Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-326 September 2014

United States Department of Agriculture

Using Resistance and Resilience Concepts to Reduce 

Impacts of Invasive Annual Grasses and Altered Fire 

Regimes on the Sagebrush Ecosystem and Greater 

Sage-Grouse: A Strategic Multi-Scale Approach

Jeanne C. Chambers, David A. Pyke, Jeremy D. Maestas, Mike Pellant, Chad S. Boyd, Steven B. Campbell, 

Shawn Espinosa, Douglas W. Havlina, Kenneth E. Mayer, and Amarina Wuenschel
Chambers, Jeanne C.; Pyke, David A.; Maestas, Jeremy D.; Pellant, Mike; Boyd, Chad S.; Campbell, Steven B.; Espinosa, Shawn; Havlina, Douglas W.; Mayer, Kenneth E.; Wuenschel, Amarina. 2014. Using 

resistance and resilience concepts to reduce impacts of invasive annual grasses and altered fire 

regimes on the sagebrush ecosystem and greater sage-grouse: A strategic multi-scale approach. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 73 p.

Abstract

This Report provides a strategic approach for conservation of sagebrush ecosystems and Greater SageGrouse (sage-grouse) that focuses specifically on habitat threats caused by invasive annual grasses and 

altered fire regimes. It uses information on factors that influence (1) sagebrush ecosystem resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses and (2) distribution, relative abundance, and persistence of 

sage-grouse populations to develop management strategies at both landscape and site scales. A sage-grouse 

habitat matrix links relative resilience and resistance of sagebrush ecosystems with sage-grouse habitat requirements for landscape cover of sagebrush to help decision makers assess risks and determine appropriate 

management strategies at landscape scales. Focal areas for management are assessed by overlaying matrix 

components with sage-grouse Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs), breeding bird densities, and specific 

habitat threats. Decision tools are discussed for determining the suitability of focal areas for treatment and 

the most appropriate management treatments.

Keywords: sagebrush habitat, Greater Sage-Grouse, fire effects, invasive annual grasses, management 

prioritization, conservation, prevention, restoration 

Cover photos: Greater Sage-grouse photo by Rick McEwan; sagebrush habitat photos by Jeanne Chambers.
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and number.

Publishing Services

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs

Email rmrspubrequest@fs.fed.us

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Authors

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

Research Station, Reno, Nevada.

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

Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon.

Jeremy D. Maestas, Technical Lead, Sage-Grouse Initiative, USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Redmond, Oregon.

Mike Pellant, Rangeland Ecologist, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho.

Chad S. Boyd, Rangeland Ecologist, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Burns, 

Oregon.

Steven B. Campbell, Soil Scientist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

West National Technology Support Center, Portland, Oregon.

Shawn Espinosa, Wildlife Staff Specialist, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, 

Nevada.

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

Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho.

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

Amarina Wuenschel, Geospatial Data Specialist, Great Basin Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Reno, Nevada.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Fire and Invasives 

Working group, for critical input into the content of the Report; Steve Knick and Steve 

Hanser for advice on landscape cover of sagebrush; and three anonymous reviewers 

for valuable comments on the manuscript. We also thank the Great Basin Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative for providing the expertise (Amarina Wuenschel) and support for the spatial analyses.

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

Threats of Invasive Annual Grasses and Altered Fire Regimes to

Sagebrush Ecosystems and Sage-Grouse ....................................................... 3

Effects on Sagebrush Ecosystems............................................................... 3

Effects on Sage-Grouse Habitat Selection and Population Dynamics ......... 7

Resilience to Disturbance and Resistance to Invasive Annual 

Grasses in Sagebrush Ecosystems................................................................... 9

Integrating Resilience and Resistance Concepts with Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Requirements to Manage Wildfire and Invasive 

Annual Grass Threats at Landscape Scales....................................................11

Landscape Cover of Sagebrush as an Indicator of Sage-Grouse 

Habitat ................................................................................................ 12

Soil Temperature and Moisture Regimes as Indicators of 

Ecosystem Resilience and Resistance............................................... 13

Management Strategies Based on Landscape Cover of 

Sagebrush and Ecosystem Resilience and Resistance: 

The Sage-Grouse Habitat Matrix........................................................ 19

Informing Wildfire and Fuels Management Strategies to Conserve 

Sage-Grouse ...................................................................................................... 26

Putting It All Together ........................................................................................... 28

Assessing Focal Areas for Sage-Grouse Habitat Management:

Key Data Layers ................................................................................. 28

Assessing Focal Areas for Sage-Grouse Habitat Management:

Integrating Data Layers ...................................................................... 34

Interpretations at the Management Zone (MZ) Scale: 

Western Portion of the Range ............................................................ 46

Interpretations at Regional and Local Land Management Scales: 

Northeast Nevada Example................................................................ 48

Determining the Most Appropriate Management Treatments at 

the Project Scale ................................................................................ 50

References ............................................................................................................. 57

Appendices ............................................................................................................ 63

Contents

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 1

Using Resistance and Resilience Concepts to Reduce 

Impacts of Invasive Annual Grasses and Altered Fire 

Regimes on the Sagebrush Ecosystem and Greater 

Sage-Grouse: A Strategic Multi-Scale Approach

Jeanne C. Chambers, David A. Pyke, Jeremy D. Maestas, Mike Pellant, 

Chad S. Boyd, Steven B. Campbell, Shawn Espinosa, Douglas W. Havlina, 

Kenneth E. Mayer, and Amarina Wuenschel

Introduction ______________________________________________________

An unprecedented conservation effort is underway across 11 States in the western 

United States to reduce threats to Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; 

hereafter, sage-grouse) and the sagebrush ecosystems on which they depend (fig. 1). Recent efforts were accelerated by the March 2010 determination that sage-grouse warrant 

protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and by increased emphasis on broad 

collaboration among state and Federal partners to proactively identify and implement 

actions to reverse current trends (USFWS 2010, 2013). Conservation success hinges on 

being able to achieve “the long-term conservation of sage-grouse and healthy sagebrush 

shrub and native perennial grass and forb communities by maintaining viable, connected, and well-distributed populations and habitats across their range, through threat 

amelioration, conservation of key habitats, and restoration activities” (USFWS 2013). 

While strides are being made to curtail a host of threats across the range, habitat loss 

and fragmentation due to wildfire and invasive plants remain persistent challenges to 

Figure 1. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (photo by Charlotte Ganskopp).
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

achieving desired outcomes – particularly in the western portion of the range (Miller 

et al. 2011; USFWS 2010; 2013). Management responses to date have not been able 

to match the scale of this problem. Natural resource managers are seeking coordinated 

approaches that focus appropriate management actions in the right places to maximize 

conservation effectiveness (Wisdom and Chambers 2009; Murphy et al. 2013).

Improving our ability to manage for resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive species is fundamental to achieving long-term sage-grouse conservation objectives. 

Resilient ecosystems have the capacity to regain their fundamental structure, processes, 

and functioning when altered by stressors like drought and disturbances like inappropriate livestock grazing and altered fire regimes (Holling 1973; Allen et al. 2005). Species 

resilience refers to the ability of a species to recover from stressors and disturbances 

(USFWS 2013), and is closely linked to ecosystem resilience. Resistant ecosystems 

have the capacity to retain their fundamental structure, processes, and functioning when 

exposed to stresses, disturbances, or invasive species (Folke et al. 2004). Resistance to 

invasion by nonnative plants is increasingly important in sagebrush ecosystems; it is a 

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

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

detailed explanation of the factors that influence resilience and resistance in sagebrush 

ecosystems is found in Chambers et al. 2014.

In general, species are likely to be more resilient if large populations exist in large 

blocks of high quality habitat across the full breadth of environmental variability to which 

the species is adapted (Redford et al. 2011). Because sage-grouse are a broadly distributed and often wide-ranging species that may move long-distances between seasonal 

habitats (Connelly et al. 2011a,b), a strategic approach that integrates both landscape 

prioritization and site-scale decision tools is needed. This document develops such an 

approach for the conservation of sagebrush habitats across the range of sage-grouse 

with an emphasis on the western portion of the range. In recent years, information and 

tools have been developed that significantly increase our understanding of factors that 

influence the resilience of sagebrush ecosystems and the distribution of sage-grouse 

populations, and that allow us to strategically prioritize management activities where 

they are most likely to be effective and to benefit the species. Although the emphasis 

of this Report is on the western portion of the sage-grouse range, the approach has 

management applicability to other sagebrush ecosystems.

In this report, we briefly review causes and effects of invasive annual grasses and 

altered fire regimes, and then discuss factors that determine resilience to disturbances 

like wildfire and resistance to invasive annual grasses in sagebrush ecosystems. We 

illustrate how an understanding of resilience and resistance, sagebrush habitat requirements for sage-grouse, and consequences that invasive annual grasses and wildfire 

have on sage-grouse populations can be used to develop management strategies at both 

landscape and site scales. A sage-grouse habitat matrix is provided that links relative 

resilience and resistance with habitat requirements for landscape cover of sagebrush to 

both identify priority areas for management and determine effective management strategies at landscape scales. An approach for assessing focal areas for sage-grouse habitat 

management is described that overlays Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) and 

breeding bird densities with resilience and resistance and habitat suitability to spatially 

link sage-grouse populations with habitat conditions and risks. The use of this approach 

is illustrated for the western portion of the range and for a diverse area in the northeast 

corner of Nevada. It concludes with a discussion of the tools available for determining 

the suitability of focal areas for treatment and the most appropriate management treatments. Throughout the document, the emphasis is on using this approach to guide and 

assist fire operations, fuels management, post-fire rehabilitation, and habitat restoration 

activities to maintain or enhance sage-grouse habitat.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 3

Threats of Invasive Annual Grasses and Altered Fire Regimes to Sagebrush 

Ecosystems and Sage-Grouse_______________________________________

Effects on Sagebrush Ecosystems

Sage-grouse habitat loss and fragmentation due to wildfire and invasive plants are 

widely recognized as two of the most significant challenges to conservation of the species, particularly in the western portion of the range (Miller et al. 2011; USFWS 2010, 

2013). During pre-settlement times, sagebrush-dominated ecosystems had highly variable 

fire return intervals that ranged from decades to centuries (Frost 1998; Brown and Smith 

2000; Miller et al. 2011). At coarse regional scales, fire return intervals in sagebrush 

ecological types were determined largely by climate and its effects on fuel abundance 

and continuity. Consequently, fire frequency was higher in sagebrush types with greater 

productivity at higher elevations and following periods of increased precipitation than 

in lower elevation and less productive ecosystems (West 1983b; Mensing et al. 2006). 

At local scales within sagebrush types, fire return intervals likely were determined by 

topographic and soil effects on productivity and fuels and exhibited high spatial and 

temporal variability (Miller and Heyerdahl 2008).

