbaceous cover to compensate to provide adequate 

protection for nesting sage-grouse and young broods. Conversely, in suitable habitat, the spreading shape should be predominant; however, there may be a small proportion of 

columnar plants present.

Table 6. Site-scale (fourth-order) habitat indicators and suitability characteristics for summer/late brood-rearing habitat (Connelly et al. 2000).

Habitat Suitability Characteristics

Habitat Indicators Metric Description Upland Sagebrush

Communities1

Riparian and Wet Meadow

Communities

1. Sagebrush Cover Average percent cover for land cover type. 10–25%

2. Sagebrush Height Average sagebrush height for land cover type. 40–80 cm

(15–30 inches)

3. Availability of

Sagebrush Cover Food site has sagebrush cover in close proximity. Sagebrush cover is within 100 m of riparian or wet meadow foraging area.

4. Perennial Grass and 

Forb Cover Average percent cover for land cover type. ≥15%

5. Riparian Stability Functioning condition. The majority of riparian areas are in proper 

functioning condition.

6. Preferred Forb 

Availability

Number and density of preferred forbs in land

cover type.

Good abundance, 

diversity, and availability 

relative to ecological 

site potential.

1 In areas where agricultural fields provide the food resources, the habitat indicators for protective cover apply.

Table 7. Site-scale (fourth-order) habitat indicators and suitability characteristics for winter habitat (Connelly et al. 2000).

Habitat Indicators Metric Description Habitat Suitability Characteristics

1. Sagebrush Cover Average percent cover exposed above snow in 

wintering area.

≥10–30% 

exposed above snow.

2. Sagebrush Height Average height above snow in wintering area. ≥25–35 cm (10–14 inches)

exposed above snow.
20 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

To ensure consistency in reporting and 

communicating field data, seasonal habitat 

suitability matrices should NOT be revised 

unless warranted by scientific evidence. 

Guidelines for managing sage-grouse habitats 

have been published by Connelly et al. (2000) and 

evaluated by Hagen et al. (2007). These guidelines 

describe characteristics of productive sage-grouse 

habitats based on a large number (n=24) of 

studies conducted throughout the species’ range. 

These guidelines are often included in various 

management plans and planning documents. 

However, this information should not be viewed 

as providing standards by which to judge the 

overall quality of sagebrush habitats. Instead, 

these sage-grouse habitat characteristics should 

be used as tools for assessing habitats and guiding 

management actions. 

Connelly et al. (2000) stated that there may be 

a need to develop adjustments to height and 

cover requirements and emphasized that any 

such adjustments should be reasonable and 

ecologically defensible. To foster consistency, 

making adjustments to site suitability indicator 

values at the local scale should be avoided unless 

there is strong, scientific justification for doing 

so. Regional adjustments must be supported by 

regional plant productivity and habitat data and in 

floristic provinces and sage-grouse management 

zones as reported by Connelly et al. (2004) and 

Stiver et al. (2006). If adjustments are made to 

the site-scale indicators, they must be made using 

nesting and brood-rearing data collected from 

sage-grouse studies found in the relevant area 

and peer reviewed by the appropriate wildlife 

management agency(ies) and researchers. 

Similarly, regional research may suggest the 

need to adjust habitat management guidelines or 

quantitative indicator values in the HAF’s sitescale suitability matrices. However, these matrices 

are designed to organize field data into a useful 

format for consistency and communication, so 

changes in criteria should only be made after 

considerable coordination and only if scientific 

evidence warrants their adjustment. There 

is a tendency to review each indicator and its 

suitability category independently, but site 

suitability is determined by the relationship among 

the several indicator values in each matrix. The 

suitability classes for these matrices are based on 

rangewide plant productivity and structural data 

and expert opinion relative to sage-grouse use. 

Finally, it is important to recognize that the term 

“suitable” is not synonymous with “optimum.” 

In some parts of the range, the indicators will need 

to be interpreted with a regional perspective. For 

example, the sagebrush cover may be naturally 

high in some portions of the sage-grouse range, 

but herbaceous cover capability, based on site 

potential, may be below the height identified in 

the guidelines; thus, adequate cover for sagegrouse may still be present. In other portions of 

the range, sagebrush cover may be below those 

found in the guidelines, but herbaceous cover may 

be high and providing adequate cover for nesting. 

Invasive plants, especially invasive annual grasses, 

that occur in many sagebrush habitats can 

have deleterious effects on sage-grouse habitat 

and therefore should be documented. While 

sage-grouse habitat may be directly affected by 

invasive plants through competitive exclusion 

of native plants that provide cover and forage 

(Rowland et al. 2010; Mooney and Cleland 2001), 

the most significant impacts of invasive plants 

on sage-grouse habitat are indirect through 

alteration of fire regimes. Invasive annual grasses 

generally provide for continuous ground cover 

that facilitates greater frequency and intensity of 

fires creating annual grass dominated habitats 

compared to native perennial habitats that are 

dominated by sparse, discontinuous fuels (Balch 

et al. 2013; Antonio and Vitousek 1992). The 

resulting increased frequency and intensity of fires 

result in changes in life form classes from shrubs 

to grasses, and species composition becomes 

dominated by annuals, providing little value for 

food and cover for sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 

2004; Davies et al. 2011; Miller et al. 2011).

While sage-grouse may occupy habitats where 

shorter statured Sandberg bluegrass (Poa 

secunda) is dominant in the understory, this is 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 21

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

not sufficient reason to assume that the suitability 

indicator value for grass height should be reduced, 

especially if the ecological site potential is for 

larger bunchgrasses. Rather, this condition may 

indeed reflect reduced habitat suitability and likely 

indicates a rangeland health issue that should be 

addressed via appropriate restoration activities or 

management changes. These examples illustrate 

that individual indicator values do not define 

site suitability and that overall site suitability 

descriptions require an interpretation of the 

relationships between the indicators and other 

factors. Professional expertise and judgment 

are required.

Habitat Description Steps

Habitat description steps are identified for each 

scale. Descriptions for the first and second 

order are brief. Descriptions and evaluations of 

habitat at these scales have been completed or 

are in the process of being completed through 

ecosystemwide assessments. These assessments 

have been tasked by agencies including the BLM, 

U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Geological Survey 

and nongovernmental organizations, including 

The Nature Conservancy. Policy-level officials, 

scientists, spatial analysts, and resource managers 

need to access these evaluation efforts to reach 

decision points for each scale.

Broad Scale (First Order) and

Mid Scale (Second Order)

Considerable broad-scale and mid-scale 

information is available for Greater Sage-Grouse 

range (Schroeder et al. 2004) and populations 

(Connelly et al. 2004) as well as for Gunnison 

Sage-Grouse (Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide 

Steering Committee 2005). Stiver et al. (2006) 

identified seven sage-grouse management 

zones that conform to seven clusters of habitat 

and populations described in Connelly et al. 

2004 from Kuchler (1970), West (1983), and 

Miller and Eddleman (2001) (figure 7). The 

management zones provide a first- and secondorder context for management purposes. There 

are also several regional assessments describing 

shrub steppe habitat (table 8). These assessments 

provide critical information necessary for finer 

scale habitat descriptions as they provide scale 

context to habitats and populations (Connelly 

et al. 2004; Wisdom et al. 2005; Aldridge et al. 

2008). In addition, these assessments describe and 

evaluate disturbances to landscapes and resulting 

habitat patterns operating at the population and 

species range scales. Large landscape features 

and disturbances influence the distribution and 

abundance of sage-grouse on the landscape. The 

BLM has also conducted six rapid ecoregional 

assessments over the range of Greater and 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse that examine ecological 

values, conditions, and trends within ecoregions.

Greater and Gunnison Sage-Grouse populations/

subpopulations as described by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (2013) and Gunnison SageGrouse Rangewide Steering Committee (2005) are 

shown in figure 3 (see chapter 1). 

From a practical standpoint, the management 

of sagebrush/sage-grouse habitats at the first 

order of habitat selection requires policy at the 

management zone that contributes to policy for 

Table 8. Rangewide and regional assessments containing information on sage-grouse or their habitat.

Species Assessment Area Citations

Greater Sage-Grouse Rangewide (OR, WA, CA, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, CO, NM, AB, SK) Connelly et al. 2000; Miller and Eddleman 2001; Connelly et al. 2004; 

Aldridge et al. 2008; Knick and Connelly 2011 

Greater Sage-Grouse Upper Columbia River Basin (OR, WA) Hann et al. 1997; Wisdom et al. 2000

Greater Sage-Grouse Great Basin (ID, NV, UT, CA) Wisdom et al. 2005

Greater Sage-Grouse Wyoming Basin (WY, CO, MT, UT, ID) Rowland et al. 2006a

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide (CO, UT) Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005
22 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

the range of sage-grouse. Each management zone, 

evaluated by the various regional assessments, 

provides policymakers with parameters to match 

policy to realistic outcomes. 

Management and management direction for 

second-order scales require the use of existing 

broad-scale data and the application of GIS tools 

for analysis. These evaluations should document 

existing conditions (see form M-1 in appendix 

B), assess potential for habitat manipulation, 

and consider landscape constraints. Landscape 

scientists and spatial analysts may provide 

decisionmakers with a vision of the future 

landscape matrix.

Fine Scale (Third Order)

Ecological processes of interest at the third order 

of habitat selection are those that may affect sagegrouse movements between seasonal habitats 

within a home range (table 9). Habitat needs and 

the indicators that describe life requisite needs 

vary by season. Third-order habitat assessments 

take into account seasonal use areas or home 

ranges of sage-grouse associated with a lek or 

group of leks. Seasonal habitat availability, 

connectivity, and anthropogenic disturbances 

should be described at this scale. Third-order 

habitat mapping uses the information gathered 

at the mid-scale and refines it to show seasonal 

habitat patterns for a home range of interest. 

At this scale, identifying seasonal habitat use areas 

to the extent possible is important. Habitat and 

wildlife resource specialists, along with people 

with local knowledge, should jointly evaluate 

sage-grouse seasonal distribution evidence to 

determine the presence or absence of sage-grouse. 

In the absence of telemetry data or other seasonal 

use data or models, wildlife biologists who 

understand sage-grouse habitat selection and 

needs can effectively predict how sage-grouse 

make seasonal use of their habitats. In many 

cases, mapping seasonal habitats will occur 

incrementally over time and in higher priority 

landscapes first due to limited staffing and 

funding resources.

Table 9. Summary of fine-scale (third-order) ecological processes (Johnson 1980), mapping features, and management levels for sage-grouse

habitat descriptions. 

Ecological Processes

Ecological Time Period 5–20 years in the future

Climatic Processes Local weather patterns: localized drought, rain shadow areas

Landscape Processes

Local-scale processes that have long- and short-term consequences on home range use, seasonally and year-round: 

conversion of sagebrush habitat between seasonal ranges to nonhabitat or unsuitable habitat, anthropogenic features that 

act as filters or barriers to seasonal movements

Population Processes - Habitat 

Dynamics

Connectivity of sagebrush habitat and other adjacent habitats provide for effective use of seasonal habitats within a 

home range, seasonal migration corridors are maintained, collective fitness of birds within the home range is sufficient for 

long-term persistence

Mapping Features

Extent Seasonal habitats within a home range

Grain Fine grain (30-meter pixel size)

Vegetation Cover Types Associations or groups thereof

Geographic Extent Equivalents Subbasins or group of watersheds

Cartographic Scale Range e.g., 1:24,000–1:100,000

Management Levels

Administrative Hierarchical Level Local county governments, BLM field offices or subunits, Forest Service national forests/ranger districts 

Planning and Assessment

Documents BLM activity plans (e.g., habitat or allotment management plans), forest plans, watershed assessments, and land use plans
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 23

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

The steps to describe sage-grouse habitat at the 

fine scale (third order) are as follows:

Step 1. Determine the extent and grain size 

appropriate for a habitat description of the 

home range area. Develop a vegetation map 

using appropriate third-order land cover types.

Identify sage-grouse populations or 

subpopulations as described by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (2013) and Gunnison SageGrouse Rangewide Steering Committee (2005) 

and shown in figure 3 (see chapter 1). Delineate 

the home range area of interest and document 

the grain size for the analyses needed. Generally, 

a 30-meter pixel size is desired for third-order 

descriptions. Remote data should be collected 

at as fine a scale as available and affordable 

and should be aggregated at the 30-meter pixel 

resolution. Third-order habitat descriptions 

require more detailed vegetation information for 

an area. Identify natural vegetation cover types 

using information from the National Vegetation 

Classification System (see http://usnvc.org/ or 

http://www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/

projects/us-national-vegetation-classification). 

Land cover datasets are constantly being refined or 

improved upon, so use the latest, most appropriate 

product or version. Distinguishing between 

sagebrush alliances (Reid et al. 2002) to help 

identify seasonal habitat availability and 

connectivity of different sagebrush communities 

is important (table 10). Distinguishing between 

certain nonhabitat types, such as salt desert shrub, 

forest/woodland, and agricultural lands, is also 

important. Pasture lands or conservation reserve 

program lands adjacent to sagebrush habitat 

may provide summer food resources with little 

risk from pesticides or mowing. Conversely, 

sage-grouse use of agricultural lands, such as 

row crops adjacent to sagebrush, may be 

hazardous to sage-grouse because of risk of 

mortality from mechanical equipment (e.g., 

mowing) or chemicals. 

Step 2. Map occupied seasonal habitats 

and identify potential habitat by seasonal 

use period.

Occupied and potential seasonal habitats should 

be mapped in cooperation with the state wildlife 

agency. Historic and current data and knowledge 

Table 10. Example of basic sagebrush land cover types needed for mid-scale (second-order) habitat descriptions. Fine-scale (third-order) cover types are 

generally shrubland alliances as described by Reid et al. (2002). NP = native perennial grass, EP = exotic perennial grass, EA = exotic annual grass. 

Mid-Scale Cover Types

(overstory/understory)

Fine-Scale Cover Types 

(overstory/understory)

Sagebrush/Native Perennial Grass Wyoming and basin big sagebrush/NP

Black sagebrush/NP

Low sagebrush/NP

Low sagebrush – mountain big sagebrush/NP

Low sagebrush – Wyoming big sagebrush/NP

Mountain big sagebrush/NP

Rigid sagebrush/NP

Silver sagebrush/NP

Threetip sagebrush/NP

Wyoming big sagebrush – squawapple/NP

Gambel Oak – Basin big sagebrush shrubland/NP

Sagebrush/Exotic Perennial Grass Wyoming and basin big sagebrush/EP

Black sagebrush/EP

Low sagebrush/EP

Low sagebrush – mountain big sagebrush/EP

Low sagebrush – Wyoming big sagebrush/EP

Mountain big sagebrush/EP

Rigid sagebrush/EP

Silver sagebrush/EP

Threetip sagebrush/EP

Wyoming big sagebrush – squawapple/EP

Sagebrush/Exotic Annual Grass Wyoming and basin big sagebrush/EA

Black sagebrush/EA

Low sagebrush – mountain big sagebrush/EA

Low sagebrush – Wyoming big sagebrush/EA

Mountain big sagebrush/EA

Rigid sagebrush/EA

Silver sagebrush/EA

Threetip sagebrush/EA

Wyoming big sagebrush – squawapple/EA
24 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

from local sage-grouse experts should be used to 

help identify seasonal use areas and to determine 

the migratory status of the population. In some 

areas, seasonal habitats will overlap (e.g., breeding 

and winter or late brood-rearing/summer). In 

other areas, seasonal habitat may be separated by 

many miles. Three main sage-grouse seasonal 

habitats (breeding, which is composed of lekking, 

prelaying, nesting, and early brood-rearing; 

summer/late brood-rearing; and winter) should be 

identified (table 11). If seasonal use patterns are 

unknown, mapping the vegetation and elevations 

will help identify them. State wildlife agencies, 

federal agencies, or university researchers may 

have telemetry data or other information that can 

be used as well. In addition, predictive modeling 

as described by Yost et al. (2008) can be used to 

help identify seasonal habitats. 

Breeding Habitat: The breeding period typically 

occurs from March 1 through late June and 

includes the period when sage-grouse attend leks 

to breed, prepare nutritionally for nesting, nest, 

and raise young chicks (Connelly et al. 2000). 

Breeding habitat includes all sagebrush types that 

may be used during this timeframe. Sage-grouse 

require a mixture of sagebrush, grasses, and 

forbs for adequate breeding habitat. Sagebrush 

cover types within 18 km (11 miles) of a lek for 

migratory populations and 5 km (3.1 miles) 

for nonmigratory populations are considered 

breeding habitat and are mapped as such unless 

this distance includes sagebrush communities that 

sage-grouse would not use for nesting (e.g., deep 

canyon areas, sagebrush areas typically covered by 

deep snow, or sagebrush areas compromised by 

anthropogenic disturbances). Mapping sagebrush 

habitats at this scale, with the exclusion of canyon 

areas and other areas not used for nesting, can be 

readily accomplished using routine GIS techniques 

and available land cover and digital elevation data. 

The accuracy of some thematic vegetation data can 

be problematic, so users need to understand the 

limitations of the data. In addition, there may be 

some sagebrush cover types that do not provide 

suitable breeding habitat due to plant structure 

characteristics or because of edaphic conditions, 

steep slopes, aspect, or other factors that are 

important locally. Map known nesting and early 

brood-rearing areas if telemetry data or other 

observational data are available.

Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat: Summer 

is generally described as that period between 

July 1 and September 30 (Connelly et al. 2000). 

During summer, sage-grouse are found in areas 

with succulent forbs adjacent to or intermixed 

with sagebrush. Hens generally move their 

chicks to more mesic conditions, such as higher 

elevation sagebrush communities, mountain shrub 

communities, wet meadow complexes, agricultural 

fields, perennial lakes, streams, ponds, or lakebeds 

adjacent to sagebrush, during the summer months. 

Riparian areas associated with steep drainages or 

canyons typically are not used by sage-grouse and 

should not be mapped as summer habitat. Several 

information sources are available to help identify 

summer habitats within the home range area:

1. Observations by local residents and agency 

field personnel.

Table 11. General seasonal habitat descriptions modified from Connelly et al. (2000).

Habitats General Use Period1 General Description2

Breeding Habitat March 1–June 30 Includes leks, prenesting, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitats. A variety of sagebrush plant communities in close proximity to leks and big sagebrush communities. 

Summer/Late Brood-Rearing 

Habitat July 1–September 30 Variety of mesic or moist habitats in close proximity to sagebrush communities.

Winter Habitat December 1–February 28 or 29 Variety of sagebrush communities that have sagebrush above the snow.

1 Use periods may vary based on elevation and annual weather conditions.

2 General descriptions for some areas; primary vegetation communities may vary based on local conditions and availability.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 25

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

2. Historic observations in BLM or other 

agency files.

3. Telemetry data.

4. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps.

5. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) 

maps.

6. Riparian proper functioning condition 

(PFC) assessments and maps.

7. Remote sensing data (NAIP, GAP, 

Landfire, etc.).

8. Digital elevation models.

9. Current and historic brood survey routes/

area surveys conducted by wildlife 

agencies.

Mesic sagebrush communities adjacent to 

breeding habitats should be considered summer 

habitat and may occur beyond the 18 km distance 

from leks, particularly in higher elevation 

areas. In addition, within breeding and summer 

sagebrush habitat, all riparian, wetland, and other 

forb-rich habitat should be considered summer 

habitat. Ground–truthing of historic brood routes 

should be conducted to determine continued 

presence of sage-grouse.

Fall Habitat: Fall is the period when sage-grouse 

transition from feeding on forbs, insects, and 

sagebrush to primarily sagebrush. Use of fall 

habitats may occur from September to December 

due to yearly variability in temperature and 

precipitation as plants desiccate or die from 

frost (Connelly et al. 2011). Fall habitats are 

generally not believed to be a limiting life history 

component for most populations and therefore are 

not discussed further.

Winter Habitat: Sage-grouse are entirely 

dependent on sagebrush for food and cover 

during winter. Sage-grouse use sagebrush that is 

exposed above the snow or on windswept ridges. 

Sagebrush that is covered by deep snow, such as at 

some higher elevations, is not available to sagegrouse. Sage-grouse typically congregate in large 

groups during winter and use traditional wintering 

areas (Berry and Eng 1985; Schroeder and Robb 

2003). Wintering areas are likely the most difficult 

habitats to map for sage-grouse. Wintering 

areas may be inaccessible, may vary based upon 

annual weather/snow conditions, or may be 

found long distances from other known habitats. 

Mapping known traditional winter use areas, 

particularly those that are used by large numbers 

of birds, is important. Due to access constraints 

during winter, potentially important areas may 

be identified any time during the year based on 

topography, sagebrush type, and evidence of roost 

(pellet group) sites. Areas should eventually be 

verified for winter use, if possible, by documenting 

birds, tracks, and scat observed. Particularly 

during years of above average snowfall, biologists 

should attempt to document sage-grouse winteruse areas to identify the critical habitat areas. 

Additionally, biologists should conduct directed 

searches of likely areas during the winter based 

upon topography, slope and aspect, elevation, 

and vegetation. The state wildlife agency, local 

landowners, or other field personnel may have 

information regarding winter use. Information 

sources that may be useful include:

1. Observations by local residents, local 

working groups, or agency personnel.

2. Telemetry data.

3. Historic observations from land 

management and wildlife agency files.

4. Aerial flights during winter.

5. Graduate theses, dissertations, and 

published literature.

Step 3. Describe seasonal habitat availability.

Using the information from steps 1 and 2, describe 

occupied and potential seasonal habitats in the 

home range area. Breeding, summer, and winter 

habitats are important to describe. Calculate:

1. The estimated amounts of occupied 

breeding, summer, and winter habitats.

2. The estimated amounts of potential 

breeding, summer, and winter habitats. 

Documenting the amount of existing sage-grouse 

seasonal habitat relative to potential habitat is 
26 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

important because it provides critical information 

for restoration planning. 

Step 4. Describe and map anthropogenic 

features within and between

seasonal habitats.

Overlay spatial data for anthropogenic features 

that was gathered at the second order (mid scale; 

indicator 6). For the home range area, document 

the following information:

1. The location and density of highways, 

major roads (km/km2), railroads, 

transmission lines, oil/gas pipelines, and 

other large linear features.

2. The location, number, and density (sites/

km2) of communication sites, energy 

pads, mineral sites, wind turbines, 

meteorological towers, geothermal 

sites, landfills, gravel pits, and other 

anthropogenic features. 

3. If planning a habitat trend analysis, 

the estimated decade or year (the latter 

if within the last 10 years) when the 

anthropogenic feature occurred within the 

home range. 

4. The cumulative suitability of the home 

range based on anthropogenic features. 

Step 5. Describe vegetation connectivity 

characteristics between seasonal use areas.

Home ranges with contiguous sagebrush cover 

between seasonal use areas are more suitable as 

habitat than those with discontinuous land cover. 

For home ranges with separated seasonal use 

areas, habitat suitability improves as the amount of 

shrub cover between seasonal use areas increases 

and tree or annual grass cover decreases. Shrub 

cover connectivity is particularly important 

for movements between breeding and summer 

habitat when chicks are incapable of making longdistance flights. Describe the vegetation between 

each seasonal use area: breeding to summer, 

summer to winter, and winter to breeding. Also 

describe the natural barriers (canyons, mountains) 

and anthropogenic barriers (reservoirs, canals, 

major highways, intensive agriculture) between 

each seasonal use area that may hinder the birds’ 

ability to move between the areas.

Step 6. Summarize the information from steps 

3-5 to describe existing third-order habitat 

suitability of the home range area of interest. 

Organize and summarize the information for each 

third-order indicator on the “Fine-Scale (ThirdOrder) Sage-Grouse Habitat Description” (form 

F-1 in appendix B). An example of a completed 

form for a hypothetical site is shown in figure 12. 

Baseline third-order habitat data can be used in 

the future for trend analyses, so documenting the 

data sources and software, computer programs, 

and process steps used to describe third-order 

habitat conditions is important. Identifying where 

the data for the assessment are stored and can be 

retrieved in the future is also important. Good 

documentation of the data, including metadata, 

and analyses will help future biologists assess 

changes, causes, and effects. 

Once the habitat indicator descriptions have been 

completed, the suitability of the seasonal-use area 

can be determined using the descriptive criteria 

on form F-1.

The habitat suitability of the home range area 

should be depicted spatially on the map created in 

steps 1 and 2.

Step 7 (optional). Repeat steps 1-6 and 

identify a reference period to assess 

habitat trends. 

At the third order, comparing existing habitat 

suitability data for all or selected indicators to 

some previous reference period is useful for 

identifying habitat trends. Land cover type data 

for the fine-scale indicators of interest as well as 

sage-grouse lek or other historical data should be 

available for the reference period. Identify the 

habitat indicators of interest, measure them with 

appropriate computer and GIS tools, and describe 

them in terms of positive, neutral, or negative 

trends. A summary of this description should be 

included on form F-1 for each seasonal habitat 

time period. 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 27

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Figure 12. An example of a completed fine-scale (third-order) habitat description form.

✔

Form F-1: Fine-Scale (Third-Order) Sage-Grouse Habitat Description

Description Year:

Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Lek Group Name:

Counties:

Agency:

Population:

General Location:

State:

Data Sources

Habitat Indicator Descriptions

Fine-Scale (Third-Order) Suitability Summary

Land Cover Type Data Sources:

Anthropogenic Features Data Sources:

Population Data Sources:

Data Storage Location:

Software and Version:

Mapping Grain:

1. Seasonal Habitat 

Availability

2. Seasonal Use Area 

Connectivity

3. Anthropogenic

Disturbances

Check the one description below that best describes the home range:

Home Range Area Extent (km2

):

a. Area of occupied breeding habitat (km2

) =

a. Area of occupied summer habitat (km2

) =

a. Area of occupied winter habitat (km2

) =

b. Area of potential breeding habitat (km2

) =

b. Area of potential summer habitat (km2

) =

b. Area of potential winter habitat (km2

) =

c. Area of nonhabitat (km2) (optional) =

Discussion:

Breeding to summer (km edge/km2

 of habitat) =

Summer to winter (km edge/km2

 of habitat) =

Winter to breeding (km edge/km2

 of habitat) =

a. Densities of linear features (km/km2

) =

b. Densities of point features (sites/km2

) =

c. Area of nonhabitat or unsuitable habitat inclusions (km2

) =

Discussion:

Suitable: Home ranges have connected seasonal use areas. Anthropogenic features that can disrupt seasonal movements or cause mortality are 

generally absent or at least not widespread.