Euro-American arrival in sagebrush ecosystems began in the mid-1800s and initiated 

a series of changes in vegetation composition and structure that altered fire regimes and 

resulted in major changes in sagebrush habitats. The first major change in fire regimes 

occurred when inappropriate grazing by livestock led to a decrease in native perennial 

grasses and forbs and effectively reduced the abundance of fine fuels (Knapp 1996; 

Miller and Eddleman 2001; Miller et al. 2011). Decreased competition from perennial 

herbaceous species, in combination with ongoing climate change and favorable conditions for woody species establishment at the turn of the twentieth century, resulted in 

increased abundance of shrubs (primarily Artemisia species) and trees, including juniper 

(Juniperus occidentalis, J. osteosperma) and piñon pine (Pinus monophylla), at mid to 

high elevations (Miller and Eddleman 2001; Miller et al. 2011). The initial effect of these 

changes in fuel structure was a reduction in fire frequency and size. The second major 

change in fire regimes occurred when non-native annual grasses (e.g., Bromus tectorum, 

Taeniatherum caput-medusa) were introduced from Eurasia in the late 1800s and spread 

rapidly into low to mid-elevation ecosystems with depleted understories (Knapp 1996). 

The invasive annual grasses increased the amount and continuity of fine fuels in many 

lower elevation sagebrush habitats and initiated annual grass/fire cycles characterized 

by shortened fire return intervals and larger, more contiguous fires (fig. 2; D’Antonio 

and Vitousek 1992; Brooks et al. 2004). Since settlement of the region, cheatgrass came 

to dominate as much as 4 million hectares (9.9 million acres) in the states of Nevada 

and Utah alone (fig. 3; Bradley and Mustard 2005). The final change in fire regimes 

occurred as a result of expansion of juniper and piñon pine trees into sagebrush types at 

mid to high elevations and a reduction of the grass, forb, and shrub species associated 

with these types. Ongoing infilling of trees is increasing woody fuels, but reducing fine 

fuels and resulting in less frequent fires (fig. 4; Miller et al. 2013). Extreme burning 

conditions (high winds, high temperatures, and low relative humidity) in high density 

(Phase III) stands are resulting in large and severe fires that result in significant losses 

of above- and below-ground organic matter (sensu Keeley 2009) and have detrimental 

ecosystem effects (Miller et al. 2013). Based on tree-ring analyses at several Great Basin 

sites, it is estimated that the extent of piñon and/or juniper woodland increased two to 

six fold since settlement, and most of that area will exhibit canopy closure within the 

next 50 years (Miller et al. 2008).
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 2. A wildfire that burned through a Wyoming big sagebrush ecosystem with an invasive annual 

grass understory in southern Idaho (top) (photo by Douglas J. Shinneman), and a close-up of a fire in 

a Wyoming big sagebrush ecosystem (bottom) (photo by Scott Schaff).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 5

Figure 3. A wildfire that started in invasive annual grass adjacent to a railroad track and burned upslope into 

a mountain big sagebrush and Jeffrey pine ecosystem in northeast Nevada (top). A big sagebrush ecosystem 

that has been converted to invasive annual grass in north central Nevada (bottom) (photos by Nolan E. Preece). 
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 4. Expansion of Utah juniper trees into a mountain big sagebrush ecosystem in east central 

Utah (top) that is resulting in progressive infilling of the trees and exclusion of native understory species (bottom) (photos by Bruce A. Roundy). 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 7

Effects on Sage-Grouse Habitat Selection and Population Dynamics

Understanding the effects of landscape changes on sage-grouse habitat selection and 

population dynamics can help managers apply more strategic and targeted conservation actions to reduce risks. Two key land cover shifts resulting from invasive annual 

grasses and altered fire regimes are affecting the ability to achieve the range-wide goal 

of stable-to-increasing population trends − large-scale reduction of sagebrush cover and 

conversion of sagebrush ecosystems to annual grasslands.

Sage-grouse are true sagebrush obligates that require large and intact sagebrush 

landscapes. Consequently, wildfires occurring at the extremes of the natural range of 

variability that remove sagebrush, even temporarily, over large areas and over short time 

periods often have negative consequences for sage-grouse. Several range-wide studies 

have identified the proportion of sagebrush-dominated land cover as a key indicator 

of sage-grouse population persistence and, importantly, have revealed critical levels of 

sagebrush landscape cover required by sage-grouse (see Appendix 2 for a description 

of landscape cover and how it is derived). Knick et al. (2013) found that 90% of active 

leks in the western portion of the range had more than 40% landscape cover of sagebrush 

within a 5-km (3.1-mi) radius of leks. Another range-wide analysis documented a high 

risk of extirpation with <27% sagebrush landscape cover and high probability of persistence with >50% sagebrush landscape cover within 18-km (11.2-mi) of leks (Wisdom 

et al. 2011). Similarly, Aldridge et al. (2008) found long-term sage-grouse persistence 

required a minimum of 25%, and preferably at least 65%, sagebrush landscape cover at 

the 30-km (18.6-mi) scale. Considered collectively, cumulative disturbances that reduce 

the cover of sagebrush to less than a quarter of the landscape have a high likelihood of 

resulting in local population extirpation, while the probability of maintaining persistent 

populations goes up considerably as the proportion of sagebrush cover exceeds two-thirds 

or more of the landscape. Reduction of sagebrush cover is most critical in low to mid 

elevations where natural recovery of sagebrush can be very limited within timeframes 

important to sage-grouse population dynamics (Davies et al. 2011).

Nonnative annual grasses and forbs have invaded vast portions of the sage-grouse 

range, reducing both habitat quantity and quality (Beck and Mitchell 2000; Rowland 

et al. 2006; Miller et al. 2011; Balch et al. 2013). Due to repeated fires, some low- to 

mid-elevation native sagebrush communities are shifting to novel annual grassland states 

resulting in habitat loss that may be irreversible with current technologies (Davies et 

al. 2011; Miller et al. 2011; Chambers et al. 2014). At the broadest scales, the presence 

of non-native annual grasslands on the landscape may be influencing both sage-grouse 

distribution and abundance. In their analysis of active leks, Knick et al. (2013) found 

that most leks had very little annual grassland cover (2.2%) within a 5-km (3.1-mi) 

radius of the leks; leks that were no longer used had almost five times as much annual 

grassland cover as active leks. Johnson et al. (2011) found that lek use became progressively less as the cover of invasive annual species increased at both the 5-km (3.1-mi) 

and 18-km (11.2-mi) scales. Also, few leks had >8% invasive annual vegetation cover 

within both buffer distances.

Patterns of nest site selection also suggest local impacts of invasive annual grasses on 

birds. In western Nevada, Lockyer (2012) found that sage-grouse selected large expanses 

of sagebrush-dominated areas and, within those areas, sage-grouse selected microsites 

with higher shrub canopy cover and lower cheatgrass cover. Average cheatgrass cover 

at selected locations was 7.1% compared to 13.3% at available locations. Sage-grouse 

hens essentially avoided nesting in areas with higher cheatgrass cover. Kirol et al. (2012) 

also found nest-site selection was negatively correlated with the presence of cheatgrass 

in south-central Wyoming.
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Sage-grouse population demographic studies in northern Nevada show that recruitment and annual survival also are affected by presence of annual grasslands at larger 

scales. Blomberg et al. (2012) analyzed land cover within a 5-km (3.1-mi) radius of 

leks and found that leks impacted by annual grasslands experienced lower recruitment 

than non-impacted leks, even following years of high precipitation. Leks that were not 

affected by invasive annual grasslands exhibited recruitment rates nearly twice as high 

as the population average and nearly six times greater than affected leks during years 

of high precipitation.

Piñon and juniper expansion at mid to upper elevations into sagebrush ecosystems 

also has altered fire regimes and reduced sage-grouse habitat availability and suitability 

over large areas with population-level consequences (Miller et al. 2011; Baruch-Mordo 

et al. 2013; Knick et al. 2013). Conifer expansion results in non-linear declines in 

sagebrush cover and reductions in perennial native grasses and forbs as conifer canopy 

cover increases (Miller et al. 2000) and this has direct effects on the amount of available habitat for sagebrush-obligate species. Sites in the late stage of piñon and juniper 

expansion and infilling (Phase III from Miller et al. 2005) have reduced fire frequency 

(due to decreased fine fuels), but are prone to higher severity fires (due to increased 

woody fuels) which significantly reduces the likelihood of sagebrush habitat recovery 

(fig. 5) (Bates et al. 2013). Even before direct habitat loss occurs, sage-grouse avoid or 

are negatively associated with conifer cover during all life stages (i.e., nesting, broodrearing, and wintering; Doherty et al. 2008, 2010a; Atamian et al. 2010; Casazza et al. 

2011). Also, sage-grouse incur population-level impacts at a very low level of conifer 

encroachment. The ability to maintain active leks is severely compromised when conifer 

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

and most active leks average less than 1% conifer cover at landscape scales (Knick 

et al. 2013).

Figure 5. A post-burn, Phase III, singleleaf piñon and Utah juniper dominated sagebrush 

ecosystem in which soils are highly erosive and few understory plants remain (photo by 

Jeanne C. Chambers).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 9

Resilience to Disturbance and Resistance to Invasive Annual Grasses in 

Sagebrush Ecosystems ____________________________________________

Our ability to address the changes occurring in sagebrush habitats can be greatly enhanced by understanding the effects of environmental conditions on resilience to stress 

and disturbance, and resistance to invasion (Wisdom and Chambers 2009; Brooks and 

Chambers 2011; Chambers et al. 2014). In cold desert ecosystems, resilience of native 

ecosystems to stress and disturbance changes along climatic and topographic gradients. 

In these ecosystems, Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomingensis), 

mountain big sagebrush (A. t. spp. vaseyana), and mountain brush types (e.g., mountain 

big sagebrush, snowberry [Symphorocarpus spp.], bitterbrush [Purshia tridentata]) occur 

at progressively higher elevations and are associated with decreasing temperatures and 

increasing amounts of precipitation, productivity, and fuels (fig. 6; West and Young 2000). 

Piñon pine and juniper woodlands are typically associated with mountain big sagebrush 

types, but can occur with relatively cool and moist Wyoming big sagebrush types and 

warm and moist mountain brush types (Miller et al. 2013). Resilience to disturbance, 

including wildfire, has been shown to increase along these elevation gradients (fig. 7A) 

(Condon et al. 2011; Davies et al. 2012; Chambers et al. 2014; Chambers et al. in press). 

Higher precipitation and cooler temperatures, coupled with greater soil development 

and plant productivity at mid to high elevations, can result in greater resources and more 

favorable environmental conditions for plant growth and reproduction (Alexander et al. 