Marginal: Home ranges have poorly connected or disjunct seasonal use areas. Anthropogenic features that can disrupt seasonal movements or cause 

mortality may occur within the home range.

Unsuitable: Home ranges have seasonal use areas with predominantly grassland, woodland, or incompatible land uses (anthropogenic features) not 

conducive to sage-grouse seasonal movements or habitat use. Most leks have been abandoned or have few remaining birds.

Discussion:

2008 Humboldt NV

Stiver NDOW

Lone Willow Western Great Basin

Lone Willow

GAP

Nevada Heritage

NDOW

ftp://ftp.ndow.org/sagegrouse/habitat/HU

ArcView 10.2

30 meter pixel 240

80

120

140

100

150

200

3.2

2.5

3.8

.75

1.45

Large intact habitat. Priorities are to protect winter range on the 

east side of the range and restore winter range south of the main 

mountain.

✔
28 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Site Scale (Fourth Order)

Ecological processes that may affect individual 

sage-grouse selection of leks, nest sites, feeding 

locations, and winter-use areas are important at 

the fourth order (table 12). Ecological processes 

of interest take into account seasonal habitat needs 

related to the life requisites of shelter and food for 

birds associated with a lek or lek group. Habitat 

needs and the indicators that describe life requisite 

needs vary by season. Seasonal habitat availability, 

connectivity, and anthropogenic disturbances were 

described at the mid and fine scales. At the fourth 

order, availability of protective vegetation cover 

and food resources within seasonal habitats 

are described. 

The basic seasonal habitat suitability matrices 

developed for the HAF (forms S-2 through S-6 in 

appendix B) were based largely on Connelly et al. 

(2000) as a starting point because they used data 

collected across the species range. However, while 

Connelly et al. (2000) describe characteristics of 

productive seasonal habitats, generally equivalent 

to the HAF’s “suitable” class, the HAF also 

describes marginal and unsuitable habitats in 

an effort to reflect a range of conditions that a 

land manager may be faced with in performing a 

habitat assessment.

For the purpose of standardizing habitat 

descriptions and improving communication, 

discrete ranges of numeric values or other 

measurements (e.g., visual shape guide) are used 

to describe seasonal habitat indicators as suitable, 

marginal, or unsuitable (Sather-Blair et al. 2000). 

The numeric values described for productive 

habitat by Connelly et al. (2000) are guidelines and 

are not intended to be used as strict prescriptions. 

To a sage-grouse there may not be much difference 

between a sagebrush community with 14 percent 

sagebrush canopy cover and one with 15 percent 

canopy cover; however, discrete ranges are 

needed to organize the field information 

for interpretation. 

Table 12. Summary of site-scale (fourth-order) ecological processes (Johnson 1980), mapping features, and management levels for sage-grouse 

habitat descriptions. 

Ecological Processes

Ecological Time Period Current to 5 years; average lifespan of sage-grouse

Climatic Processes Seasonal weather patterns that can affect individual fitness (e.g., excessive spring rains during nesting or early 

brood-rearing)

Landscape Processes

Fourth-order processes that have short-term consequences on seasonal habitat selection and suitability: natural 

variation in potential of ecological sites to provide suitable seasonal habitats; herbivory effects on food and shelter 

habitat needs; human disturbance of birds during critical periods (breeding and wintering); anthropogenic features 

that increase predation potential during critical periods

Population Processes Habitat Dynamics Habitat provides for food and shelter needs of the birds for effective daily use within seasonal use areas; individual 

fitness is sufficient

Mapping Features

Extent Seasonal use areas 

Grain Sampling plots (transects)

Vegetation Cover Types Associations and ecological sites

Geographic Extent Equivalents Cover type within an ecological site

Cartographic Scale Range e.g., <1:24,000

Management Levels

Administrative Hierarchical Level Grazing allotments, pastures, state wildlife management areas, etc.

Planning and Assessment Documents Site evaluations; project-specific assessments and plans
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 29

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Individual indicator values cannot be used 

independently to describe habitat suitability; 

rather, site suitability is described using all of 

the appropriate indicators. For example, the 

predominant shape of sagebrush plants in an 

area affects the herbaceous cover needs during 

the breeding season. A columnar-shaped (treeshaped) sagebrush plant does not provide the 

shelter that a spreading-shaped plant provides 

(figure 13), and an area dominated by this type 

of sagebrush shape may be of marginal suitability 

if the accompanying understory has little grass 

or forb cover. However, in another area of 

predominantly columnar-shaped sagebrush plants, 

the presence of abundant grass, forb, or other 

shrub species cover may make the site suitable 

as nesting habitat. At another site, shrub and 

grass cover may be suitable, but the absence of 

forbs would reduce overall site suitability. These 

examples illustrate that individual indicator values 

do not define site suitability in and of themselves 

and that overall site suitability descriptions require 

an interpretation of the relationships between 

all of the indicators and other factors. Professional 

expertise and judgment are required for 

these steps. 

Figure 13. Sagebrush shape is an important habitat cover indicator. Sagebrush communities with more columnar-shaped plants need more herbaceous cover for 

shelter needs than communities with more spreading-shaped plants.

Columnar Spreading
30 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

The steps to describe sage-grouse habitat at the site 

scale (fourth order) are as follows:

Step 1. Identify seasonal use areas and 

associated third-order cover types of interest 

for third-order descriptions. Determine the 

extent of these land cover types within the 

seasonal use area. 

Refining fine-scale cover type maps of a 

home range area may be helpful for site-scale 

descriptions. For a home range area, describing all 

(e.g., for a small, mountain valley subpopulation) 

or some (e.g., for a larger, basin subpopulation) 

of the seasonal use areas may be important. 

Depending on the scope and purpose of the 

habitat description, not all land cover types within 

a seasonal use area may need to be sampled at 

the project level. For long-term monitoring, only 

one or two sagebrush cover types for breeding 

habitat descriptions or certain known wet meadow 

complexes for brood-rearing habitat descriptions 

may be needed. 

Grasslands or other currently unsuitable cover 

types that have the potential to become habitat 

in the future should also be measured because 

the information collected may be useful for 

conservation planning. Fourth-order information 

for these cover types can provide important 

information on shrub and forb recruitment, 

linkage area suitability, conifer encroachment, or 

other aspects of habitat condition.

Step 2. Overlay soil or ecological site maps on 

land cover type maps to determine ecological 

site potential.

Ecological site potential, the potential vegetation 

community, and the production of plant material 

of a site is based on soil, topography, and climate. 

For sagebrush communities, site potential (in 

terms of shrub, grass, and forb composition) is 

mostly determined by precipitation patterns and 

soil characteristics (Cronquist et al. 1972; Miller 

and Eddleman 2001). Ecological site descriptions 

and soil maps can be obtained from local Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) offices or 

from the Internet (https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov). 

Herrick et al. (2005) provided recommendations 

on types and numbers of samples as well as 

background information on ecological sites 

and site potential. This information is needed 

for interpreting habitat data for the suitability 

matrices (e.g., forb abundance related to site 

potential) and for predicting potential natural 

habitat changes (i.e., composition and rates 

of change in community composition relative 

to natural disturbances and succession) and 

alternative habitat changes (i.e., composition 

and rates of change to plant communities not 

anticipated for a site and from which it is more 

difficult to recover the natural community). Site 

potential data would be particularly valuable 

for predicting future conditions of sagebrush 

shrubland areas that are now grasslands (native 

perennial versus exotic annual) due to fire or 

anthropogenic disturbances. 

Soils are mapped in units (e.g., soil mapping 

units) that can and often do include a mixture 

of soils correlated to a mixture of ecological 

sites. For example, a soil map unit may include 

two soils with two different ecological sites. One 

ecological site may result from small inclusions 

of soils that support a mountain big sagebrush 

(Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) community, but 

the vast majority of the soil map unit consists 

of a soil that supports a different ecological site 

with a low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula) 

community. These intermixed communities are 

valuable because big sagebrush is used by males 

and females for protective cover or nesting, while 

low sagebrush sites provide important forbs for 

prelaying hens and broods and loafing sites for 

adult birds. 

Soil maps have not been completed for the entire 

range of sage-grouse. However, NRCS state 

soils information is available and provides basic 

information at a coarse resolution. Data are 

available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/

nrcs/site/soils/. 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 31

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Step 3. Obtain ecological reference sheets, 

if available, for the ecological sites contained 

within the seasonal habitat area of interest. 

Pellant et al. (2005) described reference sheets 

as the primary reference for an evaluation of 

rangeland health. The reference sheet describes 

a range for each indicator based on expected 

spatial and temporal variability within each 

ecological site (or equivalent). Reference sheets 

provide important information about the 

17 indicators of rangeland health and how well 

the ecological processes are functioning. This 

information, along with other components of the 

ecological site descriptions can provide context 

for more detailed studies on sage-grouse habitat 

suitability. However, ecological site descriptions 

have not been completed on portions of the 

sage-grouse range. If ecological reference areas 

(ERAs) (Pellant et al. 2005) for the important 

cover types in the seasonal use area are available, 

then a visit may be valuable when the expected 

forb species composition for an ecological site is 

not well described in ecological site descriptions. 

Collecting fourth-order data at one or more ERAs 

for reference purposes might be useful. 

Step 4. Design the sampling approach.

Prior to sampling habitat at the fourth order, an 

appropriate design must be determined. Using 

the information from steps 1-3, develop an 

appropriate sampling design and collect field data 

using one of the methods outlined in the next step 

and explained further in appendix B. Consulting 

with other biologists, statisticians, soil scientists, 

arid land ecologists, or rangeland management 

specialists to develop an appropriate sampling 

design for seasonal use areas based on available 

soils and ecological site data may be helpful. See 

the Craters of the Moon National Monument case 

study in appendix A for one example of a 

sampling approach.

For most fourth-order descriptions, stratified, 

random sampling of the seasonal habitat area 

based on land cover types and soils (ecological 

sites) will be appropriate. In some cases, the 

seasonal use area may be further stratified by 

sagebrush canopy cover (e.g., recently disturbed 

versus mature) or anthropogenic disturbance 

strata (e.g., grazing pastures, density of 

anthropogenic features) depending on the intent 

of the assessment and logistical capacity. 

In many areas, patches of big sagebrush (or other 

tall-statured sagebrush) occur in expansive low 

or dwarf sagebrush areas. These areas should 

be treated as two separate cover types or strata. 

However, there are heterogeneous sagebrush 

communities that are not easily teased apart and 

may be better sampled as one stratum. There may 

be other situations where only certain sagebrush 

areas are of interest due to steepness of slope, 

aspect, or other reasons. For example, in “basin 

and range” topography, seasonal sagebrush 

habitats may be distributed in narrow, linear 

stringers adjoining ridges or alluvial fans. In such 

cases, extra effort is needed to map and stratify 

these areas to ensure adequate representation in 

the sample. Use of shorter transects may also be 

warranted in these situations to ensure that they 

do not extend beyond the boundary of the cover 

type of interest. In other cases, only the priority 

breeding habitat cover types may be sampled due 

to costs. The rationale for decisions concerning 

sampling design should always be clearly 

explained and documented. 

Multiple samples (i.e., transects) are likely to be 

needed in each stratum to account for variability 

of vegetation and to characterize uncertainty in 

the habitat indicator estimates. At a minimum, 

three samples should be collected per stratum 

because calculating a sample variance per stratum 

with fewer samples is not possible. The desired 

number of samples required for each cover type 

depends on the vegetation heterogeneity of the 

land cover type and desired degree of precision (or 

amount of change to be detected). Elzinga et al. 

(1998) and Herrick et al. (2005) provided guidance 

on sampling design, and there are many sample 

size estimation tools available online, including:

http://www.landscapetoolbox.org/mssret/

MSSRET.html
32 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

https://www.dssresearch.com/

KnowledgeCenter/toolkitcalculators/

samplesizecalculators.aspx

Specialists may also want to seek assistance in 

sample design from a statistician. Ultimately, 

decisions about the degree of precision and sample 

sizes should be tempered by what is practical given 

the budget and time available. 

Ideally, sample size requirements should be 

determined using previously collected habitat data 

from the study area or from a pilot study. If this 

is not possible, sample sizes can be estimated by 

using data collected from nearby, similar areas. 

When calculating sample sizes, pay attention to 

specifying realistic degrees of precision, depending 

on the purpose of the assessment. Some sample 

size calculators specify precision in terms of 

percent variation or change from the mean, which 

can be confusing when specifying precision for 

proportion or percent cover indicators (e.g., a 

difference of 10 percentage points for sagebrush 

cover that is at 20 percent is actually a difference 

of 50 percent). Variability in a stratum can also 

vary by indicator. Ideally, sample sizes should 

be estimated individually for several important 

indicators such as sagebrush cover, grass height 

and forb cover, and a sample size that provides 

sufficient precision for all three should be selected. 

However, this practice may not be practical in 

many instances due to logistical realities.

Regardless of the technique used to determine 

sample size prior to sampling, an evaluation of 

sampling sufficiency should be conducted at the 

end of each data collection effort to determine 

if the data collected meet the stated precision 

requirements. The same equations and tools 

used to estimate sample sizes can also be used to 

assess sample sufficiency. If sample sufficiency is 

determined to be too low, additional samples may 

be warranted.

The timing of sampling fourth-order habitat 

characteristics depends on what is being measured 

(table 13). Nesting habitat vegetation should be 

measured toward the end of the nesting period, 

generally between May 1 and June 30 to assess 

forb and grass presence, and annual variation in 

precipitation should be evaluated to determine 

when samples should be measured. Late broodrearing habitat should be measured between 

July 1 and August 30 depending on latitude and 

elevations. Fall is a transitional time when the 

birds are moving from summer to winter habitat. 

During September, birds may still be concentrated 

on summer use areas where succulent forbs and 

Table 13. Seasonal timing of vegetation data collection associated with habitat indicators for site-scale descriptions.

Seasonal Habitat Window for Vegetation Data Collection Comments

Breeding (leks) Anytime Vegetation data can be collected at any time of year.

Breeding (nesting and 

early brood-rearing) April–June Data should be collected as soon as hens are off the nest (generally May 1–June 30). Timing within this window will vary based on latitude and elevation. 

Summer/Late 

Brood-Rearing July–August

Data should be collected based on timing of seasonal movements. Data collection for 

higher elevation late brood-rearing habitat areas should occur later than for areas of 

lower elevation.

Fall September–November See comments under summer season for early fall use areas. As fall progresses, seasonal 

movements begin and diets shift. 

Winter November–March

Data can be collected at any time in this window. Snow levels may dictate when data 

should be collected for wintering areas. Consider mapping all sagebrush habitats as a 

starting point until more use can be verified. Historical and extreme snow depths should 

be assessed.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 33

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

insects can be found. As temperatures cool and 

their diet changes to sagebrush, sage-grouse begin 

moving from forb-rich areas to winter range. 

Winter habitat can be evaluated throughout the 

year as related to sagebrush species and subspecies 

diversity and general sagebrush distribution on the 

landscape; however, the availability of sagebrush 

to sage-grouse in winter (i.e., above the level of 

snow cover) is contingent on local snow depths. 

In some cases, therefore, winter site visits 

are recommended. 

Step 5. Collect field data. 

Measuring vegetation at the fourth order generally 

involves collecting field data on composition and 

structure of habitat within a seasonal use area 

(table 14). There are additional measurements 

(e.g., lek proximity to sagebrush) for some 

seasonal habitats as well. Connelly et al. (2003) 

described methods that have previously been used 

to measure sage-grouse habitat at the fourth order. 

Line intercept and ocular (using a Daubenmire 

frame) (LIDF) and line-point intercept (LPI) 

methods can produce different though comparable 

cover results (Floyd and Anderson 1987; Symstad 

et al. 2008; Thacker 2010; Santini 2012). True 

cover parameters are seldom known in natural 

ecosystems (Bonham et al. 2004). Advantages and 

disadvantages of each technique are discussed in 

Elzinga et al. (1998), Connelly et al. (2003), and 

Bonham (2013). For the HAF, a key objective 

is that cover averages fall within the appropriate 

suitability class. Since transect data are averaged 

and suitability classes are relatively broad, the 

differences between techniques used to arrive 

Table 14. List of seasonal habitat measurements and associated data collection methods. LPI = line point intercept, LIDF = line intercept—Daubenmire frame, 

PFC = proper functioning condition.

Seasonal Habitat Habitat Indicator Life Requisite(s) Measurement Technique

Lek

Availability of Sagebrush Cover Cover Field or remote sensing measurement

Proximity of Detrimental Land Uses Security Field or remote sensing measurement*

Proximity of Trees or Other Tall Structures Security Field or remote sensing measurement*

Breeding

Sagebrush Cover Cover, Food LPI/LIDF

Sagebrush Height Cover LPI/LIDF

Predominant Sagebrush Shape Cover LPI/LIDF

Perennial Grass and Forb Height Cover LPI/LIDF

Perennial Grass Cover Cover LPI/LIDF

Perennial Forb Cover Cover LPI/LIDF

Preferred Forb Availability Food Forb diversity transect/plot species inventory 

Summer/Late Brood-Rearing – Riparian

Riparian Stability Cover, Food PFC data, if available

Preferred Forb Availability Food Forb diversity transect/plot species inventory

Availability of Sagebrush Cover Cover Field or remote sensing measurement

Summer/Late Brood-Rearing – Upland

Sagebrush Cover Cover, Food LPI/LIDF

Sagebrush Height Cover LPI/LIDF

Perennial Grass and Forb Cover Cover LPI/LIDF

Preferred Forb Availability Food Forb diversity transect/plot species inventory

Winter

Sagebrush Cover Cover, Food LPI/LI (part of LIDF)

Sagebrush Height (above snow) Cover LPI/vegetation height (part of LIDF)

* Proximity of trees, other tall structures, and anthropogenic disturbances to be noted in comment field of data collection forms for all seasonal habitats.
34 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

at those estimates should have minimal impact 

on the end result. Once a technique or multiple 

techniques are selected, the technique(s) should 

be used consistently throughout the assessment or 

monitoring period for future comparability. 

For the BLM, the HAF can be implemented in 

conjunction with the core indicators and methods 

that were developed as part of the assessment, 

inventory, and monitoring (AIM) strategy to 

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of BLM’s 

assessment and monitoring activities (Toevs et 

al. 2011). The purpose of the core indicators and 

methods is to provide consistent, quantitative, 

land cover and vegetation data using standardized 

measurements that will allow data to be integrated 

across the entire range of sage-grouse as well 

as used for other assessment and monitoring 

purposes (MacKinnon et al. 2011). The core 

methods were designed to be a minimal set of 

methods that should be supplemented with 

additional methods to meet specific resource 

needs such as sage-grouse habitat assessments 

or monitoring.

Procedures for the LIDF and LPI data collection 

methods, including illustrations and data forms, 

are provided in appendix B. These methods have 

been used for sage-grouse habitat descriptions 

across the range of the species.

This chapter and appendix B provide instructions 

and illustrations to aid in the technical aspects 

of these habitat measurements (e.g., determining 

sagebrush shape, measuring grass and sagebrush 

height). Additional fourth-order notes and 

measurements, including local drought 

conditions, presence of anthropogenic noise 

disturbance, other shrub canopy cover (besides 

sagebrush), annual grass canopy cover, and 

noxious weed abundance, are addressed for some 

seasonal habitats to aid in interpreting overall 

site suitability. For example, sagebrush cover 

is a crucial habitat indicator for fourth-order 

descriptions. However, in some locations the 

composition and percent cover of other shrubs 

can affect site suitability. For instance, sagebrush 

may only provide 10 percent canopy cover for a 

particular cover type, but antelope bitterbrush 

(Purshia tridentata) is also present with a canopy 

cover of 5 percent. The density of bitterbrush may 

positively affect the overall site suitability. 

Once field data are collected, summarize the 

data for the seasonal habitats of interest on the 

“Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data 

Summary” (form S-1, appendix B). An example of 

a completed form for a hypothetical site is shown 

in figure 14. 

Step 6. Transfer field data for land cover types 

of interest into suitability matrix categories 

associated with the seasonal habitat. 

Determine fourth-order suitability.

Once the field data have been summarized for 

land cover types of interest on form S-1, they can 

be transferred to the suitability worksheets (forms 

S-2 through S-7) for the appropriate seasonal use 

periods. Seasonal habitat suitability worksheets 

with detailed instructions are provided in 

appendix B. One worksheet should be completed 

for each cover type stratum sampled in the 

seasonal use area and administrative unit (e.g., 

pasture). Where otherwise similar vegetation 

cover type strata differ substantially due to slope, 

aspect, or other factors, summarizing those areas 

separately may be prudent, depending on local 

conditions and expertise. The mean, mode, or 

other appropriate summary statistics for each 

indicator are recorded on the worksheet, and the 

corresponding suitability category is checked (✔). 

Describing overall site suitability requires some 

level of professional judgment because rarely will 

all indicators fall in the same suitability range. The 

rationale for suitability criteria must be explained, 

particularly if it is not obvious on the worksheet. 

Examples illustrating suitability interpretations are 

shown in figures 15 through 18. 

Leks (form S-2): Suitability should be described 

for each lek regardless of status (occupied, 

unoccupied, or undetermined). Site suitability for 

leks is relatively easy to describe because there are 

only two indicators: (1) sagebrush cover (presence 

and amount of sagebrush in close proximity to 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 35

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Figure 14. An example of a seasonal habitat fourth-order data summary form completed with data from field measurements for the cover types of interest. Form S-1: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary Date: Population: Seasonal Habitat: County: State: Evaluator(s): Home Range Name: Associated Leks: Lek Hbt. Avg. Distance to Sage Cover (m) Preferred Forb Species (#) PF Cover (%) PG Cover (%) Sage Ht. (cm) Predominant Sage Shape (# of S and C) Sage Cover (%) Transects (#) Area (ha/ac) or Length (km/mi) Ecological Site Land Cover Type PF Ht. (cm) PGHt. (cm) Indicator Values from Data Forms (mean in most cases)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

06/23/12

Wyoming big sage- brush/bluebunch wheatgrass

Loamy 8-12 ARTRW8/PSSPS 2300 ha

7 13 56 19

6 17 13 10 S=36

C=12

1400

ha

4 19 45 15

8

9

5

3 S=32

C=14

5600

ha

3

4 19 25

7 16

8 13 S=0

C=2

2100

ha

3 16 64 17

8

8

7

6

700

ha

3

3 23 26

5

4 1 3 —

Loamy 8-12 ARTRW8/PSSPS

Loamy 8-12 ARTRW8/PSSPSLoamy 8-12 ARTRW8/PSSPS

Loamy 8-12 ARTRW8/PSSPS

Threetip sage- brush/bluebunchwheatgrassThreetip sage- brush/crested wheatBluebunch wheatgrassgrass

Crestedwheatgrass

Snake, Salmon, and Beaverhead

Breeding

Blaine ID

RB05; RB02

Big Hill

Janet Hill

S=15

C=23
36 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Figure 15. An example of a completed lek suitability worksheet.

Form S-2: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – Breeding Habitat (Leks)

Date:

Anthropogenic Noise Description:

Rationale for Overall Suitability Rating:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

GPS file #:

UTM:

County:

Home Range Name:

Evaluator(s):

Lek ID#:

Lek Status (circle one): Occupied Unoccupied Undetermined

State:

Habitat Indicator Suitability Range

Habitat Indicator

Site-Scale Suitability

Suitable

Suitable

Marginal

Marginal

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Availability of

Sagebrush Cover

Lek has adjacent protective

sagebrush cover (within 100 m)

Sagebrush within 100 m provides 

very little protective cover

Adjacent sagebrush

cover is >100 m

Proximity of Trees or 

Other Tall Structures

Proximity of

Detrimental

Land Uses

Trees or other tall structures are not 

within line of sight of lek and none to 

uncommon within 3 km of lek

Detrimental land uses are not

within line of sight of lek and absent 

to uncommon within 3 km of lek

Trees or other tall structures are within 

line of sight of lek and uncommon or 

scattered within 3 km of lek

Detrimental land uses are within line 

of sight of lek and uncommon or few 

within 3 km of lek

Trees or other tall structures are 

within the vicinity of the lek site

Detrimental land uses are within the 

vicinity of the lek site

✔ ✔ ✔

Site is generally a good lek site. It is a natural opening in a patch of Wyoming 

and Mountain big sage, relatively short grasses, forbs, and rocks. However, 

juniper has encroached to within 50 meters of the lek, creating perch sites 

for raptors. Removal of all juniper within 100 meters of the lek would greatly 

improve the site. Also, surrounding habitat may be used for nesting if trees are 

removed. Mostly big sage/bluebunch wheatgrass community with balsamroot, 

phlox, buckwheat, and goatsbeard in understory.

4/3/12 Owyhee

Northern Great Basin

ARTRW8/ARTRV/PSSPS/JUOC

Xxxxxxxxx

NAD83, Zone 11, 542335E 4912479N

20702

Triangle

ID Janet Hill

✔

✔

✔

✔

N/A. Isolated from human presence. Some livestock can be heard in the 

lower valley.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 37

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Figure 16. An example of a Wyoming big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) cover type with suitable breeding habitat conditions.

Form S-3: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – Breeding Habitat

(Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing)

Date:

Does ecological site potential limit suitability potential? (circle one) Yes No Unknown

Drought Condition (circle one): Extreme Drought Severe Drought Moderate Drought Mid-Range

Moderately Moist Very Moist Extremely Moist

Rationale for Overall Suitability Rating:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Associated Leks:

Area Sampled (ha/ac):

List UTM Coordinates (coordinates, zone, datum) of All Transects:

County: Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Ecological Site:

Number of Transects:

Site Info. (circle one): Arid Site Mesic Site

State:

Habitat Indicator Suitability Range

Habitat Indicator

Site-Scale Suitability

Suitable

Suitable

Marginal

Marginal

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Sagebrush Canopy Cover (mean)

Preferred Forb Availability

(relative to site potential)

Number of Preferred Forb Species (n)

Predominant Sagebrush Shape (mode)

Spreading (n)

Columnar (n)

Perennial Forb Height (mean)

Perennial Grass Height (mean)

15 to 25%

Preferred forbs are 

common with several 

species present

Spreading

≥18 cm

≥18 cm

5 to <15% or >25%

Preferred forbs are 

common but only a few 

species are present

Mix of spreading and 

columnar

10 to <18 cm

10 to <18 cm

<5%

Preferred forbs are 

rare

Columnar

<10 cm

<10 cm

Sagebrush Height

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

Perennial Grass Cover

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

Perennial Forb Cover

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

40 to 80 cm

30 to 80 cm

≥15%

≥10%

≥10%

≥5%

20 to <40 cm or >80

20 to <30 cm or >80

5 to <15%

5 to <10%

5 to <10%

3 to <5%

<20 cm

<20 cm

<5%

<5%

<5%

<3%

✔ ✔ ✔ x

5/15/12 ID Janet Hill

Snake, Salmon, and Beaverhead

Site is in suitable condition. Sagebrush cover is not quite in the suitable range, 

but all of the other indicators are in the suitable range. Sagebrush plants are 

healthy and there are signs of recruitment. Herbaceous cover heights are 

barely suitable but similar to ecological reference area. Poor winter and spring 

moisture may account for herbaceous heights.

Big Hill

ARTRW8/PSSPS

RB05, RB02

2300 ha

7

Loamy 8-12 ARTRW8/PSSPS

 NAD83, Zone 11, 542335E 4912479N; 

542416E 4912520N; 542599E 4912520N; 542721E 4912540N; 542680E 

4912357N; 542253E 4912296N; 541867E 4912235N

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

13

56

36

12

19

6

17

13

10

Blaine
38 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Figure 17. An example of a threetip sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass cover type with marginal breeding habitat conditions.

Form S-3: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – Breeding Habitat

(Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing)

Date:

Does ecological site potential limit suitability potential? (circle one) Yes No Unknown

Drought Condition (circle one): Extreme Drought Severe Drought Moderate Drought Mid-Range

Moderately Moist Very Moist Extremely Moist

Rationale for Overall Suitability Rating:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Associated Leks:

Area Sampled (ha/ac):

List UTM Coordinates (coordinates, zone, datum) of All Transects:

County: Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Ecological Site:

Number of Transects:

Site Info. (circle one): Arid Site Mesic Site

State:

Habitat Indicator Suitability Range

Habitat Indicator

Site-Scale Suitability

Suitable

Suitable

Marginal

Marginal

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Sagebrush Canopy Cover (mean)

Preferred Forb Availability

(relative to site potential)

Number of Preferred Forb Species (n)

Predominant Sagebrush Shape (mode)

Spreading (n)

Columnar (n)

Perennial Forb Height (mean)

Perennial Grass Height (mean)

15 to 25%

Preferred forbs are 

common with several 

species present

Spreading

≥18 cm

≥18 cm

5 to <15% or >25%

Preferred forbs are 

common but only a few 

species are present

Mix of spreading and 

columnar

10 to <18 cm

10 to <18 cm

<5%

Preferred forbs are 

rare

Columnar

<10 cm

<10 cm

Sagebrush Height

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

Perennial Grass Cover

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

Perennial Forb Cover

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

40 to 80 cm

30 to 80 cm

≥15%

≥10%

≥10%

≥5%

20 to <40 cm or >80

20 to <30 cm or >80

5 to <15%

5 to <10%

5 to <10%

3 to <5%

<20 cm

<20 cm

<5%

<5%

<5%

<3%

✔ ✔ ✔ x

5/27/12 Blaine ID Janet Hill

Snake, Salmon, and Beaverhead

Understory conditions are only marginal with forb cover barely suitable. The 

predominance of columnar-shaped sagebrush plants, marginal herbaceous cover 

conditions, and lack of preferred forbs makes this site marginal as breeding 

habitat.

Big Hill

Threetip sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass

RB05, RB02

1400 ha

4

Loamy 8-12 ARTRW8/PSSPS

 NAD83, Zone 11, 542335E 4912479N; 

542416E 4912418N; 542599E 4912520N; 542721E 4912540N; 542680E 

4912357N

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

19

45

32

14

15

8

9

5

3
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 39

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Figure 18. An example of a bluebunch wheatgrass cover type with unsuitable breeding habitat conditions. Data indicate that cover type may provide suitable 

habitat in the future.

Form S-3: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – Breeding Habitat

(Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing)

Date:

Does ecological site potential limit suitability potential? (circle one) Yes No Unknown

Drought Condition (circle one): Extreme Drought Severe Drought Moderate Drought Mid-Range

Moderately Moist Very Moist Extremely Moist

Rationale for Overall Suitability Rating:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Associated Leks:

Area Sampled (ha/ac):

List UTM Coordinates (coordinates, zone, datum) of All Transects:

County: Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Ecological Site:

Number of Transects:

Site Info. (circle one): Arid Site Mesic Site

State:

Habitat Indicator Suitability Range

Habitat Indicator

Site-Scale Suitability

Suitable

Suitable

Marginal

Marginal

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Sagebrush Canopy Cover (mean)

Preferred Forb Availability

(relative to site potential)

Number of Preferred Forb Species (n)

Predominant Sagebrush Shape (mode)

Spreading (n)

Columnar (n)

Perennial Forb Height (mean)

Perennial Grass Height (mean)

15 to 25%

Preferred forbs are 

common with several 

species present

Spreading

≥18 cm

≥18 cm

5 to <15% or >25%

Preferred forbs are 

common but only a few 

species are present

Mix of spreading and 

columnar

10 to <18 cm

10 to <18 cm

<5%

Preferred forbs are 

rare

Columnar

<10 cm

<10 cm

Sagebrush Height

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

Perennial Grass Cover

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

Perennial Forb Cover

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

40 to 80 cm

30 to 80 cm

≥15%

≥10%

≥10%

≥5%

20 to <40 cm or >80

20 to <30 cm or >80

5 to <15%

5 to <10%

5 to <10%

3 to <5%

<20 cm

<20 cm

<5%

<5%

<5%

<3%

✔ ✔ ✔ x

6/23/12 Blaine ID Janet Hill

Snake, Salmon, and Beaverhead

Site is currently unsuitable due to the lack of sagebrush cover. All habitat 

components (sagebrush, grasses, and forbs) are present, therefore site has 

potential to become suitable habitat in the future.

Big Hill

Bluebunch wheatgrass

RB05, RB02

5600 ha

3

Loamy 8-12 ARTRW8/PSSPS

 NAD83, Zone 11, 542335E 4912479N; 

542416E 4912418N; 542599E 4912520N; 542721E 4912540N

✔

✔

✔

N/A

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

4

19

0

2

25

7

16

8

13
40 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

the lek); (2) proximity of detrimental land uses; 

and (3) sage-grouse security (proximity of tall 

structures such as trees and power poles) (table 

15). Describing anthropogenic noise levels (from 

highways, oil and gas wells, and wind turbines) 

may also be valuable. Habitat descriptions are 

intended to help with identifying conservation 

actions, such as opportunities that might improve 

the status of a lek. In the example shown in figure 

15, removal of avian predator perching structures 

(e.g., trees, fenceposts) near the lek would likely 

increase security. In addition, the influence of 

anthropogenic disturbances on lek use and lekking 

behavior may be better understood by reviewing 

how sage-grouse may be using adjacent seasonal 

habitats (e.g., winter or breeding and nesting). 

Breeding Habitat (form S-3): The breeding 

habitat suitability matrix is the most complicated 

of the suitability worksheets (table 16). This 

matrix reflects the importance of breeding habitat, 

its complexity, and the amount of scientific data 

available on fourth-order habitat needs. There 

are different suitability ranges for some indicators 

depending on whether the breeding area is 

associated with mesic or arid sagebrush sites. For 

much of the Greater Sage-Grouse range, arid sites 

will be those closely associated with Wyoming big 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) 

and mesic sites will be associated with mountain 

big sagebrush. Determine whether the land cover 

type of interest is mesic or arid as defined locally 

(Connelly et al. 2000) before completing the 

suitability worksheet. 

Where sagebrush cover types are highly 

interspersed (e.g., small patches of mountain big 

sagebrush inclusions occurring within a matrix 

of low sagebrush), sampling patches separately 

may not be possible or efficient. In such cases, 

sampling the area as a unit (i.e., one or more 

transects crossing the mosaic of various cover 

types) and acknowledging the inherent variability 

may be the best course of action. The big 

sagebrush inclusions may provide suitable cover 

for nesting while the low sagebrush communities 

may provide a greater diversity of forbs for 

prelaying hens and broods. Individually, these 

cover types may lack a life requisite need, but 

together they provide suitable habitat. The site 

field data for these intermixed cover types can be 

combined on one suitability worksheet.

Three examples of completed breeding habitat 

suitability worksheets using field data for a 

hypothetical breeding area are shown in figures 

16 through 18. In the first example (figure 16), 

all indicators are in the suitable range except 

Table 15. Breeding (lek) habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for site-scale habitat descriptions. 

Life 

Requisite

Habitat 

Indicator

Suitability Categories

Suitable Marginal Unsuitable

Cover Availability of 

Sagebrush Cover

Lek has adjacent sagebrush cover 

(within 100 m)

Sagebrush provides very little protective 

cover adjacent to the perimeter of

the lek

Adjacent nesting habitat unavailable

Security

Proximity of 

Detrimental Land 

Uses

Detrimental land uses are not within 

line of sight of lek and absent to 

uncommon within 3 km of lek

Detrimental land uses are within line 

of sight of lek and uncommon or few 

within 3 km of lek

Detrimental land uses are within the 

vicinity of the lek site

Proximity of Trees or 

Other Tall Structures

Trees or other tall structures are not 

within line of sight of lek and absent to 

uncommon within 3 km of lek

Trees or other tall structures are within 

line of sight of lek though uncommon or 

scattered within 3 km of lek

Trees or other tall structures are within 

the vicinity of the lek site
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 41

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

for sagebrush cover, which is barely marginal. 

Overall, the habitat is rated as suitable. In 

the second example, indicator measurements 

are in the marginal range for three out of the 

eight indicators (figure 17). Sagebrush cover is 

adequate, but understory cover conditions and 

food resources provide only marginal fourthorder suitability. The last example, which is native 

perennial grassland, is clearly unsuitable due to 

lack of sagebrush cover (figure 18). However, 

native perennial grassland in the breeding habitat 

area has the ecological potential and the habitat 

components (i.e., forb and sagebrush recruitment) 

to become suitable in the future. 

Summer Sites (form S-4, upland, and form S-5, 

riparian): Suitability is described differently for 

summer/late brood-rearing seasonal habitats 

depending on whether they are associated with 

upland sagebrush communities or riparian/

wet meadow communities (tables 17 and 18) in 

close proximity to sagebrush communities. The 

indicators for upland summer habitats are similar 

to those for breeding habitat, but the ranges for the 

suitability categories differ. For riparian areas and 

wetlands, their functioning condition, as defined 

by Prichard et al. (1998, 2003), is used to describe 

site stability, which impacts the likelihood that 

cover and food resources are provided annually 

(fourth-order temporal scale). Functioning 

conditions, though they differ slightly between 

lentic and lotic areas, are generally defined 

as follows:

• Proper functioning condition (PFC): An 

area is considered to be in PFC when adequate 

vegetation or other structure components are 

present to:

– Dissipate energy, reduce erosion, and 

improve water quality.

– Filter sediment and aid in floodplain 

development.

Table 16. Breeding (prelaying, nesting, and early brood-rearing) habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for site-scale habitat descriptions 

(adapted from Connelly et al. 2000; Sather-Blair et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007).

Life

Requisite Habitat Indicator

Suitability Categories

Suitable Marginal Unsuitable

Cover

Sagebrush Cover (%) 15 to 25 5 to <15 or >25 <5

Sagebrush Height (cm)

Mesic Site1 40 to 80 20 to <40 or >80 <20

Arid Site 30 to 80 20 to <30 or >80 <20

Predominant Sagebrush Shape Spreading Mix of spreading and columnar Columnar

Perennial Grass and Forb Height (cm) >18 10 to <18 <10

Perennial Grass Cover (%)

Mesic1 >15 5 to <15 <5

Arid >10 5 to <10 <5

Cover and Food

Perennial Forb Cover (%)

Mesic1 >10 5 to <10 <5

Arid >5 3 to <5 <3

Food Preferred Forb Availability2 Preferred forbs are common 

with several species present

Preferred forbs are common but only a 

few preferred species are present Preferred forbs are rare

1 Mesic and arid sites should be defined on a local basis; annual precipitation, herbaceous understory, and soils should be considered (Connelly et al. 2000).

2 Relative to ecological site potential.
42 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Table 17. Summer/late brood-rearing habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for upland sagebrush site-scale habitat descriptions (adapted 

from Connelly et al. 2000; Sather-Blair et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007). 

Life Requisite 

Feature Habitat Indicator Suitability Categories

Suitable Marginal Unsuitable

Cover Sagebrush Cover (%) 10 to 25 5 to <10 or >25 <5

Sagebrush Height (cm) 40 to 80 20 to <40 or >80 <20

Cover and Food Perennial Grass and Forb 

Cover (%) >15 5 to <15 <5

Food Preferred Forb

Availability1

Preferred forbs are common with

appropriate numbers of species present

Preferred forbs are common but only a 

few preferred species are present Preferred forbs are rare

1 Good abundance, diversity, and availability relative to ecological site potential.

Table 18. Summer/late brood-rearing habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for riparian or wet meadow site-scale habitat descriptions 

(adapted from Connelly et al. 2000; Sather-Blair et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007).

Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Suitability Categories

Suitable Marginal Unsuitable

Cover and Food Riparian and Wet Meadow 

Stability Majority of areas are in PFC Majority of areas are FAR Majority of areas are NF

Food Preferred Forb Availability1

Preferred forbs are common with 

appropriate numbers of species 

present

Preferred forbs are common but 

only a few preferred species are 

present

Preferred forbs are rare

Cover Availability of Sagebrush Cover Sagebrush cover is adjacent to 

brood-rearing areas (<100 m)

Sagebrush cover is in close 

proximity to brood-rearing 

areas (100-275 m)

Sagebrush cover is 

unavailable (>275 m)

1 Good abundance, diversity, and availability relative to ecological site potential.

– Improve flood-water retention and 

ground-water recharge.

– Stabilize streambanks and shorelines.

– Develop diverse ponding and channel 

characteristic for fish and wildlife habitat 

and other uses.

– Support greater biodiversity.

• Functional–at risk (FAR): An area is 

considered to be FAR when it possesses some 

or most of the elements for PFC but has at 

least one component/process that gives it a 

high probability of degradation.

• Nonfunctioning (NF): An area is considered 

NF when it clearly lacks the elements listed 

for PFC.

PFC data are available for most perennial streams 

and some wet meadows located on federal public 

lands. There are training opportunities and 

detailed procedures available for assessing PFC 

(Prichard et al. 1998, 2003). PFC data should be 

used whenever possible to help describe sagegrouse habitat. If PFC data cannot be obtained 

from other sources or collected directly, then 

the other two indicators should be used to assess 

habitat suitability.

Forb diversity should be described for broodrearing areas associated with sagebrush uplands, 

including those adjacent to agricultural lands 

(e.g., alfalfa fields). With respect to the latter, 

descriptions should address whether sage-grouse 

are exposing themselves to unnecessary risks 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 43

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

associated with agricultural fields when forbs are 

present in the uplands or are taking advantage of 

the only forbs available. Not all agricultural lands 

provide good brood-rearing habitat. Certain 

agricultural practices (e.g., herbicide and pesticide 

spraying, mowing, use of domestic animals 

considered to be sage-grouse predators) create 

risks to sage-grouse survival. Potential risks 

associated with agricultural fields should be noted 

(e.g., pesticides (Blus et al. 1989), direct mortality 

by mower, West Nile virus, etc.). 

Proximity to taller sagebrush communities may be 

an important habitat indicator in some situations. 

For instance, some brood-rearing habitat occurs 

in forb-rich, low sagebrush communities adjacent 

to big sagebrush. In other cases, the available 

forbs such as arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza 

sagittata) may be providing adequate cover, 

especially for very young broods (<21 days old).

Winter Habitat (form S-6): There are only two 

closely related indicators of concern for winter 

habitat (table 19). Identifying all existing potential 

or likely winter areas is generally more important 

than describing individual areas. However, 

evaluating wintering areas during years of above 

average snowfall can be helpful in identifying 

critical winter habitats that need protection.

Step 7. Describe fourth-order habitat 

suitability for the seasonal habitats of interest.

Summarize the seasonal suitability descriptions 

for the home range area on the “Sage-Grouse SiteScale Seasonal Habitat Site Suitability Summary” 

(form S-7, appendix B). Be sure to summarize 

only those seasonal habitats for which data have 

been collected during the appropriate season. 

Further, summarize habitat potential for each area 

based on the presence of habitat components (e.g., 

sagebrush and forb recruitment) and ecological 

site potential. An example for a hypothetical 

home range area is presented in figure 19 based 

in part on the field data for the land cover types 

previously discussed. This summary, with the 

associated field data, represents a fourth-order 

habitat description for the home range area. 

Depict the habitat suitability of the seasonal use 

areas spatially within the home range on the map 

created in steps 1 and 2. Copies of completed 

fourth-order summary descriptions should be 

provided to the sage-grouse data coordinator for 

each state.

Table 19. Winter habitat life requisites, indicators, and suitability categories for site-scale habitat descriptions (adapted from Connelly et al. 2000; 

Sather-Blair et al. 2000).

Life Requisite Habitat Indicator Suitability Categories

Suitable Marginal Unsuitable

Cover and Food Sagebrush Cover (%) >10 5 to <10 <5

Sagebrush Height (above snow) (cm) ≥25 >10 to <25 <10
44 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Chapter II: Sage-Grouse Habitat and Data Descriptions

Form S-7: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Site Suitability Summary

Habitat

components

present?

Site

potential

limiting?

Future

Suitable,

Marginal,

Unsuitable

Current

Number of Sites (#)

(leks, wet meadows, 

springs, etc.)

Length 

(km/mi) 

(riparian)

Area

(ha/ac) 

(upland)

Ecological

Site

Seasonal

Habitat

Land Cover Type

Seasonal Habitat Information Suitability

Figure 19. An example of a completed seasonal habitat fourth-order suitability summary that includes information from the previous seasonal habitat worksheet 

examples.

Date:

Population:

Associated Leks:

County:

Home Range Name:

6/23/12 Evaluator(s):

Lek

Lek

Breeding

Breeding

Breeding

Breeding

Breeding

Summer

Summer

Summer

Summer

Winter

Wyoming big sagebrush/

bluebunch wheatgrass

Wyoming and mountain big

sagebrush/bluebunch/

wheatgrass/western juniper

Wyoming and big 

sagebrush/bluebunch/

wheatgrass

Threetip sagebrush/

bluebunch wheatgrass

Bluebunch

wheatgrass

Threetip sagebrush/

crested wheatgrass

Crested wheatgrass

Riparian

Riparian

Wet Meadow

Wet Meadow

Not Measured

Loam 8-12

ARTRW8/

PSSPS

Loam 8-12

ARTRW8/

PSSPS

Loam 8-12

ARTRW8/

PSSPS

Loam 8-12

ARTRW8/

PSSPS

Loam 8-12

ARTRW8/

PSSPS

2300

ha

1400

ha

5600

ha

2100

ha

700

ha

10

2

4

2

S

M

U

M

U

S

M

S

U

4

2

S

M No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Blaine

Snake, Salmon, Beaverhead Big Hill

RB05; RB02

State: ID Janet Hill
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 45

Abundance: The total number of organisms in an 

area (Wisdom et al. 2003; Braun 2005).

Adaptive Management: An approach to natural 

resource management that involves identifying 

areas of scientific uncertainty, devising field 

management activities as real-world experiments 

to test that uncertainty, learning from the outcome 

of such experiments, and revising management 

guidelines on the basis of the knowledge gained 

(Morrison et al. 1998).

Adult (sage-grouse): A sage-grouse that is greater 

than 15 months of age and has entered or is about 

to enter its second breeding season (Connelly et 

al. 2003).

Alliance (plant): A physiognomically uniform 

group of plant associations sharing one or more 

dominant or diagnostic species, which as a rule are 

found in the uppermost stratum of the vegetation. 

Dominant species are often emphasized in the 

absence of detailed floristic information (such 

as quantitative data), whereas diagnostic species 

(including characteristic species, dominant 

differential, and other species groupings based on 

constancy) are used where detailed floristic data 

are available (Reid et al. 2002).

Annual (plant): A plant that completes its life 

cycle and dies in 1 year or less (Pellant et al. 2005).

Anthropogenic Disturbance: The direct loss 

or fragmentation of habitat due to human 

development and increased human activity 

causing the displacement of individuals through 

avoidance behavior (Holloran 2005). 

Anthropogenic Feature: Any human-caused 

disturbance on the landscape that results in the 

direct loss or fragmentation of habitat.

Assessment: The process of estimating or judging 

the functional status of ecosystem structures, 

functions, or processes within a specified 

geographic area at a specific time (United States 

Department of the Interior 2001).

Association (plant): A plant community of 

definite floristic composition, uniform habitat 

conditions, and uniform physiognomy. The 

association level is differentiated from the alliance 

level by additional plant species, found in any 

stratum, which indicate finer scale environmental 

patterns and disturbance regimes (Reid 

et al. 2002). 

Breeding Habitat: Leks and the sagebrush habitat 

surrounding leks that are collectively used for 

prelaying, breeding, nesting, and early broodrearing activities from approximately March 

through June (Connelly et al. 2000; Connelly et 

al. 2003). 

Brood (sage-grouse): A hen or group of hens 

with at least one chick.

Canopy Cover: The percentage of the ground 

(1) included in a vertical projection of imaginary 

polygons drawn about the total natural spread 

of foliage of the individuals of a species (usually 

used for herbaceous plants), or (2) covered by a 

projection of the crown, stems, and leaves of the 

plant onto the ground surface (usually used 

for shrubs). 

Chick (sage-grouse): A sage-grouse up to 

10 weeks of age (Connelly et al. 2003).

Community: A set of two or more interacting 

species, such as members of a trophic web, 

that live in a particular habitat (Meffe and 

Carroll 1997).

Condition (vegetation): The ability of a 

community or ecosystem to function naturally 

(Wisdom et al. 2005).

Glossary

Glossary
46 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Glossary

Connectivity: The degree to which habitats for 

a species are continuous or interrupted across a 

spatial extent. Habitats defined as continuous are 

within a prescribed distance over which a species 

can successfully conduct key activities (e.g., 

effective dispersal distances of seeds or juveniles; 

mean distances moved for foraging, nesting, and 

brood-rearing). Habitats defined as interrupted 

are outside the prescribed distance (Wisdom et 

al. 2003).

Cover: An indication of the relative amount of 

shelter or protection provided by all vegetation at 

a given point; it is normally used to assess nesting 

habitat (Connelly et al. 2003).

Cover Type: A vegetation classification depicting 

genera, species, group of species, or life forms of 

trees, shrubs, grasses, or sedges or a dominant 

physical feature (e.g., water or rock) or land use 

(e.g., urban or road) of an area. When a genus or 

species name is given to the cover type at a broadscale, it is typically representative of a complex 

of species or genera with similar characteristics 

(Wisdom et al. 2000).

Daubenmire Frame: A rectangular frame, 

20 x 50 cm, used to estimate canopy cover. 

The frame has a painted pattern that provides 

visual reference areas equal to 5, 25, 50, 75, and 

95 percent of the plot area (Daubenmire 1959).

Dispersal: Movement of individuals to new living 

areas, including initial movements from place 

of birth to first attempted breeding area (natal 

dispersal) and subsequent movements from one 

breeding location to another (adult dispersal) 

(Elphick et al. 2001).

Distribution: The spread or scatter of an 

organism within its range (Morrison and 

Hall 2001). 

Disturbance: Any relatively discrete event in 

time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or 

population structure, and changes resources, 

substrate availability, or the physical environment 

(White and Pickett 1985). See also Anthropogenic 

Disturbance.

Droop Height: The height of a grass or forb 

measured from the ground to the point where the 

plant naturally bends (maximum natural height). 

There may be no droop to some plants with 

relatively short stature (Connelly et al. 2003).

Early Brood-Rearing Habitat: Upland sagebrush 

sites relatively close to nest sites, typically 

characterized by high species richness with an 

abundance of forbs and insects, where sage-grouse 

hens raise young chicks (<21 days old) (Connelly 

et al. 2000). 

Ecological Reference Area (ERA): Land in 

which ecological processes are functioning 

within a normal range of variability and the 

plant community has adequate resistance to and 

resilience against most disturbances. This area 

best represents the potential of a site in both 

physical function and biological health (Herrick et 

al. 2005).