1993; Dahlgren et al. 1997). In contrast, minimal precipitation and high temperatures 

at low elevations result in lower resource availability for plant growth (West 1983a,b; 

Figure 6. The dominant sagebrush ecological types that occur along environmental gradients in the western United States. 

As elevation increases, soil temperature and moisture regimes transition from warm and dry to cold and moist and vegetation 

productivity and fuels become higher. 
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 7. (A) Resilience to disturbance 

and (B) resistance to cheatgrass over 

a typical temperature/precipitation 

gradient in the cold desert. Dominant 

ecological sites occur along a continuum 

that includes Wyoming big sagebrush 

on warm and dry sites, to mountain 

big sagebrush on cool and moist sites, 

to mountain big sagebrush and rootsprouting shrubs on cold and moist 

sites. Resilience increases along the 

temperature/precipitation gradient and 

is influenced by site characteristics like 

aspect. Resistance also increases along 

the temperature/precipitation gradient 

and is affected by disturbances and 

management treatments that alter vegetation structure and composition and 

increase resource availability (modified 

from Chambers et al. 2014; Chambers 

et al. in press).

Smith and Nowak 1990). These relationships also are observed at local plant community scales where aspect, slope, and topographic position affect solar radiation, erosion 

processes, effective precipitation, soil development and vegetation composition and 

structure (Condon et al. 2011; Johnson and Miller 2006).

Resistance to invasive annual grasses depends on environmental factors and ecosystem 

attributes and is a function of (1) the invasive species’ physiological and life history 

requirements for establishment, growth, and reproduction, and (2) interactions with the 

native perennial plant community including interspecific competition and response to 

herbivory and pathogens. In cold desert ecosystems, resistance is strongly influenced 

by soil temperature and moisture regimes (Chambers et al. 2007; Meyer et al. 2001). 

Germination, growth, and/or reproduction of cheatgrass is physiologically limited at low 

elevations by frequent, low precipitation years, constrained at high elevations by low 

soil temperatures, and optimal at mid elevations under relatively moderate temperature 

and water availability (fig. 7B; Meyer et al. 2001; Chambers et al. 2007). Slope, aspect, 

and soil characteristics modify soil temperature and moisture and influence resistance 

to cheatgrass at landscape to plant community scales (Chambers et al. 2007; Condon et 

al. 2011; Reisner et al. 2013). Genetic variation in cheatgrass results in phenotypic traits 

that increase survival and persistence in populations from a range of environments, and 

is likely contributing to the recent range expansion of this highly inbreeding species 

into marginal habitats (Ramakrishnan et al. 2006; Merrill et al. 2012).

The occurrence and persistence of invasive annual grasses in sagebrush habitats is 

strongly influenced by interactions with the native perennial plant community (fig. 7B). 

Cheatgrass, a facultative winter annual that can germinate from early fall through early 

spring, exhibits root elongation at low soil temperatures, and has higher nutrient uptake and growth rates than most native species (Mack and Pyke 1983; Arredondo et al. 

1998; James et al. 2011). Seedlings of native, perennial plant species are generally poor 

competitors with cheatgrass, but adults of native, perennial grasses and forbs, especially 

those with similar growth forms and phenology, can be highly effective competitors with 

the invasive annual (Booth et al. 2003; Chambers et al. 2007; Blank and Morgan 2012). 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 11

Also, biological soil crusts, which are an important component of plant communities 

in warmer and drier sagebrush ecosystems, can reduce germination or establishment of 

cheatgrass (Eckert et al. 1986; Kaltenecker et al. 1999). Disturbances or management 

treatments that reduce abundance of native perennial plants and biological soil crusts 

and increase the distances between perennial plants often are associated with higher 

resource availability and increased competitive ability of cheatgrass (Chambers et al. 

2007; Reisner et al. 2013; Roundy et al. in press).

The type, characteristics, and natural range of variability of stress and disturbance 

strongly influence both resilience and resistance (Jackson 2006). Disturbances like 

overgrazing of perennial plants by livestock, wild horses, and burros and more frequent or more severe fires are typically outside of the natural range of conditions and 

can reduce the resilience of sagebrush ecosystems. Reduced resilience is triggered by 

changes in environmental factors like temperature regimes, abiotic attributes like water 

and nutrient availability, and biotic attributes such as vegetation structure, composition, 

and productivity (Chambers et al. 2014) and cover of biological soil crusts (Reisner et 

al. 2013). Resistance to an invasive species can change when changes in abiotic and 

biotic attributes result in increased resource availability or altered habitat suitability 

that influences an invasive species’ ability to establish and persist and/or compete with 

native species. Progressive losses of resilience and resistance can result in the crossing 

of abiotic and/or biotic thresholds and an inability of the system to recover to the reference state (Beisner et al. 2003; Seastedt et al. 2008).

Interactions among disturbances and stressors may have cumulative effects (Chambers 

et al. 2014). Climate change already may be shifting fire regimes outside of the natural 

range of occurrence (i.e., longer wildfire seasons with more frequent and longer duration 

wildfires) (Westerling et al. 2006). Sagebrush ecosystems generally have low productivity, and the largest number of acres burned often occurs a year or two after warm, wet 

conditions in winter and spring that result in higher fine fuel loads (Littell et al. 2009). 

Thus, annual grass fire cycles may be promoted by warm, wet winters and a subsequent 

increase in establishment and growth of invasive winter annuals. These cycles may be 

exacerbated by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, N deposition, and increases in 

human activities that result in soil surface disturbance and invasion corridors (Chambers 

et al. 2014). Modern deviations from historic conditions will likely continue to alter 

disturbance regimes and sagebrush ecosystem response to disturbances; thus, management strategies that rely on returning to historical or “pre-settlement” conditions may be 

insufficient, or even misguided, given novel ecosystem dynamics (Davies et al. 2009).

Integrating Resilience and Resistance Concepts With Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Requirements to Manage Wildfire and Invasive Annual Grass Threats at 

Landscape Scales _________________________________________________

The changes in sagebrush ecosystem dynamics due to invasive annual species and 

longer, hotter, and drier fire seasons due to a warming climate make it unlikely that 

these threats can be ameliorated completely (Abatzoglou and Kolden 2011; USFWS 

2013). Consequently, a strategic approach is necessary to conserve sagebrush habitat 

and sage-grouse (Wisdom et al. 2005; Meinke et al. 2009; Wisdom and Chambers 2009; 

Pyke 2011). This strategic approach requires the ability to (1) identify those locations 

that provide current or potential habitat for sage-grouse and (2) prioritize management 

actions based on the capacity of the ecosystem to respond in the desired manner and 

to effectively allocate resources to achieve desired objectives. Current understanding 

of the relationship of landscape cover of sagebrush to sage-grouse habitat provides the 

capacity to identify those locations on the landscape that have a high probability of 
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

sage-grouse persistence (Aldridge et al. 2008; Wisdom et al. 2011; Knick et al. 2013). 

Similarly, knowledge of the relationships of environmental characteristics, specifically 

soil temperature and moisture regimes, to ecological types and their inherent resilience 

and resistance gives us the capacity to prioritize management actions based on probable 

effectiveness of those actions (Wisdom and Chambers 2009; Brooks and Chambers 

2011; Miller et al. 2013; Chambers et al. 2014; Chambers et al. in press,).

In this section, we discuss the use of landscape cover of sagebrush as an indicator of 

sage-grouse habitat, and the use of soil temperature and moisture regimes as an indicator 

of resilience to disturbance, resistance to invasive annual grasses and, ultimately, the 

capacity to achieve desired objectives. We then show how these two concepts can be 

coupled in a sage-grouse habitat matrix and used to determine potential management 

strategies at the landscape scales on which sage-grouse depends.

Landscape Cover of Sagebrush as an Indicator of Sage-Grouse Habitat

Landscape cover of sagebrush is closely related to the probability of maintaining 

active sage-grouse leks, and is used as one of the primary indicators of sage-grouse 

habitat potential at landscape scales (Aldridge et al. 2008; Wisdom et al. 2011; Knick 

et al. 2013). Landscape cover of sagebrush less than about 25% has a low probability of 

sustaining active sage-grouse leks (Aldridge et al. 2008; Wisdom et al. 2011; Knick et 

al. 2013). Above 25% landscape cover of sagebrush, the probability of maintaining active sage-grouse leks increases with increasing sagebrush landscape cover. At landscape 

cover of sagebrush ranging from 50 to 85%, the probability of sustaining sage-grouse 

leks becomes relatively constant (Aldridge et al. 2008; Wisdom et al. 2011; Knick et al. 

2013). For purposes of prioritizing landscapes for sage-grouse habitat management, we 

use 25% as the level below which there is a low probability of maintaining sage-grouse 

leks and 65% as the level above which there is little additional increase in the probability 

of sustaining active leks with further increases of landscape cover of sagebrush (fig. 8; 

Knick et al. 2013). Between about 25% and 65% landscape sagebrush cover, increases 

in landscape cover of sagebrush have a constant positive relationship with sage-grouse 

lek probability (fig. 8; Knick et al. 2013). Restoration and management activities that 

result in an increase in the amount of sagebrush dominated landscape within areas of 

pre-existing landscape cover between 25% and 65% likely will result in a higher probability of sage-grouse persistence, while declines in landscape cover of sagebrush likely 

will result in reductions in sage-grouse (Knick et al. 2013). It is important to note that 

Figure 8. The proportion of sage-grouse leks 

and habitat similarity index (HSI) as related to 

the percent landscape cover of sagebrush. The 

HSI indicates the relationship of environmental 

variables at map locations across the western 

portion of the range to minimum requirements 

for sage-grouse defined by land cover, anthropogenic variables, soil, topography, and 

climate. HSI is the solid black line ± 1 SD 

(stippled lines). Proportion of leks are the grey 

bars. Dashed line indicates HSI values above 

which characterizes 90% of active leks (0.22). 

The categories at the top of the figure and the 

interpretation of lek persistence were added 

based on Aldridge et al. 2008; Wisdom et al. 

2011; and Knick et al. 2013 (figure modified 

from Knick et al. 2013).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 13

these data and interpretations relate only to persistence (i.e., whether or not a lek remains 

active) and it is likely that higher proportions of sagebrush cover or improved condition 

of sagebrush ecosystems may be required for population growth.