Ecological Site: An area of land with a specific 

potential plant community and specific physical 

site characteristics, differing from other areas 

of land in its ability to produce vegetation 

and to respond to management (United States 

Department of the Interior 1996).

Ecological Site Description: A description of 

the soils, uses, and potential of a kind of land 

with specific physical characteristics to produce 

distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation 

(Pellant et al. 2005).

Ecological Site Potential: The plant community 

that can be supported in an area given its edaphic 

and climatic potential (Habich 2001).

Ecosystem: The totality of components of all 

kinds that make up a particular environment; the 

complex of a biotic community and its abiotic, 

physical environment (Wisdom et al. 2005).
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 47

Glossary

Edge: The intersection of two vegetation types 

(Morrison et al. 1998).

Edge Effect: The influence of a habitat edge on 

interior conditions of a habitat or on species that 

use interior habitat (Meffe and Carroll 1997).

Encroachment: Advancement beyond the 

usual or proper limits; often used to describe the 

advancement of pinyon pine or juniper woodlands 

into sagebrush communities (Wisdom et al. 2005).

Erosion: Detachment and movement of soil or 

rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity 

(Habich 2001).

Exotic: Not native; an organism or species that 

has been introduced into an area and is thus 

outside of its native range (Wisdom et al. 2005).

Extent: (1) [general] The area over which 

observations are made (e.g., study area, species 

range); (2) [spatial] The geographic limits of a 

geographic dataset specified by the minimum 

bounding area (Wisdom et al. 2005).

Extirpation: The loss or removal of a species from 

one or more specific areas but not from all areas 

(Wisdom et al. 2005).

Fall Habitat: The matrix of sagebrush habitat 

areas that sage-grouse slowly move through from 

September through November, transitioning from 

summer habitat to winter habitat and shifting their 

diet from large amounts of forbs to exclusively 

sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2000).

Foliar Cover: The percentage of ground covered 

by the vertical projection of the aerial portion 

of plants. Small openings in the canopy and 

intraspecific overlap are excluded.

Forb: An herbaceous plant other than a grass, 

sedge, or rush, that has little or no woody material 

(United States Department of the Interior 1996).

Fragmentation: The process by which a species 

habitat is reduced and fragmented into pieces 

separated by areas of unsuitable habitat or 

nonhabitat. Habitat fragmentation has not

occurred when habitat has been separated by 

unsuitable habitat but occupancy, reproduction, 

or survival of the species has not been affected 

(Franklin et al. 2002). 

Geographic Information System (GIS): 

A collection of computer hardware, software, 

and geographic data for capturing, managing, 

analyzing, and displaying all forms of 

geographically referenced information 

(ESRI 2006). 

Grain: (1) [general] The smallest resolvable unit 

of study (e.g., 1- x 1-m quadrant), which generally 

determines the lower limit of what can be studied 

(Morrison and Hall 2001); (2) [spatial] The 

mapping resolution at which spatial patterns are 

measured (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Grass: Any plant of the family Poaceae (United 

States Department of the Interior 1996).

Grassland: Vegetation dominated by grasses and 

grasslike plants, including sedges and rushes (Reid 

et al. 2002).

Habitat: An area with a combination of resources 

(such as space, food, cover, and water) and 

environmental conditions (such as temperature, 

precipitation, presence or absence of predators 

and competitors) that promotes occupancy by 

individuals of a given species and allows those 

individuals to survive and reproduce (Morrison et 

al. 1998). 

Habitat Indicator: A component or attribute of 

habitat that can be observed and or measured to 

characterize suitability for space, food, cover, 

and water. 

Habitat Patch: A species habitat unit, appropriate 

for the scale of interest, surrounded by unsuitable 

habitat (adapted from Franklin et al. 2002). 
48 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Glossary

Habitat Quality: A measure of two components: 

(1) habitat use (selection) by animals, and 

(2) fitness consequences associated with that 

habitat (Van Horne 1983; Aldridge 2005; Aldridge 

and Boyce 2007).

Habitat Selection: The process by which an 

animal chooses its habitat or habitat components 

(Johnson 1980). The orders of selection are as 

follows:

First-Order Selection: Selection of the 

physical or geographic range of a species.

Second-Order Selection: Selection of the 

physical or geographic home range for a 

subpopulation (e.g., for a sage-grouse lek or 

lek group).

Third-Order Selection: Selection of seasonal 

habitats (cover types) within a home range 

(e.g., sage-grouse seasonal habitat areas).

Fourth-Order Selection: Selection of habitat 

components (food items and shelter provisions 

for feeding, nesting, and roosting areas) within 

a seasonal use area.

Habitat Suitability: The relative appropriateness 

of a certain ecological area for meeting the life 

requirements of an organism (i.e., space, food, 

cover, and water). Categories of habitat 

suitability include:

Suitable Habitat: An area that provides 

environmental conditions necessary for 

successful survival and reproduction to sustain 

stable populations (Cooperrider et al. 1986; 

Morrison et al. 1998).

Marginal Habitat: An area that supports the 

species but has generally lower survival rates 

and reproductive success by comparison and 

may or may not have the potential to become 

suitable in the future (Cooperrider et al. 1986).

Potential Habitat: An area that is currently 

unoccupied but has the potential for 

occupancy in the foreseeable future (<100 

years) through succession or restoration. 

Unsuitable Habitat: An area that does not 

currently provide one or more of the life 

requisites and therefore does not provide 

habitat, but it may provide habitat sometime 

in the foreseeable future (<100 years) through 

succession or restoration. 

Nonhabitat: An area within the historical 

distribution of sage-grouse that is unoccupied, 

does not currently provide habitat, and does 

not have the potential to provide habitat in the 

foreseeable future (<100 years). 

Herbaceous (vegetation): Plants that die back 

to the ground each year, normally with soft, 

nonwoody stems (Connelly et al. 2003). 

Home Range: The area traversed by an animal 

during its activities during a specified period of 

time (Morrison and Hall 2001).

Indicator: See Habitat Indicator.

Invasive (plant): A plant species that is not part 

of, or is a minor component of, a predisturbance 

plant community and that has the potential to 

become a dominant or codominant species on the 

site if its future establishment and growth is not 

actively controlled by management interventions 

(Pellant et al. 2005). 

Inventory: A point-in-time measurement of a 

resource to determine its location or condition 

(Elzinga et al. 1998).

Land Cover Type: A classification of the observed 

biophysical cover on the surface of the earth 

(Wisdom et al. 2005).

Landscape: A mosaic of landforms, vegetation, 

and land uses; a heterogeneous land area that 

is often hierarchically structured and varies in 

extent with the organism(s) being studied and 

the purpose for defining a landscape (Urban et al. 

1987; Liu and Taylor 2002).
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 49

Glossary

Landscape Matrix: A broad-scale pattern of 

varied vegetation classes and land uses throughout 

a region (Urban et al. 1987; Crow 2002).

Late Brood-Rearing Habitat: A variety of 

habitats used by sage-grouse from July through 

September, including, but not limited to, wet 

meadows, farmland, riparian areas, dry lakebeds, 

and sagebrush areas (Connelly et al. 2000).

Lek: Open area surrounded by sagebrush, without 

trees or other tall structures in close proximity, 

where males traditionally display and breeding 

occurs (Connelly et al. 2000). Categories of leks 

are as follows:

Occupied lek: (1) [Greater Sage-Grouse] A 

lek that has been active during at least one 

breeding season within the prior 5 years; (2) 

[Gunnison Sage-Grouse] A lek that has been 

attended by males in the previous 5 years. 

Note: The specific terms and definitions 

for lek status may vary by state. Use the 

terminology appropriate for your area.

Unoccupied lek: (1) [Greater Sage-Grouse] 

A lek that has not been active during a 

period of 5 consecutive years; (2) [Gunnison 

Sage-Grouse] A lek that has been inactive 

for 5 years. Note: The specific terms and 

definitions for lek status may vary by state. Use 

the terminology appropriate for your area.

Undetermined lek: Any lek that has not been 

documented as active in the last 5 years, but 

for which survey information is insufficient 

to designate the lek as unoccupied. Note: 

The specific terms and definitions for lek 

status may vary by state. Use the terminology 

appropriate for your area.

Lek Group: A group of leks with 5-km 

overlapping or contiguous buffers (Moynahan et 

al. 2007).

Life Form (plant): Characteristic form or 

appearance of a species at maturity, such as a grass, 

forb, tree, or shrub (Habich 2001).

Life Requisite: An item an animal needs to 

survive, including food, shelter or cover, water 

(Morrison et al. 1998), and space.

Line Intercept—Daubenmire Frame (LIDF): 

Two techniques for measuring canopy cover that 

involves placing a measuring tape between two 

points and measuring the amount of plant 

(crown, stems, leaves) that intersects a vertical 

projection of this line (Canfield 1941). The line 

intercept technique is used for measuring shrub 

cover and the Daubenmire frame technique 

is used for measuring herbaceous cover. See 

Daubenmire Frame.

Line Point Intercept (LPI): A rapid, accurate 

method for quantifying soil cover, including 

vegetation, litter, rocks, and biotic crusts (Herrick 

et al. 2005). The methodology uses a measuring 

tape, two pins for anchoring the tape, and a 

straight, small-diameter rod to determine plant 

cover and composition.

Linkage Area: A land cover type, other than 

occupied sagebrush shrubland, that sage-grouse 

frequently use and may move through to another 

habitat patch. If made into suitable habitat, this 

area will increase movement between populations 

and decrease the probability of extinction of 

the species by stabilizing population dynamics 

(Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Steering 

Committee 2005). 

Marginal Habitat: See Habitat Suitability.

Monitoring: The collection and analysis of 

repeated observations or measurements to 

evaluate changes in condition and progress 

toward meeting a management objective (Elzinga 

et al. 1998).

Native (plant): Indigenous to a given place 

(Wisdom et al. 2005).

Nesting Habitat: Area with protective grass and 

high lateral shrub cover where hens nest, typically 

under sagebrush shrubs (Connelly et al. 2000).
50 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Glossary

Nonhabitat: See Habitat Suitability.

Noxious Weed: An unwanted plant specified 

by federal or state laws as being especially 

undesirable, troublesome, and difficult to control. 

It grows and spreads in places where it interferes 

with the growth and production of desired species 

(Habich 2001).

Occupied Habitat (sage-grouse): All sagebrush 

and associated plant communities known to be 

used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years. 

Sagebrush areas that are contiguous with areas of 

known use and that do not have effective barriers 

to sage-grouse movement from those areas are 

considered occupied unless specific information 

exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use.

Overstory: The upper canopy or canopies of 

plants, usually referring to trees, shrubs, and vines 

(United States Department of the Interior 1996).

Patch: See Habitat Patch.

Perennial (plant): A plant that has a lifespan of 

3 or more years (Pellant et al. 2005).

Population: A collection of organisms of the 

same species that freely share genetic material 

(i.e., breed) (Morrison et al. 1998; Braun 2005). 

See also Subpopulation.

Potential Habitat: See Habitat Suitability.

Precision: The closeness of repeated 

measurements of the same quantity (Elzinga et al. 

1998; Braun 2005).

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) 

Assessment: A consistent approach for 

considering hydrology, vegetation, and erosion/

deposition (soils) attributes and processes to assess 

the condition of riparian-wetland areas (Prichard 

et al. 2003). Function ratings are as follows:

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): A 

riparian-wetland area in which adequate 

vegetation or other structure components are 

present to dissipate energy, reduce erosion and 

improve water quality, filter sediment and aid 

in floodplain development, improve floodwater retention and ground-water recharge, 

stabilize streambanks and shorelines, develop 

diverse ponding and channel characteristics 

for fish and wildlife habitat among other 

things, and support greater biodiversity.

Functional—At Risk (FAR): A riparianwetland area that is in functional condition but 

has at least one attribute or process that makes 

it susceptible to degradation.

Nonfunctioning (NF): A riparian-wetland 

area that clearly does not provide adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris 

to dissipate energies associated with high flow 

and thus does not reduce erosion, improve 

water quality, etc. (Prichard et al. 2003).

Quantitative: Data derived from measurements, 

such as counts, dimensions, weights, etc., 

and recorded numerically. Qualitative 

numerical estimates, such as ocular cover and 

production estimates, are often referred to as 

“semiquantitative” (Pellant et al. 2005).

Range: The limits within which an organism lives 

or can be found (Morrison and Hall 2001). 

Range Site: See Ecological Site.

Recruitment: The addition of new individuals 

(typically only breeding individuals) to a 

population through reproduction (Dinsmore and 

Johnson 2005).

Reference Period: A period of time during which 

data were collected at an area that can be chosen 

to provide a basis or standard for evaluation or 

comparison of trend over time. See also Ecological 

Reference Area.

Restoration: The process of assisting the recovery 

of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, 

or destroyed. An ecosystem is recovered or 

restored when it contains sufficient biotic and 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 51

Glossary

abiotic resources to continue its development 

without further assistance or subsidy (Society for 

Ecological Restoration International 2004).

Riparian (habitat): An area that is saturated or 

inundated at a frequency and duration sufficient 

to produce vegetation typically adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions (Prichard et al. 2003). 

Risk: The potential or probability of an adverse 

event (Wisdom et al. 2005).

Road: A linear route declared a road by the 

owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles 

having four or more wheels, and maintained 

for regular and continuous use (United States 

Department of the Interior 2006).

Sagebrush Ecosystem: Arid and semiarid, 

sagebrush-dominated lands in the western 

United States and Canada that encompass the 

approximate boundaries of the historical range of 

Greater and Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Wisdom et 

al. 2005).

Scale: The resolution at which patterns are 

measured, perceived, or represented. Scale can be 

broken into several components, including grain 

and extent (Morrison and Hall 2001). For sagegrouse, scales are as follows:

Broad Scale: Entire species range and 

populations (first-order habitat selection).

Mid Scale: Subpopulations (second-order 

habitat selection).

Fine Scale: Seasonal use areas (third-order 

habitat selection).

Site Scale: Seasonal foraging and shelter 

habitat (fourth-order habitat selection).

Selection: See Habitat Selection. 

Shrub: A plant that has persistent woody stems 

and a relatively low growth habit (less than 5 

meters tall) and that generally produces several 

basal shoots instead of a single bole (Pellant 

et al. 2005).

Shrubland: Vegetation dominated by shrubs 

that are generally greater than 0.5 m tall and less 

than 5 m tall and that generally form greater than 

25 percent cover, with trees forming less than 

25 percent cover (Reid et al. 2002).

Shrub Steppe: Habitats characterized in western 

North America by woody, midheight shrubs and 

perennial bunchgrasses; typically arid, with annual 

precipitation averaging <36 cm (14 in) over much 

of the region (Wisdom et al. 2003).

Sink Habitat: Habitat in which local mortality 

exceeds reproductive success and, therefore, the 

number of individuals occupying the habitat is 

declining (Meffe and Carroll 1997).

Site: An area of uniform physical and biological 

properties and management status (Morrison and 

Hall 2001).

Site Suitability: The suitability of a specific land 

cover type or other sampling unit in a seasonal use 

area based on field data collection.

Source Habitat: Habitat in which local 

reproductive success exceeds local mortality, thus 

producing an excess of individuals to emigrate to 

other areas (Meffe and Carroll 1997).

Species: Groups of populations that can 

potentially interbreed or are actually interbreeding 

and can successfully produce viable, fertile 

offspring (Mayr 1969).

Species Composition (plant): The proportions 

of various plant species in relation to the total in a 

given area; it may be expressed in terms of relative 

cover, density, or weight (Habich 2001). 

Subpopulation: A portion of a population in a 

specific geographic location (Morrison et al. 1998). 

See also Population.
52 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Glossary

Succession (plant): An orderly and predictable 

process in which vegetation change represents the 

life history of a plant community, developing to a 

distinct climax condition (Morrison et al. 1998). 

Succulent: Juicy, watery, or pulpy, as the moist 

stems of cacti (Habich 2001).

Suitable Habitat: See Habitat Suitability.

Summer Habitat: The summer or late broodrearing period from July through August, when 

hens and chicks use a variety of moist and mesic 

habitats where succulent forbs and insects are 

found in close proximity to sagebrush (Connelly et 

al. 2000).

Trend: The direction of change in ecological 

status or resource value rating observed over time 

(Herrick et al. 2005). 

Understory: Plants growing beneath the canopy 

of other plants; usually refers to grasses, forbs, and 

low shrubs under a tree or shrub canopy (United 

States Department of the Interior 1996). 

Unsuitable Habitat: See Habitat Suitability.

Upland (habitat): An area that is not inundated 

with water and typically supports vegetation types 

adapted to life in nonsaturated soil conditions 

(Prichard et al. 2003).

Watershed: A group of streams that flow into a 

subbasin (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Wet Meadow: A meadow where the surface 

remains wet or moist throughout the summer, 

usually characterized by sedges and rushes 

(United States Department of the Interior 1996).

Winter Habitat: Sagebrush habitats that provide 

access to sagebrush above the snow for all food 

and cover requisite needs (Connelly et al. 2000).

Woodland: Vegetation dominated by open 

stands of trees with crowns not usually touching 

(generally forming 25-60 percent cover); canopy 

tree cover may be less than 25 percent in cases 

where it exceeds shrub, dwarf-shrub, herb, and 

nonvascular cover, respectively (Reid et al. 2002).
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 53

Aldridge, C.L. 2005. Identifying habitats for 

persistence of Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) in Alberta, 

Canada. Ph.D. dissertation, University of 

Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Aldridge, C.L. and M.S. Boyce. 2007. Linking 

occurrence and fitness to persistence: 

Habitat-based approach for endangered 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Ecological 

Applications 17:508-526.

Aldridge, C.L., S.E. Nielsen, H.L. Beyer, 

M.S. Boyce, J.W. Connelly, S.T. Knick 

and M.A. Schroeder. 2008. Range-wide 

patterns of Greater Sage-Grouse persistence. 

Diversity and Distributions 17:983-994.

Balch, J.K., B.A. Bradley, C.M. D’Antonio, and 

J. Gomez-Dans. 2013. Introduced annual 

grass increases regional fire activity across 

the arid western USA (1980-2009). Global 

Change Biology 19:173-183.

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, 

D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, 

M.J. Falkowski, C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 

2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A 

proactive solution to reducing a key threat to 

a candidate species. Biological Conservation 

167:233-241.

Beck, J.L., K.P. Reese, J.W. Connelly, and 

M.B. Lucia. 2006. Movements and survival of 

juvenile Greater Sage-Grouse in southeastern 

Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:

1070-1078. 

Berry, J.D. and R.L. Eng. 1985. Interseasonal 

movements and fidelity to seasonal use areas 

by female sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 49:237-240.

Blus, L.J., C.S. Staley, C.J. Henny, G.W. Pendleton, 

T.H. Craig, E.H. Craig, and D.K. Halford. 

1989. Effects of organophosphorus 

insecticides on sage grouse in southeastern 

Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 

53:1139-1146.

Bonham, C.D. 2013. Measurements for terrestrial 

vegetation. Second edition. Wiley-Blackwell, 

Chichester, West Sussex, Hoboken, NJ.

Bonham, C.D., D.E. Mergen, and S. Montoya. 

2004. Plant cover estimation: A contiguous 

Daubenmire frame. Rangelands 26:17-22.

Bottrill, M.C., L.N. Joseph, J. Carwardine, 

M. Bode, C. Cook, E.T. Game, H. Grantham, 

S. Kark, S. Linke, E. McDonald-Madden, 

R.L. Pressey, S. Walker, K.A. Wilson, and 

H.P. Possingham. 2008. Is conservation 

triage just smart decision making? Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution 23:649-654.

Braun, C.E., ed. 2005. Techniques for wildlife 

investigations and management. Sixth 

edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.

Canfield, R.H. 1941. Application of the lineintercept method in sampling range 

vegetation. Journal of Forestry 39:388-394.

Chambers, J.C., B.A. Bradley, C.S. Brown, 

C. D’Antonio, M.J. Germino, J.B. Grace, 

S.P. Hardegree, R.F. Miller, and D.A. Pyke. 

2013. Resilience to stress and disturbance to 

Bromus tectorum L. invasion in cold desert 

shrublands of western North America. 

Ecosystems 17:360-375.

Connelly, J.W., H.W. Browers, and R.J. Gates. 

1988. Seasonal movements of sage grouse 

in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 52:116-122.

Literature Cited

Literature Cited
54 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Literature Cited

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and 

S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats. 

Unpublished report. Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY.

Connelly, J.W., K.R. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 

2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats and populations. Station Bulletin 

80. College of Natural Resources Experiment 

Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 

Connelly, J.W., E.T. Rinkes, and C.E. Braun. 2011. 

Characteristics of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats: A landscape species at microand macroscales. In Greater Sage-Grouse: 

Ecology and conservation of a landscape 

species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick 

and J.W. Connelly, 69–83. Studies in Avian 

Biology, vol. 38. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and 

C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage 

sage grouse populations and their habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Cooperrider, A.Y., R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart, 

editors. 1986. Inventory and monitoring 

of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Denver, CO.

Copeland, H.E., A. Pocewicz, D.E. Naugle, 

T. Griffiths, D. Keinath, J. Evans, and 

J. Platt. 2013. Measuring the effectiveness of 

conservation: A novel framework to quantify 

the benefits of sage-grouse conservation 

policy and easements in Wyoming. PLoS 

ONE 8(6):e67261.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and 

E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands 

and deepwater habitats of the United States. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington, DC. 

Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, 

and J.L. Reveal. 1972. Intermountain flora: 

Vascular plants of the Intermountain 

West, U.S.A. Volume 1. Hafner Publishing 

Company, New York, NY.

Crow, T.R. 2002. Putting multiple use and 

sustained yield into a landscape context. In

Integrating landscape ecology into natural 

resource management, edited by J. Liu and 

W.W. Taylor, 349-365. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

D’Antonio, C.M. and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. 

Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the 

grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87.

Daubenmire, R.F. 1959. A canopy-coverage 

method of vegetation analysis. Northwest 

Science 33:43-64. 

Davies, K.W., C.S. Boyd, J.L. Beck, J.D. Bates, 

T.J. Svejcar, and M.A. Gregg. 2011. 

Saving the sagebrush sea: An ecosystem 

conservation plan for big sagebrush plant 

communities. Biological Conservation 

144:2573-2584.

Dinsmore, S.J. and D.H. Johnson. 2005. Population 

analysis in wildlife biology. In Techniques 

for wildlife investigations and management, 

edited by C.E. Braun, 154-184. Sixth edition. 

The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD.

Doherty, K.E., J.D. Tack, J.S. Evans, and 

D.E. Naugle. 2010. Mapping breeding 

densities of Greater Sage-Grouse: A tool 

for range-wide conservation planning. 

Completion Report, Interagency Agreement 

#L10PG00911. Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC.

Elphick, C., J.B. Dunning, Jr., and D.A. Sibley, 

eds. 2001. The Sibley guide to bird life and 

behavior. The National Audubon Society. 

Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 55

Literature Cited

Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, and J.W. Willoughby. 

1998. Measuring and monitoring plant 

populations. Technical Reference 1730-1. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, CO.

Esri. What is GIS? www.esri.com/what-is-gis/. 

Accessed May 9, 2006.

Fedy, B.C., C.L. Aldridge, K.E. Doherty, 

M. O’Donnell, J.L. Beck, B. Bedrosian, 

M.J. Holloran, J.D. Johnson, N.W. Kaczor, 

C.P. Kirol, C.A. Mandich, D. Marshall, 

G. McKee, C. Olson, C.C. Swanson, and 

B.L. Walker. 2012. Interseasonal movement 

of Greater Sage-Grouse, migratory behavior, 

and an assessment of the core regions 

concept in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 76:1062-1071.

Floyd, D.A. and J.E. Anderson. 1987. A 

comparison of three methods for estimating 

plant cover. Journal of Ecology 75:221-228.

Franklin, A.B., B.R. Noon, and T.L. George. 2002. 

What is habitat fragmentation? Studies in 

Avian Biology 25:20-29. 

Gilbert, F.F. and D.G. Dodds. 1987. The 

philosophy and practice of wildlife 

management. Robert E. Krieger Publishing, 

Malabar, FL.

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Steering 

Committee. 2005. Gunnison Sage-Grouse 

rangewide conservation plan. Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO.

Habich, E.F. 2001. Ecological site inventory. 

Technical Reference 1734-7. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Denver, CO. 

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 

2007. A meta-analysis of Greater SageGrouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting 

and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 

13 (Suppl. 1):42-50.

Hann, W.J., J.L. Jones, M.G. Karl, P.F. Hessburg, 

R.E. Keane, D.G. Long, J.P. Menakis, 

C.H. McNicoll, S.G. Leonard, 

R.A. Gravenmier, and B.G. Smith. 1997. 

Landscape dynamics of the Basin. In An 

assessment of ecosystem components in 

the interior Columbia Basin and portions 

of the Klamath and Great Basins, edited 

by T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide, 337-

1055. Volume 2. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Hanser, S.E. and S.T. Knick. 2011. Greater SageGrouse as an umbrella species for shrubland 

passerine birds: a multiscale assessment. 

In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and 

J.W. Connelly, 475-488. Studies in Avian 

Biology, vol. 38. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA.

Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, 

L.M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2005. 

Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland 

and savanna ecosystems. Volumes I and II. 

United States Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, Jornada 

Experimental Range, Las Cruces, NM.

Holloran, M.J. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) population 

response to natural gas field development 

in western Wyoming. Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and 

availability measurements for evaluating 

resource preference. Ecology 61:65-71.

Johnson, D.H., M.J. Holloran, J.W. Connelly, 

S.E. Hanser, C.L. Amundson, and S.T. Knick. 

2011. Influences of environmental and 

anthropogenic features on Greater SageGrouse populations, 1997–2007. In Greater 

Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of 

a landscape species and its habitats, edited 

by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 407-450. 
56 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Literature Cited

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University 

of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Knick, S.R and J.W. Connelly, editors. 2011. 

Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its 

habitats. Cooper Ornithological Society 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University 

of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Knick, S.T. and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting 

pattern and process in Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and sagebrush landscapes. 

In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and 

J.W. Connelly, 383-406. Studies in Avian 

Biology, vol. 38. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA.

Knick, S.T., S.E. Hanser, R.F. Miller, D.A. Pyke, 

M.J. Wisdom, S.P. Finn, E.T. Rinkes, and 

C.J. Henny. 2011. Ecological influence and 

pathways of land use in sagebrush. In Greater 

Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of 

a landscape species and its habitats, edited 

by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 203-251. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University 

of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Knick, S.T., S.E. Hanser, and K.L. Preston. 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.

Kuchler, A.W. 1970. Potential natural vegetation. 

In The national atlas of the United States 

of America, 89-92. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 

Leonard, K.M., K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 

2000. Distribution, movements and habitats 

of sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

on the Upper Snake River Plain of Idaho: 

Changes from the 1950s to the 1990s. 

Wildlife Biology 6:265-270.

Liu, J. and W.W. Taylor, eds. 2002. Integrating 

landscape ecology into natural resource 

management. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Lyon, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural 

gas development on sage grouse near 

Pinedale, Wyoming. Master’s thesis, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Lyon, A.G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas 

development impacts on sage grouse nest 

initiation and movement. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 31:486-491.

MacKinnon, W.C., J.W. Karl, G.R. Toevs, 

J.J. Taylor, M. Karl, C.S. Spurrier, and 

J.E. Herrick. 2011. BLM core terrestrial 

indicators and methods. Technical Note 440. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, National Operations 

Center, Denver, CO.

Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of systematic zoology. 

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 

Meffe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of 

conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, 

Inc., Sunderland, MA. 

Miller, R.F. and L.L. Eddleman. 2001. Spatial and 

temporal changes of sage grouse habitat in 

the sagebrush biome. Technical Bulletin 151. 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Miller, R.F., S.T. Knick, D.A. Pyke, C.W. Meinke, 

S.E. Hanser, M.J. Wisdom, and A.L Hild. 

2011. Characteristics of sagebrush habitats 

and limitations to long-term conservation. 

In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and 

J.W. Connelly, 145-184. Studies in Avian 

Biology, vol. 38. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 57

Literature Cited

Mills, L.S. 2013. Focal species to bridge from 

populations to ecosystems. In Conservation 

of wildlife populations, 244-250. Second 

edition. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 

United Kingdom.

Mooney, H.A. and E.E. Cleland. 2001. The 

evolutionary impact of invasive species. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences 98:5446–5451.

Morrison, M.L. and L.S. Hall. 2001. Standard 

terminology: Toward a common language 

to advance ecological understanding 

and application. In Predicting species 

occurrences: Issues of accuracy and scale, 

edited by J.M. Scott, P.J. Heglund, 

M.L. Morrison, J.B. Haufler, M.G. Raphael, 

W.A. Wall, and F.B. Samson, 43-52. Island 

Press, Washington, DC.

Morrison, M.L., B.M. Marcot, and R.W. Mannan. 

1998. Wildlife—habitat relationships: 

Concepts and applications. University of 

Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. 

Moynahan, B.J., M.S. Lindberg, J.J. Rotella, and 

J.W. Thomas. 2007. Factors affecting nest 

survival of Greater Sage-Grouse in north 

central Montana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71:1773-1783. 

Nielson, R.P., L.F. Pitelka, A.M. Solomon, R. 

Nathan, G.F. Midgley, J.M.V. Fragoso, 

H. Lischke, and K. Thompson. 2005. 

Forecasting regional to global plant 

migration in response to climate change. 

BioScience 55:749-760.

Oyler-McCance, S.J. and T.W. Quinn. 2011. 

Molecular insights into the biology of 

Greater Sage-Grouse. In Greater SageGrouse: Ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats, edited by 

S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 85-94. Studies 

in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 

2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland 

health. Version 4. Technical Reference 

1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, 

K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, 

B. Mitchell, and J. Staats. 1998. Riparian 

area management: A user guide to assessing 

proper functioning condition and the 

supporting science for lotic areas. Technical 

Reference 1737-15. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Applied Research Science Center, 

Denver, CO.

Prichard, D., F. Berg, W. Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, 

R. Leinard, S. Leonard, M. Manning, 

C. Noble, and J. Staats. 2003. Riparian area 

management: A user guide to assessing 

proper functioning condition and the 

supporting science for lentic areas. Technical 

Reference 1737-16. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Applied Research Science Center, 

Denver, CO.

Reid, M., P. Comer, H. Barrett, S. Caicco, 

R. Crawford, C. Jean, G. Jones, J. Kagan, M. 

Karl, G. Kittel, P. Lyon, M. Manning, 

E. Peterson, R. Rosentreter, S. Rust, 

D. Tart, C. Williams, and A. Winward. 2002. 

International classification of ecological 

communities: Terrestrial vegetation of the 

United States. Sagebrush vegetation of the 

Western United States. Final report for the 

United States Geological Survey, Forest and 

Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Boise, 

Idaho. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. 

Ries, L.R., R.J. Fletcher, J. Battin, and T.D. Sisk. 

2004. Ecological responses to habitat 

edges: Mechanisms, models, and variability 

explained. Annual Review of Ecology, 

Evolution, and Systematics 35:491-522.
58 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Literature Cited

Rowland, M.M., M. Leu, S. Hanser, S.P. Finn, 

C.L. Aldridge, S.T. Knick, L.H. Suring, 

J.M. Boyd, M.J. Wisdom, and C.W. Meinke. 

2006a. Assessment of threats to sagebrush 

habitats and associated species of concern 

in the Wyoming Basins. Version 2.0. 

Unpublished report on file at U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources, Snake River 

Field Station, 970 Lusk St., Boise, ID 83706.

Rowland, M.M., L.H. Suring, and M.J. Wisdom. 

2010. Assessment of habitat threats to 

shrublands in the Great Basin: A case 

study. In Advances in threat assessment and 

their application to forest and rangeland 

management, edited by J.M. Pye, 

H.M. Rauscher, Y. Sands, D.C. Lee, and 

J.S. Beatty, 673-685. PNW-GTR-802. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Portland, OR.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, L.H. Suring, and 

C.W. Meinke. 2006b. Greater Sage-Grouse as 

an umbrella species for sagebrush-associated 

vertebrates. Biological Conservation 

129:323-335.

Sage Grouse Initiative. 2014. Wildfire and 

cheatgrass: New science helps reduce threats 

to sage grouse. Science to Solutions Series, 

Number 5. www.sagegrouseinitiative.

com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/S2SWildfireCheatgrass-Nov5-2014.pdf.

Sather-Blair, S., P. Makela, T. Carrigan, and 

L. Anderson. 2000. A framework to assist in 

making sensitive species-habitat assessment 

for BLM-administered public lands in Idaho: 

Sage-grouse. Unpublished report. Bureau 

of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 

Branch of Resources and Science. 

Santini, K. 2012. Vegetation treatment effects in 

a Wyoming big sagebrush community and 

comparison of two methods for estimating 

shrub canopy cover. Master’s thesis, 

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, 

J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, 

J.W. Connelly, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, 

M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam,

C.W. McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, 

D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, and S.J. Stiver. 

2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North 

America. Condor 106:363-376.

Schroeder, M.A. and L.A. Robb. 2003. Fidelity 

of Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus 

urophasianus to breeding areas in a 

fragmented landscape. Wildlife Biology 

9:291-299.

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. 

Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). 

In The birds of North America, edited by 

A. Poole and F. Gill, Number 425, 1-28. 

The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Scott, J.M., D.D. Goble, A.M. Haines, J.A. Wiens, 

and M.C. Neel. 2010. Conservation-reliant 

species and the future of conservation. 

Conservation Letters 3:91-97.

Society for Ecological Restoration International. 

2004. The SER International Primer on 

Ecological Restoration. Version 2. Science 

and Policy Working Group. Tucson, AZ. 

http://www.ser.org/docs/default-documentlibrary/English.pdf.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, 

P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, 

C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 

2006. Greater Sage-Grouse comprehensive 

conservation strategy. Unpublished report. 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. 

Symstad, A.J., C.L. Wienk, and A.D. Thorstenson. 

2008. Precision, repeatability, and efficiency 

of two canopy-cover estimate methods 

in northern Great Plains vegetation. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management 

61:419-429.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 59

Literature Cited

Taylor, R.L., J.D. Tack, D.E. Naugle, and 

L.S. Mills. 2013. Combined effects of 

energy development and disease on Greater 

Sage-Grouse. PLoS ONE 8(8):e71256.

Thacker E.T. 2010. Greater Sage-Grouse 

seasonal ecology and responses to habitat 

manipulations in northern Utah. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Utah State University, 

Logan, UT.

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, 

W.C. MacKinnon, and M.R. Bobo. 2011. 

Bureau of Land Management assessment, 

inventory, and monitoring strategy: For 

integrated renewable resources management. 

Bureau of Land Management, National 

Operations Center, Denver, CO.

United States Department of the Interior. 1980. 

Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). 

Ecological Services Manual 102. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

United States Department of the Interior. 1996. 

Sampling vegetation attributes. Interagency 

technical reference. Bureau of Land 

Management, National Applied Resource 

Sciences Center, Denver, CO.

United States Department of the Interior. 2001. 

Rangeland health standards. Handbook 

H-4180-1. Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC. 

United States Department of the Interior. 2006. 

Roads and trails terminology. Technical Note 

422. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, 

CO. http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/

blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.17069.

File.dat/TN_422.pdf.

Urban, D.L., R.V. O’Neill, and H.H. Shugart, Jr. 

1987. Landscape ecology: A hierarchical 

perspective can help scientists understand 

spatial patterns. BioScience 37:119-127. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

conservation objectives: Final report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

Van Horn, B. 1983. Density as a misleading 

indicator of habitat quality. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 47:893–901.

Walker, B.L. and D.E. Naugle. 2011. West 

Nile virus ecology in sagebrush habitat 

and impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and 

J.W. Connelly, 127-142. Studies in Avian 

Biology, vol. 38. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA.

West, N.E. 1983. Western intermountain 

sagebrush steppe. In Ecosystems of 

the world 5: Temperate deserts and semideserts, edited by N.E. West, 351-397. 

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 

New York, NY.

White, P.S. and S.T.A. Pickett. 1985. Natural 

disturbance and patch dynamics: An 

introduction. In The ecology of natural 

disturbance and patch dynamics, edited 

by S.T.A. Pickett and P.S. White, 3-13. 

Academic Press, New York. NY. 

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.K. Wales, 

D.C. Lee, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, W.J. Hann, 

T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, 

and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats 

for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the 

interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends 

and management implications. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-000. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Portland, OR.
60 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Literature Cited

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, and L.H. Suring. 

2005. Habitat threats in the sagebrush 

ecosystem: Methods of regional assessment 

and applications in the Great Basin. Alliance 

Communications Group, Lawrence, KS.

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, L.H. Suring, 

L. Schueck, C.W. Meinke, B.C. Wales, and 

S.T. Knick. 2003. Procedures for regional 

assessment of habitats for species of 

conservation concern in the sagebrush 

ecosystem. Version 1. U.S. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, La 

Grande, OR.

Yost, A.C., S.L. Petersen, M. Gregg, and R. Miller. 

2008. Predictive modeling and mapping 

sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

nesting habitat using maximum entropy and 

a long-term dataset from southern Oregon. 

Ecological Informatics 3:375-386.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 61

Appendix A:

Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Case Study

General Overview

The project area is located on the central 

Snake River Plain and encompasses nearly 

300,000 acres of BLM lands within the Craters of 

the Moon National Monument (CRMO). Private 

and state lands are interspersed throughout the 

area, but do not significantly affect the continuity 

of the landscape. Shrub cover types are generally 

Wyoming big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, 

or threetip sagebrush at the lower elevations and 

mountain big sagebrush at higher elevations. 

Predominant native perennial understory grasses 

vary between Thurber’s needlegrass, needle-andthread grass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Idaho 

fescue. Roughly two-thirds of the transect sites 

that were read have been exposed to wildfires in 

the past 20 years, including 2012 fires that burned 

42 sites, and have been treated with a mix of native 

and nonnative seedings. Roughly one-third of 

the sites read have greater than 30 percent cover 

of cheatgrass, although some of those areas are 

also dominated by sagebrush overstory that could 

still be important to Greater Sage-Grouse, such as 

during the winter. The area is habitat for several 

big game species, raptors, and sagebrush obligates 

such as Greater Sage-Grouse. The primary land 

uses are grazing and recreation.

Site Stratification

Prior to the field season, the CRMO 

interdisciplinary (ID) team developed objectives 

related to the assessment that would help inform 

future management decisions. The key questions 

were “What is the status of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat in the CRMO area?” and “How do we 

stratify this to answer the questions of habitat 

suitability compared to current management and 

site potential?” Objectives were also developed to 

assist with setting parameters for site stratification. 

These objectives were to quantify the status of 

Greater Sage-Grouse in the CRMO by ecological 

site, pasture, and seasonal habitat designation; 

determine compatibility between assessment, 

inventory, and monitoring (AIM) program core 

indicators and the HAF; and establish locations for 

long-term monitoring of sage-grouse habitat.

Stratification was completed by the Jornada 

Experimental Range, New Mexico State 

University, Las Cruces, using ArcGIS Spatial 

Analyst. Initially, the current status of spatial and 

tabular data was determined, and then a boundary 

for the spatial extent of the study area was defined. 

Based on the existing data, several parameters 

were selected for use including existing vegetation, 

past land treatments, wildfires, and ecological 

sites. The ecological sites were grouped by similar 

environmental conditions (e.g., ARTRW8/FEID 

and ARTRW8/ACTH7) to reduce the number of 

units needing sampling from 38 to 10. Ecological 

sites reflect similarities that can be related to the 

state and transition models, expected potential, 

and expected vegetation for the site. Allotment 

and pasture boundaries were used as the analysis 

unit. A travel management plan had recently 

been completed, so the official roads and trails 

layer was used to determine a strategy for getting 

to sites. The range improvements layer was used 

to determine potential conflicts prior to field 

verification to ensure transects avoided structures 

such as water troughs. The transect locations were 

reviewed preliminarily and appeared to be well 

distributed across the study area, and only rarely 

did they occur in the middle of a reservoir, sheep 

bed ground, or lava flow. These locations were 

later omitted. A total of 328 transect locations 

were identified; of those, 316 were read in 2012.

Appendix A
62 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Appendix A: Craters of the Moon National Monument Case Study

Field Verification

Although a reliable set of GIS layers was available 

for the stratification process and GPS was used to 

navigate to sites, there was still a margin of error as 

to where the transect sites actually occurred on the 

ground. Therefore, after sites were selected, field 

verification that the study sites actually occurred 

within the correct vegetation and ecological site 

was necessary. The ID team created a common 

set of rules for initial site verification. These rules 

were set prior to field work and were used to 

determine if the site should be kept, moved, 

or removed.

• The standard azimuth for transects is 0o 

(due north).

• If a 0o azimuth causes the transect to cross two 

or more ecological sites or a nonnatural land 

cover type (e.g., a road), a random azimuth 

is then selected for the transect. Sites should 

not be excluded because they are close to these 

features, only because the feature itself actually 

occurs in the transect.

• If the first randomly selected azimuth does 

not successfully reorient the transect in the 

target ecological site and vegetation, then the 

site should be moved 100 meters in a standard 

direction and selection of random azimuths 

should not be continued.

• If the site cannot be reoriented or moved due 

to the shape or size of the target area, then the 

transect is removed from consideration and a 

backup transect is selected. 

• If accessing the site is dangerous or not 

possible, then the site is removed and a backup 

is selected.

• If a site can be moved, move 100 meters 

into the correct ecological site. If that is 

not possible, then remove the site and use 

a backup.

General information regarding how to update 

the GPS data files used during site verification 

to reflect any changes to the location, azimuth, 

ecological site, land cover type (LCT), and general 

site conditions was also included in the strategy. 

The site information worksheet was filled out by 

the journeyman-level specialist who completed 

the transect verification. Transects were removed 

if they landed directly on lava fields, if major 

anthropogenic disturbances were present (e.g., 

two power lines and two roads running directly 

through the site), or if one ecological type was not 

maintained for the whole transect. 

Technicians were able to follow directions laid 

out during site verification by the specialists 

and immediately begin data collection. This 

technique prevented confusion or inconsistency of 

interpretation by the technicians and removed the 

burden of determining suitable transect locations. 

Verifying sites ahead of time also ensured that the 

specialists were familiar with existing conditions 

when later reviewing large amounts of data and 

making habitat suitability decisions from the data. 

Part of the verification process was to determine 

if the correct ecological site description (ESD) 

was represented at the site and to initially confirm 

the LCT. The LCT was later verified by the linepoint intercept (LPI) data. This data is critical for 

proper grouping of transects when summarizing 

and assigning a habitat suitability rating. 

Protocols for data collection and compilation, 

naming conventions, and download processes 

were also established. These protocols ensured 

that the file structure was widely understood and 

common threads between field data, processed 

data, and final data were maintained. Forms 

were completed in both digital and hard copy 

format, due to computer program availability 

issues in the field. No matter what method users 

select, completed photo cards and photos for 

each transect provide a simple way to organize 

hard-copy data, document site completion dates, 

and verify general information. A GIS specialist 

created an inclusive data dictionary for the GPS 

units that were used to collect miscellaneous 

information, such as range improvements, noxious 

weed locations, and incidental wildlife and rare 

plant observations.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 63

Appendix A: Craters of the Moon National Monument Case Study

Field Data Collection

Initial test sites were read by an ID team to 

determine the necessary equipment and the 

methods to implement and to simplify training 

for technicians. The line intercept—Daubenmire 

frame method (LIDF) was compared to the linepoint intercept (LPI) method for measuring cover 

by taking 1 week to conduct both techniques 

at each of the transects completed. The data 

was subsequently analyzed, and the ID team 

determined the LPI was the more efficient method, 

relative to the project area and objectives, because 

it is the more rapid method for collecting cover 

data by species and the ground cover data collected 

is more readily compared to existing range 

program data. However, if only collecting life form 

data, the LIDF is the more rapid method. The belt 

transect, used to document forb species presence, 

was an adequate method to determine diversity 

and abundance, but has since been revised. 

The LIDF method also excels in capturing forb 

information due to the use of a frame rather than a 

cover pin.

Seasonal technicians performed most of the 

data collection. Altogether, there were seven 

technicians, split into three crews. One technician 

was designated as the crew lead, and one was 

responsible for handling data downloads and 

organization. The technicians had backgrounds 

in botany, wildlife, and range ecology. With this 

education and experience, the technicians had an 

understanding of what was asked and why and had 

enough interest in what was being collected 

to ask solid questions that helped improve 

the process.

Crews were assigned areas to focus efforts into a 

more logical approach across the analysis area. 

Two crews were stationed at outlying fire crew 

guard stations to help reduce drive times, and one 

crew was based out of the field office. This crew 

was able to pick up the outlier sites that did not 

fit in logistically with the other crew locations. 

Each crew was given a separate set of USGS 1:24k 

topographic maps that strategically divided the 

sites to facilitate the most expedient completion 

of the fieldwork. Habitat type and elevation/

precipitation gradients (lowest/driest to highest/

most moist) was used to seasonally prioritize the 

sites. A few nights were spent in the field, and as 

the season progressed, the terrain became more 

rugged, increasing the hiking time tremendously. 

Some of the sites took 2-3 hours to hike into, while 

others were only a 5-minute walk. However, time 

spent at each LPI transect was consistently about 

1 hour.

Analysis and Reporting

After the field data was collected, it was compiled 

into the correct format to combine transect data 

for the appropriate site. From this data, the team 

derived values for sagebrush shapes, heights, 

species, perennial grass and forb species height and 

cover percent, and forb abundance. The ID team 

made the final determinations of habitat suitability 

for each site based on the compiled data. The ID 

team had a good understanding of what to expect 

from the data, having participated in the earlier 

field verification, and could identify if anything 

was missed in the initial collection effort, what 

should be added to the measurements, which sites 

to revisit, and which transects should be combined 

with other transects. Data verification by an ID 

team is an important step to double check the field 

data and ensure that no sites were misclassified.

The ID team used telemetry data, field 

observations, and professional knowledge and 

judgment to determine the habitat suitability for 

each site area, in addition to the transect/field data 

collected. Aspect, slope, elevation, ESDs, past land 

uses, and disturbance regimes were incorporated 

into the process. The Excel spreadsheets used to 

collect field data were imported into an Access 

database, allowing mass calculations and creating 

a format that assigned values to each transect 

and that was compatible with ArcMap for spatial 

analysis. Joining the tables in ArcMap allows 

for a completely new level of spatial analysis and 

display. For example, shrub canopy cover can 

be displayed for all species/subspecies across the 
64 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Appendix A: Craters of the Moon National Monument Case Study

project area. Percent cover, dominant sagebrush 

species, sagebrush cover only, or percent cover for 

every shrub except sagebrush are a few examples 

of data that can be readily displayed. This format 

also helps display connectivity and distribution of 

habitat qualities.

Summaries were created using the Access tables 

joined in ArcMap to ensure the correct spatial 

attributes such as proper management unit, 

county, subpopulation, seasonal habitat, and 

proximity to leks and lek status. These tables were 

then exported to an Excel workbook and put into 

a pivot table to simplify data analysis. This process 

allowed for more rapid and efficient determination 

of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat suitability of the 

sites and was compiled using the seasonal habitat 

data summary (form S-1).

Recommendations and

Lessons Learned

As with any process, several items were identified 

as the assessment progressed that might help 

simplify and streamline future endeavors: 

• If using the LPI instead of the LIDF method, 

collect the shape of each sagebrush plant 

encountered along the transect when 

conducting a separate line intercept for 

sagebrush cover. This process will expand the 

number of sagebrush shape samples recorded, 

especially when there are few plants from 

which to determine shape. 

• Create a general plant species list when 

completing site verification to prepopulate 

electronic data forms and facilitate data 

collection in the field.

• Use of electronic platforms is a more rapid 

and efficient way to collect information, if 

only for the ease of processing data later, 

correcting misspellings, and identifying 

unknowns. Electronic data management also 

reduces the amount of paper to file and store. 

Unfortunately, the requested field tablets were 

not available until August, so a large amount 

of the initial data was collected on either GPS 

units loaded with data dictionaries or on hardcopy forms. The small screen of the GPS units 

made it difficult to collect forb belt transect 

and LPI data, but collecting the LPI and LIDF 

data required about the same amount of time 

via either hard copy or GPS units. The field 

tablet screens are roughly the same size as a 

sheet of paper and accelerate the process.

• Print and store final copies of the transect data. 

The final version should be clean of errors, 

easy to read, and organized similarly to the 

digital formats.

• Plan ahead and create a realistic timeframe 

and calendar, allowing for training days, 

prep and closeout time, actual field days, and 

possible extraneous circumstances (e.g., flat 

tires, GPS unit malfunctions, wildfires).

• Take time at the beginning of the season to 

clarify details with resource specialists, both 

in the field and in the office, prior to field 

crews starting. This step allowed specialists 

to have most of our questions answered, so 

that we could explain the process and needs 

to the crews.

• Have the specialists spend time in the field 

with the seasonal crews for training.

• Switch crew members around to make sure 

each crew maintains similar procedures and 

perform quality checks at sites.

• The HAF consists of metrics that can be 

expanded upon to inform more than sagegrouse habitat suitability. The stratification 

used is consistent with other management 

objectives and resource needs such as: 

– Documenting invasive annuals and 

noxious weed presence.

– Verifying dominant land cover type and 

plant community with the cover data.

– Informing land health standards.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 65

Appendix B:

Data Forms and

Measurement Techniques

This appendix to the sage-grouse HAF contains 

the data forms for the habitat assessment and 

specific instructions for completing them. It is 

organized by scale and is intended to be used 

in the field or in the lab as appropriate for data 

collection or summary. Chapter II of the HAF 

provides the detailed habitat description steps to 

guide setup and data collection.

Assessments for the broad-scale (first-order) 

habitat selection require rangewide coverage and 

policy decisions at either the rangewide scale or 

the management zone scale. No structured data 

forms are required for a first-order assessment. 

Policies establish the management direction for 

sagebrush habitats and sage-grouse. 

The assessment of mid-scale (second-order) 

habitat selection requires a general delineation 

of sage-grouse populations, habitat, and habitat 

patterns such as patch connectivity, linkage, patch 

edges, and fragmentation. Scientists employing 

advanced mapping technology will provide 

decisionmakers with the existing land cover 

classification (e.g., urban, agriculture, and natural 

vegetation communities at the alliance level), 

ecological potential for cover classes, and biotic 

risk factors across the landscape. Spatial analysts, 

specializing in anthropogenic features, will add 

sociological and political layers of constraints 

on the landscapes. This information will enable 

managers and decisionmakers working in concert 

with scientists to describe existing conditions. 

This assessment can aid in the development of 

priority conservation focus areas. A single form 

(form M-1) is required for summarizing the 

second-order assessment. This form should be 

applied for each landscape/population assessed at 

this scale.

Fine-scale (third-order) habitat selection 

analysis allows managers to plan and implement 

conservation actions that promote the objectives 

of the higher level decisions and policies. 

Managers can also use fine-scale data collected 

on a single form (form F-1) to develop project 

priority lists based on science and available spatial 

analytical information. Priority conservation 

focal areas can then be identified and evaluated for 

potential fourth-order treatments. Following this 

evaluation, specific projects or other actions can 

then be proposed.