For the purposes of delineating sagebrush habitat relative to sage-grouse requirements 

for landscape cover of sagebrush, we calculated the percentage landscape sagebrush 

cover within each of the selected categories (1-25%, 26-65%, >65%) for the range of 

sage-grouse (fig. 9, 10). An explanation of how landscape cover of sagebrush is derived 

is in Appendix 2. Large areas of landscape sagebrush cover >65% are found primarily in 

Management Zones (MZ) II (Wyoming Basin), IV (Snake River Plains), and V (Northern 

Great Basin). In contrast, relatively small areas of landscape sagebrush cover >65% are 

located in MZ I (Great Plains), III (Southern Great Basin), VI (Columbia Basin), and 

VII (Colorado Plateau). Sagebrush is naturally less common in the Great Plains region 

compared to other parts of the range and previous work suggested that sage-grouse 

populations in MZ I may be more vulnerable to extirpation with further reductions in 

sagebrush cover (Wisdom et al. 2011). In the western portion of the range, where the 

threat of invasive annual grasses and wildfire is greatest, the area of sagebrush cover 

>65% differs among MZs. MZ III is a relatively arid and topographically diverse area in 

which the greatest extent of sagebrush cover >65% is in higher elevation, mountainous 

areas. MZs IV and V have relatively large extents of sagebrush cover >65% in relatively 

cooler and wetter areas, and MZs IV and VI have lower extents of sagebrush cover >65% 

in warmer and dryer areas and in areas with significant agricultural development. These 

differences in landscape cover of sagebrush indicate that different sets of management 

strategies may apply to the various MZs.

Soil Temperature and Moisture Regimes as Indicators of Ecosystem Resilience and 

Resistance

Potential resilience and resistance to invasive annual grasses reflect the biophysical 

conditions that an area is capable of supporting. In general, the highest potential resilience and resistance occur with cool to cold (frigid to cryic) soil temperature regimes 

and relatively moist (xeric to ustic) soil moisture regimes, while the lowest potential 

resilience and resistance occur with warm (mesic) soil temperatures and relatively dry

(aridic) soil moisture regimes (Chambers et al. 2014, Chambers et al. in press). Definitions of soil temperature and moisture regimes are in Appendix 3. Productivity is elevated 

by high soil moisture and thus resilience is increased (Chambers et al. 2014); annual 

grass growth and reproduction is limited by cold soil temperatures and thus resistance 

is increased (Chambers et al. 2007). The timing of precipitation also is important because cheatgrass and many other invasive annual grasses are particularly well-adapted 

to Mediterranean type climates with cool and wet winters and warm and dry summers 

(Bradford and Lauenroth 2006; Bradley 2009). In contrast, areas that receive regular 

summer precipitation (ustic soil moisture regimes) often are dominated by warm and/

or cool season grasses (Sala et al. 1997) that likely create a more competitive environment and result in greater resistance to annual grass invasion and spread (Bradford and 

Lauenroth 2006; Bradley 2009).

Much of the remaining sage-grouse habitat in MZs I (Great Plains), II (Wyoming 

Basin), VII (Colorado Plateau), and cool-to-cold or moist sites scattered across the 

range, are characterized by moderate to high resilience and resistance as indicated by 

soil temperature and moisture regimes (fig. 11). Sagebrush habitats across MZ I are 

unique from a range-wide perspective because soils are predominantly cool and ustic, 

or bordering on ustic as a result of summer precipitation; this soil moisture regime 

appears to result in higher resilience and resistance (Bradford and Lauenroth 2006). 
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 9. Landscape cover of sagebrush from 1-m National Agricultural Imagery (right) and the corresponding sagebrush 

landscape cover for the 1-25%, 26-65%, and >65% categories (left). See Appendix 2 for an explanation of how the categories are determined.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 15

Figure 10. The landscape cover of sagebrush within each of three selected categories (1-25%, 26-65%, >65%) for the range 

of sage-grouse (Management Zones I – VII; Stiver et al. 2006). The proportion of sagebrush (USGS 2013) within each of the 

categories in a 5-km (3.1-mi) radius surrounding each pixel was calculated relative to other land cover types for locations with 

sagebrush cover.
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 11. The soil temperature and moisture regimes for the range of sage-grouse (Management Zones I – VII; Stiver 

et al. 2006). Soil temperature and moisture classes were derived from the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) (Soil Survey Staff 2014a). Gaps in that dataset were filled in 

with the NRCS State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) (Soil Survey Staff 2014b).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 17

However, significant portions of MZs III (Southern Great Basin), much of IV (Snake 

River Plains), V (Northern Great Basin), and VI (Columbia Basin) are characterized 

largely by either warm and dry, or warm to cool and moist ecological types with moderate to low resilience and resistance (fig. 11; table 1). Areas within these MZs that have 

warm and dry soils are typically characterized by Wyoming big sagebrush ecosystems 

with low to moderately low resilience and resistance and are currently of greatest concern for sage-grouse conservation (fig. 12A). Areas with warm to cool soil temperature 

regimes and moist precipitation regimes are typically characterized by either Wyoming 

or mountain big sagebrush, have moderate to moderately low resilience and resistance, 

Table 1. Predominant sagebrush ecological types in Sage-Grouse Management Zones III, IV, V, and VI based on soil temperature and soil moisture regimes, typical characteristics, and resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual 

grasses (modified from Miller et al. 2014 a,b). Relative abundance of sagebrush species and composition of understory 

vegetation vary depending on Major Land Resource Area and ecological site type. 

Ecological type Characteristics Resilience and resistance

Cold and Moist

(Cryic/Xeric)

Ppt: 14 inches +

Typical shrubs: Mountain big sagebrush, 

snowfield sagebrush, snowberry, serviceberry, silver sagebrush, and/or low 

sagebrushes

Resilience – Moderately high. Precipitation and productivity are generally high. Short growing seasons can decrease resilience on coldest sites.

Resistance– High. Low climate suitability to invasive annual grasses

Cool and Moist

(Frigid/Xeric) 

Ppt: 12-22 inches

Typical shrubs: Mountain big sagebrush, 

antelope bitterbrush, snowberry, and/or 

low sagebrushes

Piñon pine and juniper potential

in some areas

Resilience – Moderately high. Precipitation and productivity are generally high. Decreases in site productivity, herbaceous perennial species, and ecological conditions can 

decrease resilience.

Resistance – Moderate. Climate suitability to invasive annual grasses is moderate, but increases as soil temperatures increase. 

Warm and Moist

(Mesic/Xeric)

Ppt: 12-16 inches

Typical shrubs: Wyoming big sagebrush, 

mountain big sagebrush, Bonneville big 

sagebrush, and/or low sagebrushes

Piñon pine and juniper potential in some 

areas

Resilience – Moderate. Precipitation and productivity are 

moderately high. Decreases in site productivity, herbaceous perennial species, and ecological conditions can 

decrease resilience.

Resistance – Moderately low. Climate suitability to invasive annual grasses is moderately low, but increases as 

soil temperatures increase.

Cool and Dry

(Frigid/Aridic)

Ppt: 6-12 inches

Typical shrubs: Wyoming big sagebrush, 

black sagebrush, and/or low sagebrushes

Resilience – Low. Effective precipitation limits site productivity. Decreases in site productivity, herbaceous perennial 

species, and ecological conditions further decrease resilience.

Resistance – Moderate. Climate suitability to invasive annual grasses is moderate, but increases as soil temperatures increase. 

Warm and Dry 

(Mesic/Aridic, 

bordering on Xeric)

Ppt: 8-12 inches

Typical shrubs: Wyoming big sagebrush, 

black sagebrush and/or low sagebrushes

Resilience – Low. Effective precipitation limits site productivity. Decreases in site productivity, herbaceous perennial 

species, and ecological conditions further decrease resilience. Cool season grasses susceptibility to grazing and 

fire, along with hot dry summer fire conditions, promote 

cheatgrass establishment and persistence.

Resistance – Low. High climate suitability to cheatgrass 

and other invasive annual grasses. Resistance generally 

decreases as soil temperature increases, but establishment and growth are highly dependent on precipitation.
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

and have the potential for piñon and juniper expansion (Miller et al. 2014a; Chambers 

et al. in press). Many of these areas also are of conservation concern because piñon and 

juniper expansion and tree infilling can result in progressive loss of understory species 

and altered fire regimes (Miller et al. 2013). In contrast, areas with cool to cold soil 

temperature regimes and moist precipitation regimes have moderately high resilience 

and high resistance and are likely to recover in a reasonable amount of time following 

wildfires and other disturbances (Miller et al. 2013) (fig. 12B)

Figure 12. A Wyoming big sagebrush ecosystem with warm and dry soils in southeast 

Oregon (top) (photo by Richard F. Miller), compared to a mountain big sagebrush 

ecosystem with cool and moist soils in central Nevada (bottom) (photo by Jeanne C. 

Chambers).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 19

Management Strategies Based on Landscape Cover of Sagebrush and Ecosystem 

Resilience and Resistance: The Sage-Grouse Habitat Matrix

Knowledge of the potential resilience and resistance of sagebrush ecosystems can be 

used in conjunction with sage-grouse habitat requirements to determine priority areas for 

management and identify effective management strategies at landscape scales (Wisdom 

and Chambers 2009). The sage-grouse habitat matrix (table 2) illustrates the relative 

resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses of sagebrush ecosystems in relation to the proportion of sagebrush cover on the landscape. As resilience 

and resistance go from high to low, as indicated by the rows in the matrix, decreases 

in sagebrush regeneration and abundance of perennial grasses and forbs progressively 

limit the capacity of a sagebrush ecosystem to recover after fire or other disturbances. 

The risk of annual invasives increases and the ability to successfully restore burned or 

otherwise disturbed areas decreases. As sagebrush cover goes from low to high within 

these same ecosystems, as indicated by the columns in the matrix, the capacity to provide 

adequate habitat cover for sage-grouse increases. Areas with less than 25% landscape 

cover of sagebrush are unlikely to provide adequate habitat for sage-grouse; areas with 

26-65% landscape cover of sagebrush can provide habitat for sage-grouse but are at 

risk if sagebrush loss occurs without recovery; and areas with >65% landscape cover of 

sagebrush provide the necessary habitat conditions for sage-grouse to persist. Potential 

landscape scale management strategies can be determined by considering (1) resilience 

to disturbance, (2) resistance to invasive annuals, and (3)sage-grouse land cover requirements. Overarching management strategies to maintain or increase sage-grouse habitat at 

landscape scales based on these considerations are conservation, prevention, restoration, 

and monitoring and adaptive management (table 3; see Chambers et al. 2014). These 

strategies have been adapted for each of the primary agency programs including fire 

operations, fuels management, post-fire rehabilitation, and habitat restoration (table 4). 

Because sagebrush ecosystems occur over continuums of environmental conditions, 

such as soil temperature and moisture, and have differing land use histories and species 

composition, careful assessment of the area of concern always will be necessary to determine the relevance of a particular strategy (Pyke 2011; Chambers et al. 2014; Miller 

et al. 2014 a, b). The necessary information for conducting this type of assessment is 

found in the “Putting It All Together” section of this report.