The remainder of the data forms found in this 

appendix are site-scale (fourth-order) instruments, 

adequate to describe vegetation communities 

to the plant association. The forms include 

detailed directions and illustrations for measuring 

vegetation at the site scale. Supplemental 

information regarding vegetation species and 

preferred forbs for sage-grouse can be found in 

table B-1 at the end of this appendix. Managers 

and resource specialists will find systematic 

collection and analysis of these data helpful in 

prescribing appropriate actions or treatments for 

fourth-order projects.

These forms are available as workbook 

spreadsheets that can be loaded onto field tablets 

or ruggedized laptop computers. They can be 

found on the enclosed flash drive and online at the 

BLM Library website at www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/

info/blm-library/publications/blm_publications/

tech_refs.html.

Appendix B
66
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 67

Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Mid-Scale (Second-Order) Data Forms

Mid-Scale (Second-Order) Data Forms
68 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Mid-Scale (Second-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form M-1: Mid-Scale (Second-Order) Sage-Grouse Habitat Description

Date:

Evaluator(s):

General Location:

Sage-Grouse Management Zone(s):

Agencies:

Counties:

Populations:

Map File Name:

State:

Data Sources

Habitat Indicator Descriptions

Land Cover Type Data Sources:

Anthropogenic Features Data Sources:

Population Data Sources:

Data Storage Location:

Software and Version:

Mapping Grain (spatial resolution):

1. Habitat Availability

2. Patch Size and Number

3. Patch Connectivity

4. Linkage Area

Characteristics

5. Landscape Matrix and

Edge Effect

6. Anthropogenic

Disturbances

Date:

Population Area Extent (km2

):

a. Area of occupied habitat (km2

) =

b. Area of potential habitat (km2

) =

c. Area of nonhabitat (km2

) (optional) =

Discussion:

a. Mean size of occupied habitat patches (km2

) =

b. # of occupied habitat patches =

Discussion:

Mean distance to nearest occupied habitat patch (km) =

Discussion:

a. % suitable land cover types in linkage areas =

b. % marginal land cover types in linkage areas =

c. % unsuitable land cover types in linkage areas =

Discussion:

a. Mean % positive patch edges =

b. Mean % negative patch edges =

Discussion:

a. Densities of linear features (km / km2

 ) =

b. Densities of point features (sites / km2

 ) =

c. Area of nonhabitat or unsuitable habitat inclusions (km2

 ) =
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 69

Mid-Scale (Second-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Mid-Scale (Second-Order) Suitability Summary

Landscape Desciption: Check the one description below that best describes the population and subpopulation area:

Suitable: Landscapes have connected mosaics of sagebrush shrublands that allow for bird dispersal and migration movements within the population 

or subpopulation area. Anthropogenic disturbances that can disrupt dispersal or cause mortality are generally not widespread or are absent.

Marginal: Landscapes have patchy, fragmented sagebrush shrublands that are not well connected for dispersal and migration in portions of the 

population or subpopulation area. Anthropogenic disturbances that disrupt dispersal or cause mortality are present throughout all or portions of the 

landscape. Some lek groups or subpopulations are isolated or nearly isolated. 

Unsuitable: Landscapes were former shrubland habitat now converted to predominantly grassland or woodland cover or other unsuitable land cover 

or use. Remaining sagebrush patches are predominantly unoccupied or have few remaining birds. Portions of the population or subpopulation area 

may become occupied in the foreseeable future through succession or restoration.

Discussion:

✔
70
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 71

Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Fine-Scale (Third-Order) Data Forms

Fine-Scale (Third-Order) Data Forms
72 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Fine-Scale (Third-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

✔

Form F-1: Fine-Scale (Third-Order) Sage-Grouse Habitat Description

Description Year:

Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Lek Group Name:

Counties:

Agency:

Population:

General Location:

State:

Data Sources

Habitat Indicator Descriptions

Fine-Scale (Third-Order) Suitability Summary

Land Cover Type Data Sources:

Anthropogenic Features Data Sources:

Population Data Sources:

Data Storage Location:

Software and Version:

Mapping Grain:

1. Seasonal Habitat 

Availability

2. Seasonal Use Area 

Connectivity

3. Anthropogenic

Disturbances

Check the one description below that best describes the home range:

Home Range Area Extent (km2

):

a. Area of occupied breeding habitat (km2

) =

a. Area of occupied summer habitat (km2

) =

a. Area of occupied winter habitat (km2

) =

b. Area of potential breeding habitat (km2

) =

b. Area of potential summer habitat (km2

) =

b. Area of potential winter habitat (km2

) =

c. Area of nonhabitat (km2) (optional) =

Discussion:

Breeding to summer (km edge/km2

 of habitat) =

Summer to winter (km edge/km2

 of habitat) =

Winter to breeding (km edge/km2

 of habitat) =

a. Densities of linear features (km/km2

) =

b. Densities of point features (sites/km2

) =

c. Area of nonhabitat or unsuitable habitat inclusions (km2

) =

Discussion:

Suitable: Home ranges have connected seasonal use areas. Anthropogenic features that can disrupt seasonal movements or cause mortality are 

generally absent or at least not widespread.

Marginal: Home ranges have poorly connected or disjunct seasonal use areas. Anthropogenic features that can disrupt seasonal movements or cause 

mortality may occur within the home range.

Unsuitable: Home ranges have seasonal use areas with predominantly grassland, woodland, or incompatible land uses (anthropogenic features) not 

conducive to sage-grouse seasonal movements or habitat use. Most leks have been abandoned or have few remaining birds.

Discussion:
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 73

Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms
74 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques Form S-1: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary Date: Population: Seasonal Habitat: County: State: Evaluator(s): Home Range Name: Associated Leks: Lek Hbt. Avg. Distance to Sage Cover (m) Preferred Forb Species (#) PF Cover (%) PG Cover (%) Sage Ht. (cm) Predominant Sage Shape (# of S and C) Sage Cover (%) Transects (#) Area (ha/ac) or Length (km/mi) Ecological Site Land Cover Type PF Ht. (cm) PGHt. (cm) Indicator Values from Data Forms (means in most cases) x x x x x x x
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 75

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-1: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary Directions

1. Use this form to summarize seasonal habitat field transect data collected using methods outlined in this document. 

2. Complete all location information at the top of the form. Information should be consistent with information on the field data forms. Most of the information 

should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names are found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River home range). 

Seasonal Habitat: List the one season (breeding, summer, or winter) to which the data pertain. The same area may provide more than one seasonal habitat 

need, but data must be collected at the appropriate time of year for descriptions. 

Associated Leks: List the two largest occupied leks to which the breeding habitat is associated. Use identification numbers or names that are used in the 

statewide database.

3. Complete the data section of the form:

Land Cover Type: Identify the land cover of the seasonal habitat being summarized. 

Upland communities: Use plant alliances or associations (Reid et al. 2002) for sagebrush or grassland communities; use www.natureserve.org/explorer

(International Classification of Ecological Communities) or other sampling strata to describe the habitat (e.g., percent sagebrush categories). Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory (table B-1), for example ARTRW8 (alliance level – Wyoming big sagebrush) or 

ARTRW8/FEID (association level – Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue). 

Riparian or wetland communities: Use site type (riparian areas, wet meadows, springs) or more detailed classification using Cowardin et al. (1979) 

or riparian type (regional classification systems) to which the data pertain. 

Ecological Site: Refer to soil maps, range site guides, and ecological site descriptions where available and record the appropriate ecological site. Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory. 

Area or Length: Record the polygon area (indicating ha/ac) or linear length for riparian areas (indicating km/mi) of the habitat sampled (e.g., the land 

cover type).

Transects: Record the number of 50-m transects or sites measured within the land cover type. If transect length was adjusted due to polygon size or shape, 

annotate as needed.

Indicator Values: Record the mean or total numbers as indicated for each measurement (sagebrush cover, sagebrush height, sagebrush shape, perennial 

grass height, perennial forb height, perennial grass cover, perennial form cover, preferred forb species, and lek habitat distance to sage cover).

Sagebrush Height: Sagebrush height above ground for most seasons and above snow for winter habitat. 

Predominant Sagebrush Shape: Estimate the number of spreading (S) or columnar (C) plants (see visual shape guide, figure 13). 
76 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-2: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – Breeding Habitat (Leks)

Date:

Anthropogenic Noise Description:

Rationale for Overall Suitability Rating:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

GPS file #:

UTM:

County:

Home Range Name:

Evaluator(s):

Lek ID#:

Lek Status (circle one): Occupied Unoccupied Undetermined

State:

Habitat Indicator Suitability Range

Habitat Indicator

Site-Scale Suitability

Suitable

Suitable

Marginal

Marginal

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Availability of

Sagebrush Cover

Lek has adjacent protective

sagebrush cover (within 100 m)

Sagebrush within 100 m provides 

very little protective cover

Adjacent sagebrush

cover is >100 m

Proximity of Trees or 

Other Tall Structures

Proximity of

Detrimental

Land Uses

Trees or other tall structures are not 

within line of sight of lek and none to 

uncommon within 3 km of lek

Detrimental land uses are not

within line of sight of lek and absent 

to uncommon within 3 km of lek

Trees or other tall structures are within 

line of sight of lek and uncommon or 

scattered within 3 km of lek

Detrimental land uses are within line 

of sight of lek and uncommon or few 

within 3 km of lek

Trees or other tall structures are 

within the vicinity of the lek site

Detrimental land uses are within the 

vicinity of the lek site

✔ ✔ ✔
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 77

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-2: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet –

Breeding Habitat (Leks) Directions

1. Complete one form for each occupied, unoccupied, or undetermined lek in the home range or lek group, as needed. 

2. Complete all location information at the top of the form. Most of the information should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names are found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River home range).

Land Cover Type: Identify the cover type at the lek site. Use plant alliances or associations (Reid et al. 2002) for sagebrush or grassland communities; use 

www.natureserve.org/explorer (International Classification of Ecological Communities) or other sampling strata to describe the habitat (e.g., percent sagebrush 

categories). Use the species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory (table B-1), for example ARTRW8 (alliance level – Wyoming big 

sagebrush) or ARTRW8/FEID (association level – Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue). Note whether the lek is located in a nonhabitat (e.g., agriculture, 

urban, industrial) area. If the lek is located on a road, in a livestock watering area, or on a similar type of surface within a plant community, indicate this cover 

type in the following manner: ARTRW8:road; ARTRW8:trough area.

Lek ID #: Use the identification number or name that is used in the statewide database. 

Lek Status: Determine the status using the following definitions. Note that the specific terms and definitions for lek status may vary by state. Use the 

terminology appropriate for your area.

Occupied lek: [Greater Sage-Grouse] A lek that has been active during at least one breeding season within the prior 5 years. [Gunnison Sage-Grouse] A 

lek that has been attended by males in the previous 5 years. 

Unoccupied lek: [Greater Sage-Grouse] A lek that has not been active during a period of 5 consecutive years. [Gunnison Sage-Grouse] A lek that has 

been inactive for 5 years. 

Undetermined lek: Any lek that has not been documented as active in the last 5 years, but for which survey information is insufficient to designate the 

lek as unoccupied. 

3. Complete indicator measurements:

Availability of Sagebrush Cover: Adjacent sagebrush distance is measured from the edge of the lekking area to the edge of the nearest stand of mature 

sagebrush of sufficient extent to provide protective cover.

Proximity of Detrimental Land Uses: Such land uses include oil/gas wells, roads, agricultural fields, subdivisions, etc.

Proximity of Trees or Other Tall Structures: Trees and tall structures are considered “within the vicinity” when they provide avian perch sites with a view of 

birds on the lek.

4. Determine the appropriate suitability category and mark (✔) each indicator as suitable, marginal, or unsuitable. 

5. Describe anthropogenic noise. Indicate the presence of and describe any anthropogenic noises observed during the lekking period. Identify the noise source 

(highway vehicles, generator, wind turbines, military overflights, etc.) and describe the occurrence frequency (constant or periodic), volume (loud to soft), and 

pitch (high to low). Use a decibel meter, if available, to record data when anthropogenic noises are a concern for the lek. 

6. Determine site-scale suitability. Overall suitability takes into consideration the relationship between the indicators and their relative importance. This 

evaluation is based on professional judgment using the indicators for guidance. Explain overall site suitability in the rationale section.

7. Attach photographs of the lek site. 

8. Provide a copy of this form to the state wildlife agency’s sage-grouse coordinator.
78 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-3: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – Breeding Habitat

(Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing)

Date:

Does ecological site potential limit suitability potential? (circle one) Yes No Unknown

Drought Condition (circle one): Extreme Drought Severe Drought Moderate Drought Mid-Range

Moderately Moist Very Moist Extremely Moist

Rationale for Overall Suitability Rating:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Associated Leks:

Area Sampled (ha/ac):

List UTM Coordinates (coordinates, zone, datum) of All Transects:

County: Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Ecological Site:

Number of Transects:

Site Info. (circle one): Arid Site Mesic Site

State:

Habitat Indicator Suitability Range

Habitat Indicator

Site-Scale Suitability

Suitable

Suitable

Marginal

Marginal

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Sagebrush Canopy Cover (mean)

Preferred Forb Availability

(relative to site potential)

Number of Preferred Forb Species (n)

Predominant Sagebrush Shape (mode)

Spreading (n)

Columnar (n)

Perennial Forb Height (mean)

Perennial Grass Height (mean)

15 to 25%

Preferred forbs are 

common with several 

species present

Spreading

≥18 cm

≥18 cm

5 to <15% or >25%

Preferred forbs are 

common but only a few 

species are present

Mix of spreading and 

columnar

10 to <18 cm

10 to <18 cm

<5%

Preferred forbs are 

rare

Columnar

<10 cm

<10 cm

Sagebrush Height

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

Perennial Grass Cover

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

Perennial Forb Cover

Mesic Site (mean)

Arid Site (mean)

40 to 80 cm

30 to 80 cm

≥15%

≥10%

≥10%

≥5%

20 to <40 cm or >80

20 to <30 cm or >80

5 to <15%

5 to <10%

5 to <10%

3 to <5%

<20 cm

<20 cm

<5%

<5%

<5%

<3%

✔ ✔ ✔ x
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 79

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-3: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet –

Breeding Habitat (Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing) Directions

1. Use this worksheet to interpret field data collected using methods (LPI/LIDF and forb diversity) outlined in this appendix and summarized on the “Sage-Grouse 

Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary” (form S-1). 

2. Complete all site location information at the top of the form. Be sure to list all UTM coordinates or other identifying feature of all sites being summarized. Most 

of the information should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names are found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River home range). 

Land Cover Type: Identify the cover type of the data collected. Use plant alliances or associations (Reid et al. 2002) for sagebrush or grassland communities; 

use www.natureserve.org/explorer (International Classification of Ecological Communities) or other sampling strata to describe the habitat (e.g., percent 

sagebrush categories). Use the species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory (table B-1), for example ARTRW8 (alliance level – 

Wyoming big sagebrush) or ARTRW8/FEID (association level – Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue). 

Ecological Site: Refer to soil maps, range site guides, and ecological site descriptions where available and record the appropriate ecological site. Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory.

Associated Leks: List the two largest occupied leks to which the breeding habitat is associated. Use identification numbers or names that are used in the 

statewide database.

Number of Transects: Record the number of 50-m transects completed within the land cover type.

Area Sampled: Record the total area (indicating ha/ac) of the land cover type sampled.

Site Info.:

Arid Site: Applies to sagebrush ecological sites generally in the 25-30 cm (10-12 in) precipitation zone. Wyoming big sagebrush is a common big 

sagebrush subspecies for this type of site.

Mesic Site: Applies to sagebrush ecological sites generally in a >30 cm (12 in) precipitation zone. Mountain big sagebrush is a common big sagebrush 

subspecies for this type of site.

3. Transfer data from the “Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary” (form S-1) to this form. Enter the appropriate mean ( x) and number (n) 

values for the indicators in the column under x .

Predominant Sagebrush Shape: Estimate the number of spreading (S) or columnar (C) plants (see visual shape guide, figure 13).

Perennial Forb Height (Optional): In many situations, perennial forb heights can be quite variable or provide minimal contribution to herbaceous 

structure. Therefore, in most cases, use perennial grass heights for the suitability rating. 

Preferred Forb Availability: Check the appropriate suitability category based on data derived using the “Sage-Grouse Forb Diversity Data Form.” The 

suitability evaluation must be relative to ecological site potential. 

4. Determine the appropriate suitability category and mark (✔) each indicator as suitable, marginal, or unsuitable. 

5. Determine site-scale suitability. Overall suitability takes into consideration the relationship between the indicators and their relative importance. This 

evaluation is based on professional judgment using the indicators for guidance. Explain overall site suitability in the rationale section.

6. Indicate if site potential is a factor for a suitability description of marginal or unsuitable. Explain further in the rationale section.

7. Indicate drought condition using local weather station data or as reported for the region of concern on the National Weather Service website: 

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/us-drought-monthly.html.

8. Attach field data sheet(s) and photographs used for this site-scale description.

9. Provide a copy of this form to the state wildlife agency’s sage-grouse coordinator.
80 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-4: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet –

 Upland Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat

Date:

Does site potential limit suitability? (circle one) Yes No Unknown

Drought Condition (circle one): Extreme Drought Severe Drought Moderate Drought Mid-Range

Moderately Moist Very Moist Extremely Moist

Rationale for Overall Suitability Rating:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Number of Transects:

List UTM Coordinates (coordinates, zone, datum) of All Transects:

County: Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Ecological Site:

Area Sampled (ha/ac):

State:

Habitat Indicator Suitability Range

Habitat Indicator Suitable

Suitable

Marginal

Marginal

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Sagebrush Cover 

(mean)

Sagebrush Height 

(mean) 

Perennial Grass and 

Forb Cover (mean)

Preferred Forb Availability

(relative to site potential)

Number of Preferred Forb Species (n)

10 to 25%

40 to 80 cm

≥15 %

Preferred forbs are

common with

appropriate numbers 

of species present

5 to <10% or >25%

20 to <40 or >80 cm

5 to <15%

Forbs are common but 

only a few preferred 

species are present

<5%

<20cm

<5%

Preferred forbs

are rare

✔ ✔ ✔ x

Site-Scale Suitability
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 81

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-4: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – 

Upland Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Directions

1. Use this worksheet to interpret field data summarized on the “Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary” (form S-1). 

2. Complete all location information at the top of the form. Be sure to list all UTM coordinates or other identifying feature of all sites being summarized. Most of 

the information should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names are found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River home range). 

Land Cover Type: Identify the cover type of the data collected. Use plant alliances or associations (Reid et al. 2002) for sagebrush or grassland communities; 

use www.natureserve.org/explorer (International Classification of Ecological Communities) or other sampling strata to describe the habitat (e.g., percent 

sagebrush categories). Use the species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory (table B-1), for example ARTRW8 (alliance level – 

Wyoming big sagebrush) or ARTRW8/FEID (association level – Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue). 

Ecological Site: Refer to soil maps, range site guides, and ecological site descriptions where available and record the appropriate ecological site. Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory.

Number of Transects: Record the number of 50-m transects completed within the land cover type.

Area Sampled: Record the total area (indicating ha/ac) of the land cover type sampled.

3. Transfer data from the “Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary” (form S-1) to this form. Enter the appropriate mean ( x ) and number (n) 

values where appropriate for the indicators in the column under x.

Preferred Forb Availability: Check the appropriate suitability category based on data derived using the “Sage-Grouse Preferred Forb Diversity Form.” The 

suitability evaluation must be relative to abundance, diversity, and availability relative to ecological site potential. Write a short narrative in the notes section, 

based on the species observed and available site information.

4. Determine the appropriate suitability category and mark (✔) each indicator as suitable, marginal, or unsuitable. 

5. Determine site-scale suitability. Overall suitability takes into consideration the relationship between the indicators and their relative importance. This 

evaluation is based on professional judgment using the indicators for guidance. Explain overall site suitability in the rationale section.

6. Indicate if site potential is a factor for a suitability description of marginal or unsuitable. Explain further in the rationale section.

7. Indicate drought condition using local weather station data or as reported for the region of concern on the National Weather Service website: 

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/us-drought-monthly.html.

8. Attach field data sheet(s) and photographs used for this site-scale description.

9. Provide a copy of this form to the state wildlife agency’s sage-grouse coordinator. 
82 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-5: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – 

Riparian Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat

Date:

Drought Condition (circle one): Extreme Drought Severe Drought Moderate Drought Mid-Range

Moderately Moist Very Moist Extremely Moist

Rationale for Overall Suitability Rating:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Site Type (circle one): Riparian Areas Wetland/Wet Meadows Springs Lakebeds All Other

Number of Transects: Area (ha/ac) or Distance (km/mi) Sampled:

List UTM Coordinates (coordinates, zone, datum) of All Transects:

County: Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

State:

Habitat Indicator Suitability Range

Habitat Indicator or n

Site-Scale Suitability

Suitable

Suitable

Marginal

Marginal

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Riparian Stability

PFC (n)

FAR (n)

NF (n)

Availability of Sagebrush 

Cover (mean)

Preferred Forb Availability

(relative to site potential)

Number of Preferred Forb Species (n)

Majority of areas are 

in PFC

Sagebrush cover is 

adjacent to broodrearing areas (<100 m)

Preferred forbs are 

common with 

appropriate numbers 

of species present

Majority of areas

are FAR

Sagebrush cover is 

in close proximity to 

brood-rearing areas 

(100 to 275 m)

Preferred forbs are 

common but only a few 

species are present

Majority of areas 

are NF

Sagebrush cover

is unavailable

(>275 m)

Preferred forbs

are rare

✔ ✔ ✔ x
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 83

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-5: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – 

Riparian Summer/Late Brood-Rearing Habitat Directions

1. Use this worksheet to interpret field data collected using the forb diversity method outlined in this appendix and summarized on the “Sage-Grouse Site-Scale 

Seasonal Habitat Data Summary” (form S-1). 

2. Complete all location information at the top of the form. Be sure to list all UTM coordinates or other identifying feature of all sites being summarized. Most of 

the information should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names are found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River home range). 

Land Cover Type (Optional): Identify the wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979) or riparian type (regional classification systems) of the habitat sampled. This data 

may be important to record when more detailed descriptions of summer habitats are desired (i.e., with sites stratified by cover type). 

Site Type: Identify the type of habitat sites sampled.

Number of Transects: Record the number of 50-m transects or sites measured within the land cover type.

Area or Distance Sampled: Record the total area (indicating ha/ac) or distance for riparian areas (indicating km/mi) of the site type or land cover 

type sampled.

3. Transfer data from the “Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary” (form S-1) to this form. Enter the appropriate mean ( x ) and number (n) 

values and PFC data where appropriate for the indicators in the column under x.

Riparian Stability: Record the number of sampling sites that were in proper functioning condition (PFC), functional–at risk (FAR), or nonfunctional (NF) 

(Prichard et al. 1998, 2003). Current PFC data can be used, if available. If PFC data cannot be obtained from other sources or collected directly, then the other 

two indicators should be used to assess habitat suitability. Include lotic and lentic riparian habitats.

Preferred Forb Availability: Check the appropriate suitability category based on data derived using the “Sage-Grouse Forb Diversity Data Form.” The 

suitability evaluation must be relative to abundance, diversity, and availability relative to ecological site potential. 

Availability of Sagebrush Cover: Distance is measured from the edge of the riparian area to the edge of the nearest stand of mature sagebrush of sufficient 

extent to provide protective cover. 

4. Determine the appropriate suitability category and mark (✔) each indicator as suitable, marginal, or unsuitable.

5. Determine site-scale suitability. Overall suitability takes into consideration the relationship between the indicators and their relative importance. This 

evaluation is based on professional judgment using the indicators for guidance. Explain overall site suitability in the rationale section.

6. Indicate drought condition using local weather station data or as reported for the region of concern on the National Weather Service website: 

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/us-drought-monthly.html.

7. Attach field data sheet(s) and photographs used for this site-scale description.

8. Provide a copy of this form to the state wildlife agency’s coordinator for sage-grouse conservation.
84 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-6: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – Winter Habitat

Date:

Rationale for Overall Suitability Rating:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Number of Transects: Area Sampled (ha/ac):

List UTM Coordinates (coordinates, zone, datum) of All Transects:

County: Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Ecological Site:

State:

Habitat Indicator Suitability Range

Habitat Indicator

Site-Scale Suitability

Suitable

Suitable

Marginal

Marginal

Unsuitable

Unsuitable

Sagebrush Cover (mean)

Sagebrush Height (above snow) (mean) 

≥10 %

≥25 cm

5 to <10%

>10 to <25 cm

<5%

≤10 cm

✔ ✔ ✔ x
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 85

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-6: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Habitat Suitability Worksheet – Winter Habitat Directions

1. Use this worksheet to interpret field data summarized on the “Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary” (form S-1). 

2. Complete all location information at the top of the form. Be sure to list all UTM coordinates or other identifying feature of all sites being summarized. Most of 

the information should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names are found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River home range). 

Land Cover Type: Identify the cover type of the data collected. Use plant alliances or associations (Reid et al. 2002) for sagebrush or grassland communities; 

use www.natureserve.org/explorer (International Classification of Ecological Communities) or other sampling strata to describe the habitat (e.g., percent 

sagebrush categories). Use the species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory (table B-1), for example ARTRW8 (alliance level – 

Wyoming big sagebrush) or ARTRW8/FEID (association level – Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue). 

Ecological Site: Refer to soil maps, range site guides, and ecological site descriptions where available and record the appropriate ecological site. Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory.

Number of Transects: Record the number of 50-m transects completed within the land cover type.

Area Sampled: Record the total area (indicating ha/ac) of the land cover type within the administrative area assessed (e.g., pasture, allotment).

3. Transfer data from the “Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Data Summary” (form S-1) to this form. Enter the mean ( x ) for the indicators in the column 

under x.