Although the sage-grouse habitat matrix (table 2) can be viewed as partitioning 

land units into spatially discrete categories (i.e., landscapes or portions thereof can be 

categorized as belonging to one of nine categories), it is not meant to serve as a strict 

guide to spatial allocation of resources or to prescribe specific management strategies. 

Instead, the matrix should serve as a decision support tool for helping managers implement strategies that consider both the resilience and resistance of the landscape and 

landscape sagebrush cover requirements of sage-grouse. For example, low elevation 

Wyoming big sagebrush plant communities with relatively low resilience and resistance 

may provide important winter habitat resources for a given sage-grouse population. In 

a predominantly Wyoming big sagebrush area comprised of relatively low sagebrush 

landscape cover, a high level of management input may be needed to realize conservation 

benefits for sage-grouse. This doesn’t mean that management activities should not be 

undertaken if critical or limiting sage-grouse habitat resources are present, but indicates 

that inputs will be intensive, potentially more expensive, and less likely to succeed 

relative to more resilient landscapes. It is up to the user of the matrix to determine how 

such tradeoffs influence management actions.
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Table 2. Sage-grouse habitat matrix based on resilience and resistance concepts from Chambers et al. 2014, and 

sage-grouse habitat requirements from Aldridge et al. 2008, Wisdom et al. 2011, and Knick et al. 2013. 

Rows show the ecosystems relative resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses 

derived from the sagebrush ecological types in table 1 (1 = high resilience and resistance; 2 = moderate 

resilience and resistance; 3 = low resilience and resistance). Columns show the current proportion of the 

landscape (5-km rolling window) dominated by sagebrush (A = 1-25% land cover; B = 26-65% land cover; 

3 = >65% land cover). Use of the matrix is explained in text. Overarching management strategies that 

consider resilience and resistance and landscape cover of sagebrush are in table 3. Potential management strategies specific to agency program areas, including fire operations, fuels management, post-fire 

rehabilitation, and habitat restoration are in table 4.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 21

Table 3. Potential management strategies based on resilience to disturbance, resistance to annual grass invasion, and sagegrouse habitat requirements based on Aldridge et al. 2008; Wisdom et al. 2011; and Knick et al. 2013 (adapted from 

Chambers et al. 2014).

Conserve – maintain or increase resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annuals in areas with high 

conservation value

Priorities • Ecosystems with low to moderate resilience to fire and resistance to invasive species that still have large 

patches of landscape sagebrush cover and adequate perennial grasses and forbs – ecological types 

with warm and dry and cool and dry soil temperature/moisture regimes.

• Ecosystems with a high probability of providing habitat for sage-grouse, especially those with >65% 

landscape cover of sagebrush and adequate perennial herbaceous species – all ecological types.

Objective • Minimize impacts of current and future human-caused disturbances and stressors.

Activities • Immediately suppress fire in moderate to low resilience and resistance sagebrush and wooded 

shrublands to prevent an invasive annual grass-fire cycle. Large sagebrush patches are high priority for 

protection from wildfires.

• Implement strategic fuel break networks to provide anchor points for suppression and reduce losses 

when wildfires escape initial attack.

• Manage livestock grazing to prevent loss of perennial native grasses and forbs and biological soil crusts 

and allow natural regeneration.

• Limit anthropogenic activities that cause surface disturbance, invasion, and fragmentation. (e.g., road 

and utility corridors, urban expansion, OHV use, and mineral/energy projects).

• Detect and control new weed infestations.

Prevent – maintain or increase resilience and resistance of areas with declining ecological conditions that are at risk of 

conversion to a degraded, disturbed, or invaded state

Priorities • Ecosystems with moderate to high resilience and resistance – ecological types with relatively cool and 

moist soil temperature and moisture regimes.

○ Prioritize landscape patches that exhibit declining conditions due to annual grass invasion and/or 

tree expansion (e.g., at risk phase in State and Transition Models).

• Ecosystems with a moderate to high probability of providing sage-grouse habitat, especially those with 

26-65% landscape cover of sagebrush and adequate perennial native grasses and forbs – all ecological 

types.

Objectives • Reduce fuel loads and decrease the risk of high intensity and high severity fire.

• Increase abundance of perennial native grasses and forbs and of biological soil crusts where they 

naturally occur.

• Decrease the longer-term risk of annual invasive grass dominance.

Activities • Use mechanical treatments like cut and leave or mastication to remove trees, decrease woody fuels, 

and release native grasses and forbs in warm and moist big sagebrush ecosystems with relatively 

low resistance to annual invasive grasses that are in the early to mid-phase of piñon and/or juniper 

expansion.

• Use prescribed fire or mechanical treatments to remove trees, decrease woody fuels, and release native 

grasses and forbs in cool and moist big sagebrush ecosystems with relatively high resistance to annual 

invasive grass that are in early to mid-phase of piñon and/or juniper expansion.

• Actively manage post-treatment areas to increase perennial herbaceous species and minimize 

secondary weed invasion.

• Consider the need for strategic fuel breaks to help constrain fire spread or otherwise augment 

suppression efforts.

Restore – increase resilience and resistance of disturbed, degraded, or invaded areas 

Priorities • Areas burned by wildfire – all ecological types

○ Prioritize areas with low to moderate resilience and resistance, and that have a reasonable 

expectation of recovery.

○ Prioritize areas where perennial grasses and forbs have been depleted.

○ Prioritize areas that experienced high severity fire. 

(continued)
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

• Sage-grouse habitat – all ecological types

○ Prioritize areas where restoration of sagebrush and/or perennial grasses is needed to create large 

patches of landscape cover of sagebrush or connect existing patches of sagebrush habitat.

○ Prioritize areas with adequate landscape cover of sagebrush where restoration of perennial grasses 

and forbs is needed.

• Areas affected by anthropogenic activities that cause surface disturbance, invasion, and fragmentation. 

(e.g., road and utility corridors, urban expansion, OHV use, and mineral/energy projects) – all ecological 

types.

Objectives • Increase soil stability and curtail dust. 

• Control/suppress invasive annual grasses and other invasive plants.

• Increase landscape cover of sagebrush.

• Increase perennial grasses and forbs and biological soil crusts where they naturally occur.

• Reduce the risk of large fires that burn sage-grouse habitat.

Activities • Use integrated strategies to control/suppress annual invasive grass and other annual invaders.

• Establish and maintain fuel breaks or greenstrips in areas dominated by invasive annual grasses that 

are adjacent to areas with >25% landscape sagebrush cover and adequate perennial native grasses and 

forbs.

• Seed perennial grasses and forbs that are adapted to local conditions to increase cover of these species 

in areas where they are depleted.

• Seed and/or transplant sagebrush to restore large patches of sagebrush cover and connect existing 

patches.

• Repeat restoration treatments if they fail initially to ensure restoration success especially in warm and 

dry soil temperature moisture regimes where weather is often problematic for establishment.

• Actively manage restored/rehabilitated areas to increase perennial herbaceous species and minimize 

secondary weed invasion.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management– implement comprehensive monitoring to track landscape change and 

management outcomes and provide the basis for adaptive management

Priorities • Regional environmental gradients to track changes in plant community and other ecosystem attributes 

and expansion or contraction of species ranges – all ecological types.

• Assess treatment effectiveness – all ecological types.

Objectives • Understand effects of wildfire, annual grass invasion, piñon and juniper expansion, climate change and 

other global stressors in sagebrush ecosystems

• Increase understanding of the long- and short-term outcomes of management treatments.

Activities • Establish a regional network of monitoring sites that includes major environmental gradients.

• Collect pre- and post-treatment monitoring data for all major land treatments activities.

• Collect data on ecosystem status and trends (for example, land cover type, ground cover, vegetation 

cover and height [native and invasive], phase of tree expansion, soil and site stability, oddities).

• Use consistent methods to monitor indicators.

• Use a cross-boundary approach that involves all major land owners.

• Use a common data base for all monitoring results (e.g., Land Treatment Digital Library; http://

greatbasin.wr.usgs.gov/ltdl/).

• Develop monitoring products that track change and provide management implications and adaptations 

for future management.

• Support and improve information sharing on treatment effectiveness and monitoring results across 

jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., Great Basin Fire Science Delivery Project; www.gbfiresci.org).

Table 3. (Continued).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 23

Table 4. Specific management strategies by agency program area for the cells within the sage-grouse habitat matrix (table 2). 

The rows indicate relative resilience and resistance (numbers) and the columns indicate landscape cover of sagebrush 

by category (letters). Resilience and resistance are based on soil temperature and moisture regimes (fig. 11) and their 

relationship to ecological types (table 1). Percentage of the landscape dominated by sagebrush is based on the capacity of large landscapes to support viable sage-grouse populations over the long term (fig. 8). Note that these guidelines 

are related to the sage-grouse habitat matrix, and do not preclude other factors from consideration when determining 

management priorities for program areas. The “Fire Operations” program area includes preparedness, prevention, and 

suppression activities.

High Resilience to Disturbance and Resistance to Invasive Annual Grasses (1A, 1B, 1C) 

Natural sagebrush recovery is likely to occur. Perennial herbaceous species are sufficient for recovery. Risk of invasive annual 

grasses is typically low.

Fire Operations • Fire suppression is typically third order priority, but varies with large fire risk and landscape condition 

(cells 1A, 1B, 1C). Scenarios requiring higher priority may include:

○ Areas of sagebrush that bridge large, contiguous expanses of sagebrush and that are important for 

providing connectivity for sage-grouse (cells 1B, 1C).

○ Areas where sagebrush communities have been successfully reestablished through seedings or 

other rehabilitation investments (cells 1A, 1B, 1C)

○ Areas with later phase (Phase III) post-settlement piñon and juniper that have high resistance to 

control, are subject to large and/or severe fires, and place adjacent sage-grouse habitat at risk (cells 

1A, 1B).

○ All areas when critical burning environment conditions exist. These conditions may be identified by a 

number of products including, but not limited to: Predictive Services 7-Day Significant Fire Potential 

Forecasts; National Weather Service Fire Weather Watches and Red Flag Warnings; fire behavior 

forecasts or other local knowledge.

Fuels • Fuels management to reduce large sagebrush stand losses is a second order priority, especially in

Management cells 1B and 1C. Management activities include:

○ Strategic placement of fuel breaks to reduce loss of large sagebrush stands by wildfire. Examples 

include linear features or other strategically placed treatments that serve to constrain fire spread or 

otherwise augment suppression efforts.

○ Tree removal in early to mid-phase (Phases I, II), post-settlement piñon and juniper expansion areas 

to maintain shrub/herbaceous cover and reduce fuel loads.

○ Tree removal in later phase (Phase III), post-settlement piñon and juniper areas to reduce risks of 

large or high severity fires. Because these areas represent non-sage-grouse habitat, prescribed fire 

may be appropriate on cool and moist sites, but invasive plant control and restoration of sagebrush 

and perennial native grasses and forbs may be necessary.

Post-Fire • Post-fire rehabilitation is generally low priority (cells 1A, 1B, 1C). Areas of higher priority include:

Rehabilitation ○ Areas where perennial herbaceous cover, density, and species composition is inadequate for 

recovery.

○ Areas where seeding or transplanting sagebrush is needed to maintain habitat connectivity for sagegrouse.

○ Steep slopes and soils with erosion potential.

Habitat • Restoration is typically passive and designed to increase or maintain perennial herbaceous species,

Restoration biological soil crusts and landscape cover of sagebrush (cells 1A, 1B, 1C). Areas to consider for active

and Recovery restoration include:

○ Areas where perennial herbaceous cover density, or composition is inadequate for recovery after 

surface disturbance. 

○ Areas where seeding or transplanting sagebrush is needed to maintain habitat connectivity for sagegrouse.

Moderate Resilience to Disturbance and Resistance to Invasive Annuals (2A, 2B, 2C) 

Natural sagebrush recovery is likely to occur on cooler and moister sites, but the time required may be too great if large, 

contiguous areas lack sagebrush. Perennial herbaceous species are usually adequate for recovery on cooler and moister sites. 

Risk of invasive annual grasses is moderately high on warmer and drier sites. 

Fire Operations • Fire suppression is typically second order priority (cells 2A, 2B, 2C). Scenarios requiring higher priority 

may include:

○ Areas of sagebrush that bridge large, contiguous expanses of sagebrush and that are important for 

providing connectivity for sage-grouse (cells 2B, 2C). (continued)
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

○ Areas where sagebrush communities have been successfully reestablished through seedings or 

other rehabilitation investments (cells 2A, 2B, 2C)

○ Areas with later phase (Phase III), post-settlement piñon and juniper that have high resistance to 

control, are subject to large and/or severe fires, and place adjacent sage-grouse habitat at risk (cells 

2A, 2B).

○ Areas where annual grasslands place adjacent sage-grouse habitat at risk (cell 2A).

○ All areas when critical burning environment conditions exist. These conditions may be identified by a 

number of products including, but not limited to: Predictive Services 7-Day Significant Fire Potential 

Forecasts; National Weather Service Fire Weather Watches and Red Flag Warnings; fire behavior 

forecasts or other local knowledge.

Fuels • Fuels management to reduce large sagebrush stand losses is a first order priority, especially in cells 2B

Management and 2C. Management activities include:

○ Strategic placement of fuel breaks to reduce loss of large sagebrush stands by wildfire. Examples 

include linear features or other strategically placed treatments that serve to constrain fire spread or 

otherwise augment suppression efforts. 

○ Tree removal in early to mid-phase (Phase I, II), post-settlement piñon and juniper expansion areas 

to maintain shrub/herbaceous cover and reduce fuel loads.

○ Tree removal in later phase (Phase III), post-settlement piñon and juniper areas to reduce risks of 

large or high severity fires. Because these areas represent non-sage-grouse habitat, prescribed 

fire may be appropriate on cool and moist sites, but restoration of sagebrush and perennial native 

grasses and forbs may be necessary.

Post-Fire • Post-fire rehabilitation is generally low priority (cells 2A, 2B, 2C) in cooler and moister areas. Areas of

Rehabilitation higher priority include: 

○ Areas where perennial herbaceous cover, density, and species composition is inadequate for 

recovery.

○ Areas where seeding or transplanting sagebrush is needed to maintain habitat connectivity for 

sage-grouse.

○ Relatively warm and dry areas where annual invasives are expanding.

○ Steep slopes with erosion potential.

Habitat • Restoration is typically passive on cooler and moister areas and is designed to increase or maintain

Restoration perennial herbaceous species, biological soil crusts, and landscape cover of sagebrush (cells 2A, 2B,

and Recovery 2C). Areas to consider for active restoration include:

○ Areas where perennial herbaceous cover, density, and species composition is inadequate for 

recovery after surface disturbance.

○ Areas where seeding or transplanting sagebrush is needed to maintain habitat connectivity for sagegrouse.

○ Relatively warm and dry areas where annual invasives are expanding. 

Low Resilience to Disturbance and Resistance to Invasive Annuals (3A, 3B, 3C) 

Natural sagebrush recovery is not likely. Perennial herbaceous species are typically inadequate for recovery. Risk of invasive 

annual grasses is high. 

Fire • Fire suppression priority depends on the landscape cover of sagebrush:

Operations ○ Areas with <25% landscape cover of sagebrush are typically third order priority (cell 3A). These 

areas may be a higher priority if they are adjacent to intact sage-grouse habitat or are essential for 

connectivity.

○ Areas with 26-65% landscape cover of sagebrush are typically second order priority (cell 3B). These 

areas are higher priority if they have intact understories and if they are adjacent to sage-grouse 

habitat.

○ Areas with >65% landscape cover of sagebrush are first order priority (cell 3C).

○ Areas where sagebrush communities have been successfully reestablished through seedings or 

other rehabilitation investments (cells 3A, 3B, 3C).

Table 4. (Continued).

(continued)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 25

Fuels Management • Fuels management priority and management activities depend on the landscape cover of sagebrush:

○ Areas with <25% landscape cover of sagebrush are typically third order priority (cell 3A). Strategic 

placement of fuel breaks may be needed to reduce loss of adjacent sage-grouse habitat by wildfire. 

Examples include linear features or other strategically placed treatments that serve to constrain fire 

spread or otherwise augment suppression efforts.

○ Areas with 26-65% landscape cover of sagebrush are typically second order priority (cell 3B). These 

areas are higher priority if they have intact understories and if they are adjacent to sage-grouse 

habitat. Strategic placement of fuel breaks may be needed to reduce loss of large sagebrush stands 

by wildfire. 

○ Areas with >65% landscape cover of sagebrush are first order priority (cell 3C). Strategic placement 

of fuel breaks may be needed to reduce loss of large sagebrush stands by wildfire. 

○ Areas where sagebrush communities have been successfully reestablished through seedings 

or other rehabilitation investments (cells 3A, 3B, 3C). Strategic placement of fuel breaks may be 

needed to protect investments from repeated loss to wildfire.

Post-Fire • Post-fire rehabilitation priority and management activities depend on the landscape cover of sagebrush: 

Rehabilitation ○ Areas with <25% landscape cover of sagebrush are typically third order priority (cell 3A). Exceptions 

include (1) sites that are relatively cool and moist and (2) areas adjacent to sage-grouse habitat 

where seeding can be used to increase connectivity and prevent annual invasive spread. In highly 

invaded areas, integrated strategies that include seeding of perennial herbaceous species and 

seeding and/or transplanting sagebrush will be required. Success will likely require more than one 

intervention due to low and variable precipitation.

○ Areas with 26-65% landscape cover of sagebrush are typically second order priority (cell 3B). 

Exceptions include (1) sites that are relatively cool and moist or that are not highly invaded, and 

(2) areas adjacent to sage-grouse habitat where seeding can be used to increase connectivity and 

prevent annual invasive spread. Seeding of perennial herbaceous species will be required where 

cover, density and species composition of these species is inadequate for recovery. Seeding and/

or transplanting sagebrush as soon as possible is necessary for rehabilitating sage-grouse habitat. 

Success will likely require more than one intervention due to low and variable precipitation.

○ Areas with >65% landscape cover of sagebrush are first order priority, especially if they are part of 

a larger, contiguous area of sagebrush (cell 3C). Seeding of perennial herbaceous species will be 

required where cover, density and species composition of these species is inadequate for recovery. 

Seeding and/or transplanting sagebrush as soon as possible is necessary for rehabilitating sagegrouse habitat. Success will likely require more than one intervention due to low and variable 

precipitation.

Habitat • Restoration priority and management activities depends on the landscape cover of sagebrush: 

Restoration ○ Areas with <25% landscape cover of sagebrush are typically third order priority. Exceptions include

and Recovery (1) surface disturbances and (2) areas adjacent to sage-grouse habitat where seeding can be 

used to prevent annual invasive spread (cell 3A). In highly invaded areas, integrated strategies 

that include seeding of perennial herbaceous species and seeding and/or transplanting sagebrush 

will be required. Success will likely require more than one intervention due to low and variable 

precipitation.

○ Areas with 26-65% landscape cover of sagebrush are typically second order priority (cell 3B). 

Exceptions include (1) surface disturbances, (2) sites that are relatively cool and moist or that are 

not highly invaded, and (3) areas adjacent to sage-grouse habitat where seeding can be used to 

increase connectivity and prevent annual invasive spread. Seeding of perennial herbaceous species 

may be required where cover, density and species composition of these species is inadequate. 

Seeding and/or transplanting sagebrush as soon as possible is necessary for restoring sage-grouse 

habitat. Success will likely require more than one intervention due to low and variable precipitation.

○ Areas with >65% landscape cover of sagebrush are first order priority, especially if they are part of 

a larger, contiguous area of sagebrush (cell 3C). Seeding of perennial herbaceous species may be 

required where cover, density, and species composition of these species is inadequate. Seeding 

and/or transplanting sagebrush as soon as possible is necessary for restoring sage-grouse habitat. 

Success will likely require more than one intervention due to low and variable precipitation.

Table 4. (Continued).
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Another important consideration is that ecological processes such as wildfire can occur 

either within or across categories in the sage-grouse habitat matrix and it is necessary 

to determine the appropriate spatial context when evaluating management opportunities based on resilience and resistance and sage-grouse habitat. For example, if critical 

sage-grouse habitat occurs in close proximity to landscapes comprised mainly of annual 

grass-dominated plant communities, then fire risk to adjacent sage-grouse habitat can 

increase dramatically (Balch et al. 2013). In this scenario, management actions could 

include reducing the influence of invasive annual grasses with a strategic fuel break 

on the perimeter of intact sagebrush. Thus, management actions may have value to 

sustaining existing sage-grouse habitat, even if these measures are applied in locations 

that are currently not habitat; the spatial relationships of sagebrush and invasive annual 

grasses should be considered when prioritizing management actions and associated 

conservation measures.

Informing Wildfire and Fuels Management Strategies to Conserve SageGrouse __________________________________________________________

Collectively, responses to wildfires and implementation of fuels management projects are important contributors to sage-grouse conservation. Resilience and resistance 

concepts provide a science-based background that can inform fire operations and fuels 

management strategies and allocation of scarce assets during periods of high fire activity. In fire operations, firefighter and public safety is the overriding objective in all 

decisions. In addition, land managers consider numerous other values at risk, including 

the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), habitats, and infrastructure when allocating assets 

and prioritizing efforts. Resilience and resistance concepts are especially relevant for 

evaluating tradeoffs related to current ecological conditions and rates of recovery and 

possible ecological consequences of different fire management activities. For example, 

prioritizing initial attack efforts based on ecological types and their resilience and 

resistance at fire locations is a possible future application of resilience and resistance 

concepts. Also, fire prevention efforts can be concentrated where human ignitions have 

commonly occurred near intact, high quality habitats that also have inherently low 

resilience and resistance.