4. Determine the appropriate suitability category and mark (✔) each indicator as suitable, marginal, or unsuitable.

5. Determine site-scale suitability. Overall suitability takes into consideration the relationship between the indicators and their relative importance. This 

evaluation is based on professional judgment using the indicators for guidance. Explain overall site suitability in the rationale section.

6. Attach field data sheet(s) and photographs used for this site-scale description.

7. Provide a copy of this form to the state wildlife agency’s sage-grouse coordinator.
86 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-7: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Site Suitability Summary

Habitat

components

present?

Site

potential

limiting?

Future

Suitable,

Marginal,

Unsuitable

Current

Number of Sites

(leks, wet meadows, 

springs, etc.)

Length 

(km/mi) 

(riparian)

Area

(ha/ac) 

(upland)

Ecological

Site

Seasonal

Habitat

Land Cover Type

Seasonal Habitat Information Suitability

Date:

Population:

Associated Leks:

County:

Home Range Name:

State: Evaluator(s):
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 87

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Form S-7: Sage-Grouse Site-Scale Seasonal Habitat Site Suitability Summary Directions

1. Use this form to summarize site-scale seasonal habitat suitability descriptions (forms S-2 through S-6) for land cover types within a home range area.

2. Complete all location information at the top of the form. Most of the information should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names are found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River home range). 

Associated Leks: List the two largest occupied leks to which the breeding habitat is associated. Use identification numbers or names that are used in the 

statewide database.

3. Transfer data from the seasonal habitat suitability worksheets (forms S-2 through S-6) to this form.

Seasonal Habitat: List one of the following: lek, nesting/early brood-rearing, summer/late brood-rearing, or winter, for each seasonal habitat summarized. 

Land Cover Type: Identify the land cover type of the seasonal habitat. 

Upland communities: Use plant alliances or associations (Reid et al. 2002) for sagebrush or grassland communities; use www.natureserve.org/explorer

(International Classification of Ecological Communities) or other sampling strata to describe the habitat (e.g., percent sagebrush categories). Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory (table B-1), for example ARTRW8 (alliance level – Wyoming big sagebrush) or 

ARTRW8/FEID (association level – Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue). 

Riparian or wetland communities: Use site type (riparian areas, wet meadows, springs) or more detailed classification using Cowardin et al. (1979) 

or riparian type (regional classification systems) to which the data pertain. 

Ecological Site: Refer to soil maps, range site guides, and ecological site descriptions where available and record the appropriate ecological site. Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory. 

Area/Length/Number of Sites: Record the area for upland habitat (indicating ha/ac), linear length for riparian habitat (indicating km/mi), or number of 

sites (leks, wet meadows, springs, etc.) sampled.

Current Suitability: Record the overall site-scale suitability as suitable (S), marginal (M), or unsuitable (U).

Future Suitability: Record any site-scale ecological constraints for the cover type to provide habitat in the future. This information applies only to those sites 

that are currently providing marginal or unsuitable site-scale conditions. 

Site potential limiting?: If ecological site potential indicates that the site may provide suitable habitat in the future, record “No.” If ecological site 

potential is limiting suitability, record “Yes.” 

Habitat components present?: If there is sagebrush recruitment and forbs and perennial grasses are present in suitable amounts, record “Yes.” If 

recruitment of these life forms is lacking, record “No.”
88 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Plot Metadata Form

Site:

Plot ID:

Evaluator(s):

GPS Coordinate System: 

Population: 

Land Cover Type:

Associated Leks: 

Site Info.:  ̈ Arid Site  ̈ Mesic Site

PFC Status (riparian areas only):  ̈ PFC  ̈ FAR  ̈ NF  ̈ Unknown

Comments:

Datum : Zone (if applicable):

Home Range Name:

Ecological Site:

Area (ha/ac) or Distance (km/mi) Sampled: 

Seasonal Habitat:

Elevation:  ̈m  ̈ft

Directions to the Plot:

Ownership: Establishment Date:

Visit Date:

Transect Azimuth Length Latitude/Northing Longitude/Easting Slope (%)

 ̈m  ̈ft

Start

Start Aspect ( ̊)

Start

Plot Photos:

Photo Description
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 89

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Plot Metadata Directions

1. Complete all location information at the top of the sheet. Be sure to list UTM coordinates and other identifying features of the site. Most of the information 

should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names are found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River Home Range). 

Land Cover Type: Identify the land cover type of the data. Use plant alliances or associations (Reid et al. 2002) for sagebrush or grassland communities; 

www.natureserve.org/explorer (International Classification of Ecological Communities) or other sampling strata used to describe the habitat (e.g., % sagebrush 

categories). Use the species symbol (table B-1) for dominant species in the overstory and understory (Examples: ARTRW8 (alliance level – Wyoming big 

sagebrush) or ARTRW8/FEID (association level – Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue). 

Ecological Site: Refer to soil maps and range site guides, and ecological site descriptions where available and record the appropriate ecological site. Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory.

Associated Leks: List the two largest occupied leks to which the breeding habitat is associated. Use identification numbers or names that are used in the 

statewide database.

Area or Distance Sampled: Record the total area (indicating ha/ac) or distance for riparian areas (indicating km/mi) of the site type or land cover 

type sampled.

Site Info.:

Arid Site: Applies to sagebrush ecological sites generally in the 25-30 cm (10-12 in) precipitation zone. Wyoming big sagebrush is a common big 

sagebrush subspecies for this type of site.

Mesic Site: Applies to sagebrush ecological sites generally in a >30 cm (12 in) precipitation zone. Mountain big sagebrush is a common big sagebrush 

subspecies for this type of site.

Seasonal Habitat: List one or more of the following, as appropriate: lek, nesting/early brood-rearing, summer/late brood-rearing, or winter.

2. Take photographs of the study site. At least one photograph must be taken at each transect/evaluation area. Photos will prove invaluable in locating 

evaluation areas in subsequent years. They will also be of substantial utility in the office when preparing evaluation documents and documenting 

habitat condition.

a. Complete a photo card showing, at a minimum, the date, location, allotment, and transect number. 

b. With the photo card near the zero end of the tape, take a general photo of the area, sighting down the tape from eye level, showing landmarks in the 

background, if possible. A cover board or meter stick should be in the picture for a frame of reference.

c. In a representative location along or near the tape, place the photo card near the base of a sagebrush plant, and take a tangential closeup photo from 

near ground level (2-3 ft) toward the shrub/ground interface, to document herbaceous conditions and cover. A cover board or meter stick should be in 

the picture for a frame of reference. 

d. Optional: Take one or more other closeups or panoramic photos as needed. A photo showing sagebrush canopy cover percent may also be desirable, 

following completion of the line intercept. 
90 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Line-Point Intercept Data Form

Page of

Evaluator(s):

Intercept (Point) Spacing:  ̈cm  ̈in Height:  ̈cm  ̈in

Soil 

Surface

Soil 

Surface

Top Layer Top Layer

Code 1 Code 1

Lower Layers Lower Layers

Code 2 Code 3 Code 2 Code 3

Pt. Pt.

1 26

2 27

3 28

4 29

5 30

6 31

7 32

8 33

9 34

10 35

11 36

12 37

13 38

14 39

15 40

16 41

17 42

18 43

19 44

20 45

21 46

22 47

23 48

24 49

25 50

Date: Plot ID: Transect:

Azimuth:

% foliar cover = ____ top layer pts (1st col) x 2 = ____%

% bare ground = ____ pts (w/NONE over S) x 2 = ____%

Top layer codes: Species code, common name, or NONE (no cover).

Lower layers codes: Species code, common name, L (herbaceous litter), 

WL (woody litter, >5 mm (~1/4 in) diameter), VL (vagrant lichen).

Unknown Species Codes:

AF# = annual forb

PF# = perennial forb

AG# = annual grass

PG# = perennial grass

SH# = shrub

TR# = tree

Soil Surface (do not use litter):

G = gravel (≤5 mm or ~1/4 in)

R = rock (>5 mm or ~1/4 in)

BR = bedrock

EL = embedded litter

D = duff

M = moss

LC = visible lichen crust on soil

S = soil
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 91

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Line-Point Intercept Directions

Note: The HAF site-scale protocol for line-point intercept is the same as the BLM’s core method. Directions for the method are given below, but 

readers can refer to Herrick et al. (2005) (or the most current version) for more detail.

Equipment:

Tape, 5 m Stakes for tape (at least two spikes; old, medium to large screwdrivers work well)

Pin flag or pointer or other point intercept device: straight piece of wire or rod 

at least 1 m long and less than 2.5 mm in diameter Meter stick (for measuring shrub and grass/forb heights)

Digital camera (5 megapixel minimum), extra camera battery Photo cards and markers or small dry-erase board and marker

Topographic map and aerial photographs with project area, general cover 

types, and pasture boundaries delineated GPS unit, compass

Forms and/or electronic data entry device with extra battery, pencils Ecological Site Guides 

Calculator

Figure B-1. The line-point intercept method can be used to measure foliar cover and vegetation height of all grass, forb, and shrub species at a site or foliar cover of a single life 

form (e.g., sagebrush cover for winter habitat areas).

Point Intercept Method of measuring cover for plant species.

% cover = number of points = 5/9 = 55.6%

transect line

hit miss hit miss hit hit hit miss miss

Protocol:

1. Complete all metadata information at the top of the LPI field form for each transect, making sure that the plot identification information (i.e., plot number) 

matches that recorded on the overall plot metadata form. If more than 50 points are being recorded on a transect, attach additional forms as needed.

2. Pull out the tape and anchor each end with a steel pin. Keep measuring tape taught and straight. Keep measuring tape as close to the ground as possible 

(thread under shrubs using a steel pin as a needle), but not so close that it disturbs the soil surface or affects the natural way the vegetation stands below the 

tape (figures B-1 and B-2). 

Figure B-2. Measuring plant species using the line-point intercept technique (pin size exaggerated to emphasize method).
92 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

3. Begin at the “0” end of the tape. 

4. Working from left to right, record cover at each 1 m mark (or 1⁄2 m and 1 m mark for 100 points per transect). Begin recording at the first 1⁄2 m or 1 m mark 

depending on the number of points desired. Always stand on the same side of the line. Drop a pin flag to the ground from a standard height next to the tape. 

Keep the pin vertical. Make a “controlled drop” of the pin from the same height each time. Position the pin so its lower end is several centimeters above the 

vegetation, release it and allow it to slip through the hand until it hits the ground. A low drop height minimizes “bounces” off of vegetation but increase the 

possibility for bias. Do not guide the pin all the way to the ground. It is more important for the pin to fall freely to the ground than to fall precisely on the mark.

5. A laser with a bubble level can be used instead of the pin. This tool is useful in savannas where plant layers may be above eye level.

6. Once the pin flag is flush with the ground, record every plant species it intercepts:

a. Record the species of the uppermost or first stem, leaf, or plant base intercepted in the “Top Layer” column using the USDA PLANTS database species code 

(http://plants.usda.gov), a four- to six-letter code based on the first two letters of the genus and species, subspecies, or the common name. If no leaf, stem, or 

plant base is intercepted, record “NONE” in the “Top Layer” column. Woody sagebrush plants should be identified to the subspecies.

b. Record all additional species intercepted by the pin in the order that they are intercepted from top to bottom. 

c. Record all foliage whether alive or dead, but denote dead vegetation by using the appropriate checkbox in an electronic data collection database or circling 

the species on the data form. If both alive and dead canopy for a species is hit on the same point, record the live canopy. Sagebrush indicators for sage-grouse 

habitat are calculated from only live canopy hits and do not include dead stems of shrubs. Residual plant cover can be very important for sage-grouse nesting, 

so it is also important to denote live versus standing dead herbaceous vegetation on the field form. See Connelly et al. (2003), Monitoring of Greater Sagegrouse Habitats and Populations; http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/grouse_habitat_book.pdf; and http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range357/notes/cover.pdf) for 

discussions on cover.

d. Record each plant species only once, the first time it is intercepted, even if it is intercepted several times.

e. Record the following codes for lower layers: “L” for herbaceous litter, if present (litter is defined as detached stems, roots, and leaves); “WL” for detached woody 

litter > 5 mm (~1/4 in) in diameter; or “VL” for vagrant lichen.

f. If a sagebrush plant is intercepted, record the shape of the sagebrush as “S” for spreading or “C” for columnar (figure 13).

7. Record a species code (if the pin flag intercepts a plant base) or another soil surface code in the “Soil Surface” column. 

a. Use the following abbreviations for soil surface type: G = gravel (≤5 mm diameter or ~1/4 in), R = rock (>5 mm diameter or ~1/4 in), BR = bedrock, 

EL = embedded litter, D = duff, M = moss, LC = visible lichen crust on soil, and S = soil, without any other soil surface code. 

b. Record plant species (or life form, if species is unknown) when present. For unidentified plants, use the following codes and a sequential number: 

AF# = annual forb, PF# = perennial forb, AG# = annual grass, PG# = perennial grass, SH# = shrub, and TR# = tree.

c. An intercept with a plant base is defined as when the end of the pin rests either on or immediately adjacent to and touching living or dead plant material that is 

rooted in the soil.

d. Record embedded litter (EL) only where removal of the litter would leave an indentation in the soil surface or would disturb the soil surface, breaking the soil 

crust. Record duff (D) when there is no clear boundary between litter and mineral soil and litter is not removed during typical storms (occurring annually).

e. Record lichen (LC) only if it is growing on soil, but not if it is attached to rock substrate. If mosses and lichens are recorded to species, write the species code in the 

“Soil Surface” column.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 93

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Vegetation Height/Sagebrush Shape Data Form

Page of Date:

Evaluator(s):

Intercept (Point) Spacing:  ̈cm  ̈in Height:  ̈cm  ̈in

Point Species Woody Height Sagebrush Shape Species Grass Height Species Forb Height

Plot ID: Transect:

Azimuth:

Average sagebrush height =

Average grass height =

Average forb height =
94 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Vegetation Height/Sagebrush Shape Directions

Note: The HAF site-scale protocol for vegetation height is similar to the BLM’s core method, but there are important differences between the two 

methods. Data collected using the HAF method can be used to supplement the BLM’s core method for assessing the site-scale height indicators of 

sage-grouse habitat.

Figure B-3. Grass and forb height measurements. Record natural or “droop” height of grasses and forbs. Note the dashed red reference line.

Protocol:

1. Record the species of woody and herbaceous plants for which the heights will be recorded.

2. Measure plants heights at the 1⁄2 m or 1 m intervals per transect. Do not record the height of the same plant twice.

3. Record the height of plants 0-2 m to the nearest centimeter and plants >2 m to the nearest 30 cm (~12 in).

4. For shrubs, record the maximum height in cm/in of the live portion of the shrub that is touched by the pin, excluding flower or seed stalks.

5. Record the shape of sagebrush only: S = spreading or C = columnar.

6. For perennial grasses and forbs, record the droop height (i.e., the highest point measured with no straightening by the observer or maximum natural height, 

figure B-3) of the tallest perennial grass or forb plant that is touched by the pin.

7. Woody or herbaceous litter are not measured.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 95

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Line-Point Intercept Data Summary

Page of

Evaluator(s):

Shrubs Forbs Grasses

Plot: Transect:

Sagebrush Cover

Comments:

Other Shrub Cover

Sagebrush Shape (n)

Avg. Sagebrush Height (cm/in)

Perennial Forb Cover

Annual Forb Cover

Total Forb Cover

Avg. PF Height (cm/in)

Perennial Grass Cover

Annual Grass Cover

Total Grass Cover

Avg. PG Height (cm/in)

# Hits _______________ % _____

# Hits _______________ % _____

S ____________ C_____________

# Hits _______________ % _____

# Hits _______________ % _____

# AF+PF Hits __________ % _____

# Hits _______________ % _____

# Hits _______________ % _____

# AG+PF Hits __________ % _____
96 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Sage-Grouse Habitat Indicator Calculations – Line-Point Intercept Data Summary Directions

Once the data has been collected, calculate the sage-grouse habitat indicators as described below. If using a tablet, computer, or other electronic data collection 

device, these indicators may be calculated automatically. If not, summarize the data and write the indicator calculations at the top of your field forms. 

Cover of shrubs, forbs, and grasses:

• Sagebrush Cover: Hits = # of sagebrush hits, % cover = # points where a sagebrush was hit divided by the total number of transect points. Multiply the 

result by 100.

• Other Shrub Cover: Hits = # of total shrub hits, excluding sagebrush, % cover = # of points where a shrub was hit divided by the total number of transect 

points. Multiply the result by 100. 

• Perennial Forb Cover: PF Hits = # of perennial forb hits, % cover = # of hits divided by total number of transect points. Multiply the result by 100.

• Annual Forb Cover: AF Hits = # of annual forb hits, % cover = # of hits divided by total number of transect points. Multiply the result by 100.

• Total Forb Cover: PF+AF Hits = # of perennial and annual forb hits, % cover = # total forb hits divided by total number of transect points. Multiply the 

result by 100. 

• Perennial Grass Cover: PG Hits = # of perennial grass hits, % cover = # of hits divided by total number of transect points. Multiply the result by 100.

• Annual Grass Cover: AG Hits = # of annual grass hits, % cover = # of hits divided by total number of transect points. Multiply the result by 100.

• Total Grass Cover: AG+PG Hits = # of annual and perennial grass hits, % cover = # total grass hits divided by total number of transect points. Multiply the 

result by 100.

Height of shrubs, forbs, and grasses:

• Avg. Sagebrush Height = sum of all sagebrush recorded heights divided by total number of sagebrush plants measured.

• Avg. Perennial Forb (PF) Height = sum of all perennial forb recorded heights divided by total number of perennial forbs measured.

• Avg. Perennial Grass (PG) Height = sum of all perennial grass recorded heights divided by total number of perennial grass plants measured.

• Note: Relative to perennial forbs, it is recommended the suitability rating should focus on the cover estimates and preferred forb availability ratings 

rather than on height due to the variability in heights that can be encountered between forbs and grasses. However, average perennial forb height 

and/or average perennial forb and grass height (combined) can be calculated, if desired, to provide additional context to the description of the 

assessment area.

• Sandberg bluegrass (or similar species):

1. Summarize cover and height for perennial grasses, excluding Sandberg bluegrass or similar short-statured perennial grasses. 

2. Summarize cover and height for Sandberg bluegrass.

3. Summarize cover and height inclusive of all perennial grasses.

Because shorter-statured perennial grasses such as Sandberg bluegrass may influence cover and height averages especially where abundant, the authors 

recommend that perennial grass metrics be summarized using all three methods, to provide additional context for the perennial grass suitability rating. 

For example, if cover, and height for perennial grasses, excluding Sandberg bluegrass (#1), are within the range of the suitable category in the HAF, then 

consider a ranking of “suitable” for the perennial grass indicator. However, if average cover (regardless of height) of these perennial grasses is not within 

the suitable category, use the cover and height averages for all perennial grasses, including Sandberg bluegrass (#3). Then, use the cover and height 

averages for the non-Sandberg perennial grasses (#1), as well as for Sandberg bluegrass itself (#2), to inform the rationale for the rating of the perennial 

grass indicator. Also, consider the capability of the site to provide species composition, cover, and structure for productive sage-grouse habitat on an 

annual basis. 

Sagebrush shape:

• Sagebrush Shape = total # of sagebrush plants of each shape, spreading (S) or columnar (C), divided by total number of sagebrush plants measured.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 97

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

State:

Line Intercept Shrub Cover

Line Intercept and Daubenmire Frames Data Form (Electronic Version)

Date:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Ecological Site:

Transect #:

UTM (coordinates, zone, datum):

Shrubs Forbs Grasses

Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Associated Leks:

Seasonal Habitat:

Site Info. (circle one): Arid Site Mesic Site

County:

Sagebrush Cover (line intercept)

Avg. Sagebrush Height (cm)

Sagebrush Shape (n)

Other Shrub Cover

Perennial Forb Cover

Annual Forb Cover

Total Forb Cover

Avg. PF Height (cm):

Perennial Grass Cover

Annual Grass Cover

Total Grass Cover

Avg. PG Height (cm):

% ___________

% ___________

Spreading :_______ Columnar:________

% ___________

% ___________

% ___________

% ___________

% ___________

% ___________

Transect Data Summary (see directions)

Shrub Species Intercept Start Intercept End Total Length % Cover by Species
98 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

State:

Shrub Species

Line Intercept and Daubenmire Frames Data Form (Paper Version)

Date:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Ecological Site:

Transect #:

Area Sampled (ha/ac): UTM (coordinates, zone, datum):

Shrubs Forbs Grasses

Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Associated Leks:

Seasonal Habitat:

Site Info. (circle one): Arid Site Mesic Site

County:

Sagebrush Cover (line intercept)

Avg. Sagebrush Height (cm)

Sagebrush Shape (n)

Other Shrub Cover

Perennial Forb Cover

Annual Forb Cover

Total Forb Cover

Avg. PF Height (cm):

Perennial Grass Cover

Annual Grass Cover

Total Grass Cover

Avg. PG Height (cm):

% ___________

% ___________

Spreading: _______ Columnar:________

% ___________

% ___________

% ___________

% ___________

% ___________

% ___________

Transect Data Summary (see directions)

Species Name

Totals

% Cover

Notes

Totals
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 99

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Daubenmire Cover Class and Vegetation Height Data Form (recorded at 2-m intervals) Date: Transect #: County: State: UTM (coordinates, zone, datum): Evaluator(s): Notes Species *Cover Class 1=0-5%, 2=>5-25%, 3=>25-50%, 4=>50-75%, 5=>75-95%, 6=>95-100% ARTR Shape ARTR Ht Other Shrub Ht PF Ht PG Ht Ground Cover 1 Ground Cover 2 Ground Cover 3 Ground Cover 4 1 2 3 4 Daubenmire Frame Number
100 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Line Intercept and Daubenmire Frame Method Directions

Equipment:

Tape, 50 m Stakes for tape (at least two spikes; old, medium to large screwdrivers work well)

Daubenmire frame 20 x 50 cm Meter stick (for measuring shrub and grass/forb heights)

Digital camera, extra camera battery Photo cards and markers or small dry-erase board and marker

Topographic map with project area, general cover types, and pasture 

boundaries delineated

Aerial photographs

Ecological Site Guides GPS unit, compass

Clipboard, data forms and/or data logger with extra battery, pencils Calculator

Protocol:

• Seasonal habitat has been stratified by land cover types prior to field evaluation (see chapter II for more directions).

• Conduct an appropriate number of transects in each seasonal habitat by each land cover type. Repeat all steps for each transect. 

1. Complete all metadata information at the top of the appropriate field forms for each transect, making sure that the plot identification information (i.e., plot 

number) matches that recorded on the overall plot metadata form. If more than 25 Daubenmire plots are being recorded on a transect, attach additional forms 

as needed. Most of the information should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names are found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River home range). 

Associated Leks: List the two largest occupied leks to which the breeding habitat is associated. Use identification numbers or names that are used in the 

statewide database.

Land Cover Type: Identify the cover type of the data collected. Use plant alliances or associations (Reid et al. 2002) for sagebrush or grassland communities; 

use www.natureserve.org/explorer (International Classification of Ecological Communities) or other sampling strata to describe the habitat (e.g., percent 

sagebrush categories). Use the species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory (table B-1), for example, ARTRW8 (alliance level – 

Wyoming big sagebrush) or ARTRW8/FEID (association level – Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue). 

Ecological Site: Refer to soil maps, range site guides, and ecological site descriptions where available and record the appropriate ecological site. Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory.

Seasonal Habitat: List one of the following: lek, nesting/early brood-rearing, summer/late brood-rearing, or winter.

Site Info:

Arid Site: Applies to sagebrush ecological sites generally in the 25-30 cm (~10-12 in) precipitation zone. Wyoming big sagebrush is a common big 

sagebrush subspecies for this type of site.

Mesic Site: Applies to sagebrush ecological sites generally in a >30 cm (12 in) precipitation zone. Mountain big sagebrush is a common big sagebrush 

subspecies for this type of site.

Transect #: Assign a unique identifier to each transect within the land cover type.

Area Sampled: Record the total area (indicating ha/ac) or distance for riparian areas (indicating km/mi) of the site type or land cover type sampled.

2. Anchor the tape with a steel pin and pull the tape out 50 meters. Keep the tape as taught and straight as possible. Anchor the tape on the far end. For smaller 

cover type inclusions or stringers or other unique situations, the transect length may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, to adequately sample the site. 

This will necessitate modifying the sampling distance for Daubenmire frames along the tape to accommodate 25 frames.

3. Begin at the “0” end of the tape.
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 101

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

4. On the data form, record shrub cover by species and subspecies using the line intercept method. Two forms are provided. The electronic version provides an 

example of data to be collected when using a laptop computer or data logger. The paper version is for collecting data via nonelectronic means. 

a. For the entire length of the line, determine the intercept length of any shrub species that touches the line. Only live portions of the shrub canopy are 

recorded. Intercept length is the portion of the transect length intercepted by the shrub, measured by a perpendicular projection of the shrub foliage over 

the line (figure B-4). 

b. List all cover increments for each species measured to the nearest 1 cm. Ignore spaces or gaps in the canopy less than 5 cm across. Gaps in the live canopy 

in excess of 5 cm will not be included as canopy intercepts (figure B-5). Record only live (leaves, live stems, and shrub trunk) canopy cover.