Fuels management projects are often applied to (1) constrain or minimize fire spread; 

(2) alter species composition; (3) modify fire intensity, severity, or effects; or (4) create fuel breaks or anchor points that augment fire management efforts (fig. 13). These 

activities are selectively used based on the projected ecosystem response, anticipated 

fire patterns, and probability of success. For example, in areas that are difficult to restore 

due to low to moderate resilience, fuel treatments can be placed to minimize fire spread 

and conserve sagebrush habitat. In cooler and moister areas with moderate to high resilience and resistance, mechanical or prescribed fire treatments may be appropriate to 

prevent conifer expansion and dominance. Given projected climate change and longer 

fire seasons across the western United States, fuels management represents a proactive 

approach for modifying large fire trends. Fire operations and fuels management programs 

contribute to a strategic, landscape approach when coupled with data that illustrate the 

likelihood of fire occurrence, potential fire behavior, and risk assessments (Finney et al. 

2010; Oregon Department of Forestry 2013). In tandem with resilience and resistance 

concepts, these data can further inform fire operations and fuels management decisions.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 27

Figure 13. Fuel breaks may include roads, natural features, or other management imposed 

treatments intended to modify fire behavior or otherwise augment suppression efforts at 

the time of a fire. Such changes in fuel type and arrangement may improve suppression 

effectiveness by modifying flame length and fire intensity, and allow fire operations to be 

conducted more safely. The top photo shows a burnout operation along an existing road to 

remove available fuels ahead of an oncoming fire and constrain overall fire growth (photo 

by BLM Idaho Falls District). The bottom photo shows fuel breaks located along a road, 

which complimented fire control efforts when a fire intersected the fuel break and road 

from the right (photo by Ben Dyer, BLM).
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Putting it all Together ______________________________________________

Effective management and restoration of sage-grouse habitat will benefit from a collaborative approach that prioritizes the best management practices in the most appropriate places. This section describes an approach for assessing focal areas for sage-grouse 

habitat management based on widely available data, including (1) Priority Areas for 

Conservation (PACs), (2) breeding bird densities, (3) habitat suitability as indicated by 

the landscape cover of sagebrush, (4) resilience and resistance and dominant ecological 

types as indicated by soil temperature and moisture regimes, and (5) habitat threats as 

indicated by cover of cheatgrass, cover of piñon and juniper, and by fire history. 

Breeding bird density data are overlain with landscape cover of sagebrush and with 

resilience and resistance to spatially link sage-grouse populations with habitat conditions 

and risks. We illustrate the use of this step-down approach for evaluating focal areas 

for sage-grouse habitat management across the western portion of the range, and we 

provide a detailed example for a diverse area in the northeast corner of Nevada that is 

comprised largely of PACs with mixed land ownership. The sage-grouse habitat matrix 

(table 2) is used as a tool in the decision process, and guidelines are provided to assist 

in determining appropriate management strategies for the primary agency program 

areas (fire operations, fuels management, post-fire rehabilitation, habitat restoration) 

for each cell of the matrix.

We conclude with discussions of the tools available to aid in determining the suitability of an area for treatment and the most appropriate management treatments such 

as ecological site descriptions and state and transition models and of monitoring and 

adaptive management. Datasets used to compile the maps in the following sections are 

in Appendix 4.

Assessing Focal Areas for Sage-Grouse Habitat Management: Key Data Layers

Priority areas for conservation: The recent identification of sage-grouse strongholds, or Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs), greatly improves the ability to target 

management actions towards habitats expected to be critical for long-term viability of 

the species (fig. 14; USFWS 2013). Understanding and minimizing risks of large-scale 

loss of sagebrush and conversion to invasive annual grasses or piñon and juniper in and 

around PACs will be integral to maintaining sage-grouse distribution and stabilizing 

population trends. PACs were developed by individual states to identify those areas that 

are critical for ensuring adequate representation, redundance, and resilience to conserve 

sage-grouse populations. Methods differed among states; in general, PAC boundaries 

were identified based on (1) sage-grouse population data including breeding bird density, 

lek counts, telemetry, nesting areas, known distributions, and sightings/observations; and 

(2) habitat data including occupied habitat, suitable habitat, seasonal habitat, nesting and 

brood rearing areas, and connectivity areas or corridors. Sage-grouse habitats outside of 

PACs also are important in assessing focal areas for management where they provide 

connectivity between PACs (genetic and habitat linkages), seasonal habitats that may 

have been underestimated due to emphasis on lek sites to define priority areas, habitat 

restoration and population expansion opportunities, and flexibility for managing habitat 

changes that may result from climate change (USFWS 2013). If PAC boundaries are 

adjusted, they will need to be updated for future analyses.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 29

Figure 14. Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) within the range of sage-grouse (USFWS 2013). Colored polygons within Management Zones delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Breeding bird density: Range-wide breeding bird density areas provide one of the 

few accessible data sets for further prioritizing actions within and adjacent to PACs to 

maintain species distribution and abundance. Doherty et al. (2010b) developed a useful 

framework for incorporating population data in their range-wide breeding bird density 

analysis, which used maximum counts of males on leks (n = 4,885) to delineate breeding 

bird density areas that contain 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the known breeding population 

(fig. 15). Leks were mapped according to these abundance values and buffered by a 6.4 

to 8.5 km (4.0 to 5.3 mi) radius to delineate nesting areas. Findings showed that while 

sage-grouse occupy extremely large landscapes, their breeding distribution is highly 

aggregated in comparably smaller identifiable population centers; 25% of the known 

population occurs within 3.9% (2.9 million ha; 7.2 million ac) of the species range, and 

75% of birds are within 27.0% of the species range (20.4 million ha; 50.4 million ac) 

(Doherty et al. 2010b). The Doherty et al. (2010b) analysis emphasized breeding habitats 

primarily because little broad scale data exist for summer and winter habitat use areas. 

Even though the current breeding bird density data provide the most comprehensive 

data available, they do not include all existing sage-grouse populations. Incorporating 

finer scale seasonal habitat use data at local levels where it is available will ensure 

management actions encompass all seasonal habitat requirements.

For this assessment, we chose to use State-level breeding bird density results from 

Doherty et al. (2010b) instead of range-wide model results to ensure that important 

breeding areas in MZs III, IV, and V were not underweighted due to relatively higher 

bird densities in the eastern portion of the range. It is important to note that breeding 

density areas were identified using best available information in 2009, so these rangewide data do not reflect the most current lek count information or changes in conditions 

since the original analysis. Also, breeding density areas should not be viewed as rigid 

boundaries but rather as the means to prioritize landscapes regionally where step-down 

assessments and actions may be implemented quickly to conserve the most birds.

Landscape cover of sagebrush: Landscape cover of sagebrush is one of the key 

determinants of sage-grouse population persistence and, in combination with an understanding of resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annuals, provides essential 

information both for determining priority areas for management and appropriate management actions (fig. 10; tables 2 and 3). Landscape cover of sagebrush is a measure of 

large, contiguous patches of sagebrush on the landscape and is calculated from remote 

sensing databases such as LANDFIRE (see Appendix 4). We used the three cover categories of sagebrush landscape cover discussed previously to predict the likelihood of 

sustaining sage-grouse populations (1-25%, 25-65%, >65%). The sagebrush landscape 

cover datasets were created using a moving window to summarize the proportion of 

area (5-km [3.1-mi] radius) dominated by sagebrush surrounding each 30-m pixel and 

then assigned those areas to the three categories (see Appendix 2). Because available 

sagebrush cover from sources such as LANDFIRE does not exclude recent fire perimeters, it was necessary to either include these in the analysis of landscape cover of 

sagebrush or display them separately. Although areas that have burned since 2000 likely 

do not currently provide desired sage-grouse habitat, areas with the potential to support 

sagebrush ecological types can provide conservation benefits in the overall planning 

effort especially within long-term conservation areas like PACs. The landscape cover of 

sagebrush and recent fire perimeters are illustrated for the western portion of the range 

(fig.16) and northeast Nevada (fig. 17).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 31

Figure 15. Range-wide sage-grouse breeding bird densities from Doherty et al. 2010. Points illustrate breeding bird density 

areas that contain 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the known breeding population and are based on maximum counts of males 

on leks (n = 4,885). Leks were mapped according to abundance values and buffered by 6.4 to 8.5 km (4.0 to 5.2 mi) to 

delineate nesting areas.
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 16. The landscape cover of sagebrush within each of three selected categories (1-25%, 26-65%, >65%) for Management Zones III, IV, and V (Stiver et al. 2006). The proportion of sagebrush (USGS 2013) within each of the categories 

in a 5-km (3.1-mi) radius surrounding each pixel was calculated relative to other land cover types for locations with sagebrush cover. Darker colored polygons within Management Zones delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 33

Figure 17. The landscape cover of sagebrush within each of the selected categories (1-25%, 26-65%, >65%) for the northeastern portion of Nevada. The proportion of sagebrush (USGS 2013) within each of the categories in a 5-km (3.1-mi) radius 

surrounding each pixel was calculated relative to other land cover types for locations with sagebrush cover. Darker colored 

polygons delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Resilience to disturbance and resistance to annuals: Soil temperature and moisture regimes are a strong indicator of ecological types and of resilience to disturbance 

and resistance to invasive annual plants (fig. 11; table 1). Resilience and resistance 

predictions coupled with landscape cover of sagebrush can provide critical information for determining focal areas for targeted management actions (tables 2, 3, and 4). 

The available data for the soil temperature and moisture regimes were recently compiled to predict resilience and resistance (see Appendix 3). These data, displayed for 

the western portion of the range and northeast Nevada (figs. 18 and 19), illustrate the 

spatial variability within the focal areas. Soil temperature and moisture regimes are two 

of the primary determinants of ecological types and of more detailed ecological site 

descriptions, which are described in the section on “Determining the Most Appropriate 

Management Treatments at the Project Scale.”

Habitat threats: Examining additional land cover data or models of invasive annual grasses and piñon and/or juniper, can provide insights into the current extent of 

threats in a planning area (e.g., Manier et al. 2013). In addition, evaluating data on fire 

occurrence and size can provide information on fire history and the rate and pattern of 

change within the planning area. Data layers for cheatgrass cover have been derived 

from Landsat imagery (Peterson 2006, 2007) and from model predictions based on 

species occurrence, climate variables, and anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., the Bureau 

of Land Management [BLM] Rapid Ecoregional Assessments [REAs]). The REAs contain a large amount of geospatial data that may be useful in providing landscape scale 

information on invasive species, disturbances, and vegetation types across most of the 

range of sage-grouse (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_Approach/

reas.html). Similarly, geospatial data for piñon and/or juniper have been developed 

for various States (e.g., Nevada and Oregon) and are becoming increasingly available 

rangewide. In addition, more refined data products are often available at local scales. 