Figure B-4. The line intercept method can be used to measure canopy cover of sagebrush species.

a b c d e f

Line Intercept Method of measuring cover for shrub species

total transect length = 50 m % cover = distance a + b + c + d + e + f

total transect length

Figure B-5. Measuring shrub canopy cover using the line intercept method. Group sagebrush with gaps smaller than 5 cm. Record sections of sagebrush separated by greater 

than 5 cm as separate intercepts.
102 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

5. Estimate cover class and vegetation height using the Daubenmire method at each 2-m increment (n = 25 plots per transect) along the tape: 

a. Place a 20 x 50 cm Daubenmire frame (figure B-6) along the tape with the long axis perpendicular to the tape (figure B-7). For each plot, estimate and 

record cover class for annual forbs, perennial forbs, annual grasses, and perennial grasses by species (based on Connelly et al. 2003):

Cover classes: 1 = 0-5% midpoint of range 2.5%

2 = >5-25% midpoint of range 15%

3 = >25-50% midpoint of range 37.5%

4 = >50-75% midpoint of range 62.5%

5 = >75-95% midpoint of range 85%

6 = >95-100% midpoint of range 97.5%

b. Count plants providing cover over the plot, regardless of if they are rooted in the plot or not.

c. Record the height in cm of the nearest sagebrush plant (or other shrub species if no sagebrush is present) that is overhanging the Daubenmire frame.

d. Record the shape of the nearest sagebrush plant that is overhanging the Daubenmire frame: S = spreading or C = columnar (figure 13).

e. Record the maximum “natural” or “droop height” in cm of the tallest perennial grass and perennial forb overhanging the Daubenmire frame (natural = 

the highest point of a leaf or seed stalk is measured with no straightening by the observer (figure B-3). This includes seed stalks or inflorescences. 

Figure B-6. The Daubenmire frame is used for estimating grass and forb canopy covers. Estimate canopy cover class of species rooted within or overhanging the frame using lines 

on the frame as guides.

71 mm

71 mm

20 cm

50 cm

5%

of the

quadrat

area

Daubenmire Frame/Six Cover Class Frame

Figure B-7. A line transect with Daubenmire frames positioned every 2 meters. 

Daubenmire

Frame 20 x 50 cm

stake stake

0 m 2 m 4 m 6 m 8 m 50 m
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 103

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

6. Summarize the data under Line Intercept Shrub Cover:

a. Shrub Species:

• Total = sum of intercept lengths for each shrub species.

• % Cover = total shrub intercept length by species divided by full transect length.

b. All Shrubs: 

• % Cover = sum of above % cover calculations by species. The total could exceed 100% if the intercepts of overlapping canopies are recorded.

7. Summarize the data at the top of the form:

a. Shrubs:

• Sagebrush Cover: % Cover = sum of % covers of all sagebrush species listed under Shrub Species in the Cover section.

• Avg. Sagebrush Height = sum of all sagebrush recorded heights divided by total number of sagebrush plants measured in the Vegetation 

Height section.

• Sagebrush Shape = total # of sagebrush plants of each shape, spreading (S) and columnar (C). 

• Other Shrub Cover: % Cover = sum of % covers of all shrub species listed under All Shrubs in the Cover section.

b. Forbs:

• Perennial Forb Cover: PF % Cover = number of plots with perennial forbs in each of the six cover classes, multiplied by the midpoint of each cover 

class, added together as the sum of products for all cover classes, divided by total number of plots sampled on the transect (e.g., [(15 plots in cover 

class 1 * 2.5 midpoint) + (10 plots in cover class 2 * 15 midpoint)] / 25 = 7.5% canopy cover).

• Annual Forb Cover: AF % Cover = number of plots with annual forbs in each of the six cover classes, multiplied by the midpoint of each cover class, 

added together as the sum of products for all cover classes, divided by total number of plots sampled on the transect (e.g., [(15 plots in cover 

class 1 * 2.5 midpoint) + (10 plots in cover class 2 * 15 midpoint)] / 25 = 7.5% canopy cover).

• Total Forb Cover: PF+AF % Cover = sum of PF % Cover and AF % Cover (e.g., 7.5 + 7.5 = 15% canopy cover).

• Avg. PF Height = sum of all perennial forb heights recorded divided by the total number of perennial forb plants measured. Relative to perennial 

forbs, the suitability rating should focus on the cover estimates and preferred forb availability ratings rather than on height due to the variability 

in heights that can be encountered between forbs and grasses. However, average perennial forb height and/or average perennial forb and grass 

height (combined) can be calculated, if desired, to provide additional context to the description of the assessment area.

c. Grasses:

• Perennial Grass Cover: PG % Cover = number of plots with perennial grasses in each of the six cover classes, multiplied by the midpoint of each cover 

class, added together as the sum of products for all cover classes, divided by total number of plots sampled on the transect.

• Annual Grass Cover: AG % Cover = number of plots with annual grasses in each of the six cover classes, multiplied by the midpoint of each cover 

class, added together as the sum of products for all cover classes, divided by total number of plots sampled on the transect. 

• Total Grass Cover: PG+AG % Cover = sum of PG % cover and AG % cover.

• Avg. PG Height = sum of all perennial grass recorded heights divided by total number of perennial grass plants measured.

• Sandberg bluegrass (or similar species):

1. Summarize cover and height for perennial grasses, excluding Sandberg bluegrass, or similar short-statured perennial grasses. 

2. Summarize cover and height for Sandberg bluegrass.

3. Summarize cover and height inclusive of all perennial grasses.

Because shorter-statured perennial grasses such as Sandberg bluegrass may influence cover and height averages especially where abundant, the 

authors recommend that perennial grass metrics be summarized using all three methods to provide additional context for the perennial grass 

suitability rating. For example, if cover and height for perennial grasses, excluding Sandberg bluegrass (#1), are within the range of the suitable 

category in the HAF, then consider a ranking of “suitable” for the perennial grass indicator. However, if average cover (regardless of height) of these 

perennial grasses is not within the suitable category, use the cover and height averages for all perennial grasses, including Sandberg bluegrass (#3). 

Then, use the cover and height averages for the non-Sandberg perennial grasses (#1), as well as for Sandberg bluegrass itself (#2), to inform the 

rationale for the rating of the perennial grass indicator. Also, consider the capability of the site to provide species composition, cover, and structure 

for productive sage-grouse habitat on an annual basis.

8. OPTIONAL: Complete the “Sage-Grouse Forb Diversity Data Form,” or use the forb data collected in the Daubenmire frame to compile forb information for the 

site. Later, write a short narrative describing forb diversity relative to the site.
104 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

9. OPTIONAL: Record ground cover at each of the four outside corners of the Daubenmire frame in the four ground cover cells for each plot. See the codes below:

G = gravel (≤5 mm or ~1/4 in)

R = rock (>5mm or ~1/4 in) 

BR = bedrock 

D = duff (when there is no clear boundary between litter and mineral soil and litter is not removed during typical storms (occurring annually))

M = moss 

LC = visible lichen crust on soil 

S = soil

L = herbaceous litter (≤5 mm or ~1/4 in; defined as detached stems, roots, and leaves)

WL = woody litter (>5mm or ~1/4 in) 

EL = embedded litter (where removal of the litter would leave an indentation in the soil surface or would disturb the soil surface, breaking the soil crust)

V = live vegetation 
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 105

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

State:

Sage-Grouse Forb Diversity Data Form

Date:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Associated Leks:

Transect #:

Type Forb Plot Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 T

Species

Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Ecological Site:

Seasonal Habitat:

Site Info. (circle one): Arid Site Mesic Site

County:

Type: P= preferred, N=noxious, I= invasive, O=other. Note: The forb type can be determined later in the office or via automated approaches.

Forb Diversity (see directions)
106 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

State:

Sage-Grouse Forb Diversity Summary Form

Date:

Population:

Land Cover Type:

Associated Leks:

Area (ha/ac) Sampled:

Seasonal Habitat: UTM:

Preferred Forb Species Invasive Annual Forbs Other Forbs

Comments (describe the diversity, availability, and relative abundance of preferred forbs in relation to site potential):

Noxious Weeds

Evaluator(s):

Home Range Name:

Ecological Site:

Transect #:

Site Info. (circle one): Arid Site Mesic Site

County:

Total Species (#): _________ Total Species (#): _________ Total Species (#): _________ Total Species (#): _________

List major species: List major species: List major species: List major species:

Transect Data Summary (see directions)

PFC Status (riparian areas only, circle one): PFC FAR NF Unknown
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 107

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Sage-Grouse Forb Diversity Data and Summary Form Directions

Equipment:

Tape, 50 m Stakes for tape (at least two spikes; old, medium to large screwdrivers work well)

Meter stick (for delineating 180-degree arc) GPS unit

Pencils, clipboard, and plant identification guide; a local plant species list 

may be helpful

Calculator

Protocol:

• This worksheet should be used to collect forb availability and diversity information at various breeding and summer habitat sites.

• Forb availability should be evaluated as close to the end of nesting as possible (May-June) to allow for easier identification of plant species, as well as 

more relevant application to the evaluation of breeding habitat. For low elevation areas, this will be May; for higher elevation areas, it will be June.

• Seasonal habitat has been stratified by land cover types prior to field evaluation (see chapter II for additional discussion).

• Conduct an appropriate number of transects in each seasonal habitat by each land cover type, in association with the LPI transects, as appropriate. 

Repeat all steps for each transect.

• If a more in-depth, quantitative data collection method (e.g., density or other) is desired by the interdisciplinary team, use the Daubenmire method, 

by species.

1. Fill out all location information at the top of the sheet (transfer information from the LPI or LIDF data form if used on the same transect line). Be sure to list 

UTM coordinates or other identifying features of the site. Most of the information should be self-explanatory except the following:

Population: Identify the population with which the habitat is associated. This definition also includes small populations. Population names can be found in 

figure 3.

Home Range Name: Identify the home range area using a major drainage area or other distinguishing land feature (e.g., Little Lost River home range). 

Land Cover Type: Identify the cover type of the data collected: 

Upland Communities: Use plant alliances or associations (Reid et al. 2002) for sagebrush or grassland communities; use www.natureserve.org/explorer

(International Classification of Ecological Communities) or other sampling strata used to describe the habitat (e.g., percent sagebrush categories). Use 

the species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory (table B-1), for example, ARTRW8 (alliance level – Wyoming big sagebrush) or 

ARTRW8/FEID (association level – Wyoming big sagebrush/Idaho fescue). 

Riparian or Wetland Communities: Use site type (riparian areas, wet meadows, springs) or more detailed classification using Cowardin et al. (1979), or 

riparian type (regional classification systems) to which the data pertain. 

Ecological Site: Refer to soil maps, range site guides, and ecological site descriptions where available, and record the appropriate ecological site. Use the 

species symbol for dominant species in the overstory and understory.

Associated Leks: List the two largest occupied leks to which the breeding habitat is associated. Use identification numbers or names that are used in the 

statewide database.

Seasonal Habitat: List one of the following: lek, nesting/early brood-rearing, summer/late brood-rearing, or winter.

Transect #: Assign a unique number to each transect within the land cover type (use the same transect number as for the LPI or LIDF data form).

Site Info:

Arid Site: Applies to sagebrush ecological sites generally in the 25-30 cm (10-12 in) precipitation zone. Wyoming big sagebrush is a common big 

sagebrush subspecies for this type of site.

Mesic Site: Term applies to sagebrush ecological sites generally in a >30 cm (>12 in) precipitation zone. Mountain big sagebrush is a common big 

sagebrush subspecies for this type of site.
108 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

2. At every 2 meters, record the presence of forbs, by species (in the species column on the form), which are rooted within a 1-meter radius, 180-degree arc, 

centering on the respective 2-meter mark. Place a check in the box on the form for the appropriate plot if the species is present. See figure B-8 for transect 

layout.

3. In the office later, or via automated means, annotate the type of forbs encountered as to whether they are preferred (by sage-grouse), noxious, invasive, or 

other. Invasive forbs are considered of low palatability and ecologically undesirable. Noxious weeds are limited to listed state weeds. Other forbs are any forbs 

that are not considered to be preferred, noxious, or invasive (e.g., ecologically desirable, but unpalatable forbs such as Lupinus spp.) Other forbs may not be 

preferred by sage-grouse as forage, but may still provide substrate for insects important to young sage-grouse. For preferred forbs, see table B-1. 

a. Calculate the total occurrences by species and sum by forb type (preferred, noxious, invasive, and other) on the “Sage-Grouse Forb Diversity 

Summary Form.” In the comments section of the form, describe, relative to site potential, the general availability, diversity (number of species), and 

relative abundance of preferred forb species, based on the number of species encountered on the transect and number of plots with preferred forbs. 

Also discuss other, noxious, and invasive forbs as appropriate. Use professional judgment and augment with other forb information that may have been 

collected from point intercept or Daubenmire transects.

b. Use this information to help describe preferred forb availability for breeding and summer habitat evaluations.

4. Provide any additional pertinent information that describes the site in the comments section.

5. Attach this form to the other field data sheet(s) (LPI or LIDF) used for this transect.

Figure B-8. Forb diversity transect layout. At each 2-m increment, use a 1-m stick to scribe a 180-degree arc. On the “Sage-Grouse Forb Diversity Data Form,” record forb species 

that are rooted within the arc for a total of 25 plots along each transect.

X X X

1 m

0 m 1 m 2 m 3 m 4 m 5 m 49 m 50 m
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 109

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Table B-1. Sagebrush community vegetation species and preferred forbs for sage-grouse. To be used for LPI, LIDF, and forb diversity data collection. Space is provided for the 

addition of local species. P = preferred forb, W = (noxious) weeds, I = invasive annuals, O = other forbs, N/A = not applicable. Species symbols are current as of 10-01-2013. 

See the USDA PLANTS database for the most up-to-date species symbols. Other forbs may be palatable at the cotyledon or bud stage.

Scientific Name Common Name Symbol

Most Likely 

Category

SHRUBS

Dwarf sagebrush

Artemisia arbuscula Low sagebrush ARAR8 N/A

A. arbuscula spp. longicaulis Lahontan sagebrush ARARL3 N/A

A. arbuscula spp. longiloba Early sagebrush ARARL N/A

A. bigelovii Bigelow sage ARBI3 N/A

A. nova Black sagebrush ARNO4 N/A

A. papposa Fuzzy sage ARPA16 N/A

A. pygmaea Pygmy sagebrush ARPY2 N/A

A. rigida Stiff sagebrush ARRI2 N/A

A. spinescens

 Syn = Picrothamnus desertorum

Bud sagebrush ARSP5/ 

PIDE4

N/A

A. tripartita spp. rupicola Wyoming threetip sagebrush ARTRR2 N/A

Tanacetum nuttallii

 Syn = Sphaeromeria argentea

Silver chickensage TANU2/ 

SPAR2

N/A

Tall sagebrush

A. cana spp. bolanderi Bolander’s silver sagebrush ARCAB3 N/A

A. cana spp. cana Plains silver sagebrush ARCAC5 N/A

A. cana spp. viscidula Mountain silver sagebrush ARCAV2 N/A

A. tridentata spp. spiciformis Subalpine big sagebrush ARTRS2 N/A

A. tridentata spp. tridentata Basin big sagebrush ARTRT N/A

A. tridentata spp. vaseyana Mountain big sagebrush ARTRV N/A

A. tridentata spp. wyomingensis Wyoming big sagebrush ARTRW8 N/A

A. tridentata spp. xericensis Xeric big sagebrush ARTRX N/A

A. tripartita spp. tripartita Threetip sagebrush ARTRT2 N/A

Subshrub sagebrush

A. frigida Fringed sagewort ARFR4 N/A

A. pedatifida Birdfoot sagebrush ARPE6 N/A

Other shrubs

Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry AMAL2 N/A

Amelanchier utahensis Utah serviceberry AMUT N/A

Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush ATCA2 N/A

Atriplex confertifolia Shadscale saltbush ATCO N/A

Ceanothus velutinus Snowbrush ceanothus CEVE N/A

Chrysothamnus nauseosus

 Syn = Ericameria nauseosa spp. nauseosa var. nauseosa

Rubber rabbitbrush CHNA2/ 

ERNAN5

N/A

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Green rabbitbrush CHVI8 N/A

Grayia spinosa Spiny hopsage GRSP N/A

Gutierrezia sarothrae Broom snakeweed GUSA2 N/A
110 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Scientific Name Common Name Symbol

Most Likely 

Category

Juniperus occidentalis Western juniper JUOC N/A

Juniperus osteosperma Utah juniper JUOS N/A

Krascheninnikovia lanata Winterfat KRLA2 N/A

Pachystima myrsinites Oregon boxleaf PAMY2 N/A

Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush PUTR2 N/A

Rosa woodsii Woods’ rose ROWO N/A

Sarcobatus vermiculatus Greasewood SAVE4 N/A

Symphoricarpos albus Common snowberry SYAL N/A

Symphoricarpos oreophilus Mountain snowberry SYOR2 N/A

Tetradymia canescens Spineless horsebrush TECA2 N/A

FORBS

Annuals/Occasionally Biennials

Alyssum desertorum Desert alyssum ALDE I

Asperugo procumbens German-madwort ASPR I

Camelina microcarpa Littlepod false flax CAMI2 I

Carthamus tinctorius Safflower CATI W

Chenopodium spp. Goosefoot CHENO P

Chorispora tenella Purple mustard CHTE2 W

Collinsia spp. Blue eyed Mary COLLI P

Collomia spp. Trumpet COLLO P

Cryptantha spp. Cryptantha CRYPT O

Descurainia spp. Tansymustard DESCU I

Epilobium spp. Willowherb EPILO O

Eriastrum sparsiflorum Great Basin woollystar ERSP3 P

Eriogonum spp. Buckwheat ERIOG P

Erodium cicutarium Stork’s bill ERCI6 P

Galium aparine Stickywilly GAAP2 I

Halogeton glomeratus Saltlover HAGL I

Helianthus annuus Common sunflower HEAN3 O

Kochia scoparia Kochia KOSC W

Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce LASE P

Lappula texana

 Syn = Lappula occidentalis var. cupulata

Flatspine stickseed LATE3/ 

LAOCC

I

Lepidium spp. Pepperweed LEPID O

Malacothrix spp. Desertdandelion MALAC3 P

Medicago spp. Alfalfa MEDIC P

Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweetclover MEOF P

Microsteris spp. Microsteris (phlox) MICRO22 P
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 111

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Scientific Name Common Name Symbol

Most Likely 

Category

Plantago patagonica Woolly plantain PLPA2 P

Plectritis macrocera Longhorn plectritis PLMA4 P

Polygonum spp. Knotweed POLYG4 P

Ranunculus testiculatus

 Syn = Ceratocephala testiculata

Bur buttercup RATE/ 

CETE5

W

Salsola kali Russian thistle SAKA W

Sonchus spp. Sowthistle SONCH P

Stephanomeria spp. Wirelettuce STEPH P

Thlaspi arvense Field pennycress THAR5 I

Tragopogon spp. Goatsbeard TRAGO P

Trifolium spp. Clover TRIFO P

Veronica spp. Speedwell VERON I

Biennials

Cirsium spp. Thistle CIRSI W

Cynoglossum officinale Hound’s tongue CYOF W

Gilia aggregata

 Syn = Ipomopsis aggregata spp. aggregata

Scarlet gilia GIAG/ 

IPAGA3

P

Machaeranthera canescens Hoary aster MACA2 O

Perennials/Occasionally Biennials

Achillea millefolium Common yarrow ACMI2 O

Agoseris spp. Agoseris AGOSE P

Allium spp. Onion ALLIU P

Androsace septentrionalis Pygmyflower rockjasmine ANSE4 P

Antennaria spp. Pussytoes ANTEN O

Arabis holboellii Holboell’s rockcress ARHO2 P

Arenaria kingii King’s sandwort ARKI P

Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon ARDR4 P

Aster chilensis

 Syn = Symphyotrichum chilense var.

 chilense

Pacific aster ASCH2/ 

SYCHC

P

Astragalus spp. Milkvetch ASTRA P
112 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Scientific Name Common Name Symbol

Most Likely 

Category

Balsamorhiza hookeri Hooker’s balsamroot BAHOP

Balsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf balsamroot BASA3P

Berberis repens Creeping barberry MARE11O

Brodiaea spp. Brodiaea BRODIP

Calochortus spp. Mariposa lily CALOCP

Camassia spp. Camas CAMASP

Castilleja spp. Indian paintbrush CASTI2O

Chaenactis douglasii Douglas’s dustymaiden CHDOP

Comandra umbellata Bastard toadflax COUMP

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed COAR4W

Crepis spp. Hawksbeard CREPIP

Cymopterus spp. Springparsley CYMOP2P

Camassia spp. Camas CAMASP

Dalea spp. Prairie clover DALEAP

Delphinium nuttallianum Twolobe larkspur DENU2O

Erigeron spp. Fleabane ERIGE2P

Eriogonum spp. Buckwheat ERIOGO

Erysimum spp. Wallflower ERYSIP

Fritillaria spp. Fritillary FRITIP

Geranium viscosissimum Sticky purple geranium GEVI2P

Geum spp. Avens GEUMP

Grindelia squarrosa Curlycup gumweed GRSQI

Hackelia spp. Stickseed HACKEO

Haplopappus acaulis Stemless mock goldenweed HAACO

Hedysarum spp. Sweetvetch HEDYSP

Helianthella spp. Helianthella HELIAP

Hydrophyllum capitatum Ballhead waterleaf HYCA4P

Iva axillaris Povertyweed IVAXP

Lathyrus spp. Pea LATHY

P

Leptodactylon pungens

 Syn = Linanthus pungens

Granite prickly phlox LEPU/ 

LIPU11

P

Linanthus spp. Linanthus LINAN2P

Linum perenne Blue flax LIPE2

O

Lithophragma spp. Woodland-star LITHO2

P

Lithospermum ruderale Western stoneseed LIRU4P

Lomatium spp. Desertparsley LOMATP

Lotus corniculatus Bird’s-foot trefoil LOCO6P

Lupinus spp. Lupine LUPINO

Lygodesmia spp. Skeletonplant LYGODP

Mentha spp. Mint MENTHI

Mentzelia spp. Blazingstar MENTZP

Mertensia spp. Bluebells MERTEP
Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 113

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Scientific Name Common Name Symbol

Most Likely 

Category

Microseris spp. Silverpuffs MICRO6 P

Oenothera spp. Evening-primrose OENOT O

Opuntia polyacantha Plains pricklypear OPPO N/A

Penstemon spp. Beardtongue PENST P

Perideridia spp. Yampah PERID P

Phacelia spp. Phacelia PHACE P

Phlox spp. Phlox PHLOX O

Ranunculus spp. Buttercup RANUN O

Rumex spp. Dock RUMEX O

Sanguisorba minor Small burnet SAMI3 P

Sedum spp. Stonecrop SEDUM P

Senecio spp. Ragwort SENEC O

Smilacina racemosa

 Syn = Maianthemum racemosum spp.

 racemosum

Feathery false lily of the valley SMRA/ 

MARAR

P

Solidago spp. Goldenrod SOLID P

Sphaeralcea spp. Globemallow SPHAE P

Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion TAOF P

Townsendia hookeri Hooker’s Townsend daisy TOHO P

Vicia spp. Vetch VICIA P

Viola nuttallii Nuttall’s violet VINU2 O

Viola purpurea Goosefoot violet VIPU4 O

Wyethia amplexicaulis Mule-ears WYAM O

Zigadenus spp. Deathcamas ZIGAD O

GRASSES

Annuals

Avena fatua Wild oat AVFA N/A

Bromus commutatus

 Syn = Bromus racemosus

Bald brome BRCO4/ 

BRRA2

N/A

Bromus japonicus Japanese brome BRJA N/A

Bromus mollis

 Syn = Bromus hordeaceus spp. hordeaceus

Soft brome BRMO2/ 

BRHOH

N/A

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass BRTE N/A

Festuca octoflora Sixweeks fescue FEOC3 N/A

Triticum aestivum Common wheat TRAE N/A
114 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

Site-Scale (Fourth-Order) Data Forms Appendix B: Data Forms and Measurement Techniques

Scientific Name Common Name Symbol

Most Likely 

Category

Perennials

Achnatherum thurberianum Thurber’s needlegrass ACTH7/

STTH2

N/A

Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass AGCR N/A

Agropyron intermedium

 Syn = Thinopyrum intermedium

Intermediate wheatgrass AGIN2/ 

THIN

N/A

Agropyron repens

 Syn = Elymus repens

Quackgrass AGRE2/ 

ELRE4

N/A

Agropyron smithii

 Syn = Pascopyrum smithii

Western wheatgrass AGSM/ 

PASM

N/A

Agropyron spicatum

 Syn = Pseudoroegneria spicata spp. spicata

Bluebunch wheatgrass AGSP/ 

PSSPS

N/A

Bromus inermis Smooth brome BRIN2 N/A

Carex douglasii Douglas’ sedge CADO2 N/A

Elymus cinereus

 Syn = Leymus cinereus

Basin wildrye ELCI2/ 

LECI4

N/A

Elymus junceus

 Syn = Psathyrostachys juncea

Russian wildrye ELJU/ 

PSJU3

N/A

Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue FEID N/A

Koeleria cristata

 Syn = Koeleria macrantha

Prairie junegrass KOCR/ 

KOMA

N/A

Melica bulbosa Oniongrass MEBU N/A

Oryzopsis hymenoides

 Syn = Achnatherum hymenoides

Indian ricegrass ORHY/ 

ACHY

N/A

Poa bulbosa Bulbous bluegrass POBU N/A

Poa juncifolia

 Syn = Poa secunda

Sandberg bluegrass POJU/ 

POSE

N/A

Poa sandbergii

 Syn = Poa secunda

Sandberg bluegrass POSA12/ 

POSE

N/A

Poa scabrella

 Syn = Poa secunda

Sandberg bluegrass POSC/ 

POSE

N/A

Sitanion hystrix

 Syn = Elymus elymoides spp. elymoides

Squirreltail SIHY/ 

ELELE

N/A

Stipa comata

 Syn = Hesperostipa comata spp. comata

Needle and thread STCO4/ 

HECOC8

N/A

Stipa occidentalis

 Syn = Achnatherum occidentale spp.

 occidentale

Western needlegrass STOC2/ 

ACOCO

N/A

SEDGES

Typha spp. Cattail TYPHA N/A