Land managers can evaluate the available land cover datasets and select those land covers with the highest resolution and accuracy for the focal area. Land cover of cheatgrass 

and piñon and/or juniper and the fire history of the western portion of the range and 

northeast Nevada are in figures 20-25.

Assessing Focal Areas for Sage-Grouse Habitat Management: Integrating Data Layers

Combining resilience and resistance concepts with sage-grouse habitat and population data can help land managers further gauge relative risks across large landscapes 

and determine where to focus limited resources to conserve sage-grouse populations. 

Intersecting breeding bird density areas with soil temperature and moisture regimes 

provides a spatial tool to depict landscapes with high bird concentrations that may have 

a higher relative risk of being negatively affected by fire and annual grasses (figs. 26, 

27). For prioritization purposes, areas supporting 75% of birds (6.4 to 8.5 km [4.0 to 

5.2 mi] buffer around leks) can be categorized as high density while remaining breeding bird density areas (75-100% category; 8.5-km [5.2-mi] buffer around leks) can be 

categorized as low density. Similarly, warm and dry types can be categorized as having 

relatively low resilience to fire and resistance to invasive species and all other soil temperature and moisture regimes can be categorized as having relatively moderate to high 

resilience and resistance. Intersecting breeding bird density areas with landscape cover of 

sagebrush provides another spatial component revealing large and intact habitat blocks 

and areas in need of potential restoration to provide continued connectivity (fig. 28).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 35

Figure 18. The soil temperature and moisture regimes within sage-grouse Management Zones III, IV, and V (Stiver 

et al. 2006). Soil temperature and moisture classes were derived from the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) (Soil Survey Staff 2014a). Gaps in that dataset were filled 

in with the NRCS State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) (Soil Survey Staff 2014b). Darker colored polygons 

within Management Zones delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 19. The soil temperature and moisture regimes for the northeast corner of Nevada. Soil temperature and moisture 

classes were derived from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) 

(Soil Survey Staff 2014a). Gaps in that dataset were filled in with the NRCS State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) 

(Soil Survey Staff 2014b). Darker colored polygons delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 37

Figure 20. Invasive annual grass index for Nevada (Peterson 2006) and the Owhyee uplands (Peterson 2007) displayed 

for sage-grouse Management Zones III, IV, and V (Stiver et al. 2006). Lighter colored polygons within Management Zones 

delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 21. Invasive annual grass index for Nevada (Peterson 2006) and the Owhyee uplands (Peterson 2007) displayed for 

the northeast corner of Nevada. Lighter colored polygons delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 39

Figure 22. Piñon and/or juniper woodlands (USGS 2004; USGS 2013) within sage-grouse Management Zones III, IV, and V 

(Stiver et al. 2006). Lighter colored polygons within Management Zones delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013). 
40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 23. Piñon and/or juniper woodlands (USGS 2004; USGS 2013) within the northeast corner of Nevada. Lighter colored 

polygons delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 41

Figure 24. Fire perimeters (Walters et al. 2011; Butler and Bailey 2013) within sage-grouse Management Zones III, IV, 

and V (Stiver et al. 2006). Ligher colored polygons within Management Zones delineate Priority Areas for Conservation 

(USFWS 2013).
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 25. Fire perimeters (Walters et al. 2011; Butler and Bailey 2013) within the northeast corner of Nevada. Lighter 

colored polygons delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 43

Figure 26. Sage-grouse breeding bird densities (Doherty et al. 2010) for high breeding bird densities (areas that contain 

75% of known breeding bird populations) and low breeding bird densities (areas that contain all remaining breeding 

bird populations) relative to resilience and resistance within sage-grouse Management Zones III, IV, and V (Stiver et al. 

2006). Relative resilience and resistance groups are derived from soil moisture and temperature classes (Soil Survey 

Staff 2014a, b) as described in text, and indicate risk of invasive annual grasses and wildfire. Lighter colored polygons 

within Management Zones delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013). 
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 27. Sage-grouse breeding bird densities (Doherty et al. 2010) for high breeding bird densities (areas that contain 

75% of known breeding bird populations) and low breeding bird densities (areas that contain all remaining breeding bird 

populations) relative to resilience and resistance in the northeast corner of Nevada. Relative resilience and resistance 

groups are derived from soil moisture and temperature classes (Soil Survey Staff 2014a, b) as described in text, and indicate risk of invasive annual grasses and wildfire. Lighter colored polygons within Management Zones delineate Priority 

Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 45

Figure 28. Sage-grouse breeding bird densities (Doherty et al. 2010) for high breeding bird densities (areas that contain 

75% of known breeding bird populations) and low breeding bird densities (areas that contain all remaining breeding bird 

populations) relative to sagebrush cover. Lighter colored polygons within Management Zones delineate Priority Areas for 

Conservation (USFWS 2013).
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Resilience and resistance and sagebrush cover combined with bird population density data provide land managers a way to evaluate trade-offs of particular management 

options at the landscape scale. For example, high density, low resilience and resistance 

landscapes with >65% sagebrush landscape cover may require immediate attention for 

conservation efforts because they currently support a high concentration of birds but 

have the lowest potential to recover to desired conditions post-fire and to resist invasive plants when disturbed. Similarly, high density but moderate-to-high resilience and 

resistance landscapes with 26-65% sagebrush cover may be priorities for preventative 

actions like conifer removal designed to increase the proportion of sagebrush cover and 

maintain ecosystem resilience and resistance. Mapping relative resilience and resistance 

and landscape cover of sagebrush for sage-grouse breeding areas should be viewed as 

a component of the assessment process that can help local managers allocate resources 

to accelerate planning and implementation.

Interpretations at the Management Zone (MZ) Scale: Western Portion of the Range

An examination of land cover and additional data layers for the western portion of 

the range reveals large differences among Management Zones (MZs) III, IV and V. MZs 

IV and V have larger areas with sagebrush cover >65% than MZ III (fig. 16). This may 

be partly explained by basin and range topography in MZ III, which is characterized by 

large differences in both environmental conditions and ecological types over relatively 

short distances. However, the cover of piñon and juniper in and adjacent to PACs in 

MZ III also is higher than in either MZ IV or V (fig. 22). The greater cover of piñon 

and juniper in MZ III appears to largely explain the smaller patches of sagebrush cover 

in the 26-65% and >65% categories.

Our capacity to quantify understory vegetation cover using remotely sensed data is 

currently limiting, but a visual examination of estimates for invasive annual grass (fig. 

20; Peterson 2006, 2007) suggests a higher index (greater cover) in areas with relatively 

low resistance (warm soil temperatures) in all MZs (see fig. 18). This is consistent with 

current understanding of resistance to cheatgrass (Chambers et al. 2014; Chambers et 

al. in press). It is noteworthy that the invasive annual grass index is low for most of 

the central basin and range (central Nevada). Several factors may be contributing to 

the low index for this area including climate, the stage of piñon and juniper expansion 

and linked decrease in fire frequency, the relative lack of human development, and the 

relative lack of management treatments in recent decades (Wisdom et al. 2005; Miller 

et al. 2011). Not surprisingly, areas with a high annual grass index are outside or on 

the periphery of current PACs. However, it is likely that invasive annual grasses are 

present on many warmer sites and that they may increase following fire or other 

disturbances. In areas with low resistance to invasive annual grasses, they often exist in the understory of sagebrush ecosystems and are not detected by remote sensing 

platforms such as Landsat.

The number of hectares burned has been highest in MZ IV, adjacent areas in MZ V, 

and in areas with relatively low resilience and resistance in the northern portion of MZ 

III that have a high invasive annual grass index (figs. 18, 20, 24). A total of over 1.1 

million hectares (2.7 million acres) burned in 2000 and 2006, while over 1.7 million 

hectares (4.2 million acres) burned in 2007 and 2012 and almost three quarters of these 

acres were in MZ IV (table 5). In some cases, these fires appear to be linked to the 

annual invasive grass index, but in others it clearly is not. At this point, there appears 

to be little relationship between cover of piñon and juniper and wildfire. Mega-fires 

comprised of hundreds of thousands of acres have burned in recent years, especially 

in MZ IV. These fires have occurred primarily in areas with low to moderate resilience 

and resistance and during periods with extreme burning conditions.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 47

Coupling breeding bird densities with landscape cover of sagebrush indicates that 

populations with low densities tend to occur in areas where sagebrush cover is in the 26-

65% category, and few populations occur in areas with <25% sagebrush cover (fig. 27) 

(Knick et al. 2013). Combining the breeding bird densities with resilience and resistance 

indicates significant variability in risks among high density populations within PACs 

(fig. 26). A large proportion of remaining high density centers within PACs occurs on 

moderate-to-high resilience and resistance habitats, while low density/low resilience 

and resistance areas tend to occur along the periphery of PACs or are disproportionately 

located in MZ III and southern parts of MZ V.

Examination of other data layers suggests that different wildfire and invasive species 

threats exist across the western portion of the range, and that management should target 

the primary threats to sage-grouse habitat within focal areas. In MZs IV and V invasive 

annual grasses—especially on the periphery of the PACs—and wildfire are key threats. 

However, recent wildfires are not necessarily linked to invasive annual grasses. This 

suggests that management strategies for these MZs emphasize fire operations, fuels 

management focused on decreasing fire spread, and integrated strategies to control annual 

grasses and increase post-fire rehabilitation and restoration success. Differences in piñon 

and/or juniper landscape cover exist among MZs with 5,131,900 ha (12,681,202 ac) in 

MZ III, 528,377ha (1,305,649 ac) in MZ IV, and 558,880 ha (1,381,024 ac) in MZ V. 

Portions of MZs IV and V are still largely in early stages of juniper expansion indicating a need to address this threat before woodland succession progresses. Because of 

generally low resilience and resistance in MZ III, greater emphasis is needed on habitat 

conservation, specifically minimizing or eliminating stressors. Also, greater emphasis 

on reducing cover of piñon and juniper is needed to reduce woody fuels and increase 

sagebrush ecosystem resilience to fire by increasing the recovery potential of native 

understory species.

Table 5. The number of hectares (acres) burned in Management Zones III, IV, and V each year from 2000 to 2013. 

Management Management Management

Year Zone III Zone IV Zone V Total

2000 155,159 (383,405) 868,118 (2,145,165) 88,871 (219,606) 1,112,148 (2,748,176)

2001 164,436 (406,330) 272,870 (674,276) 141,454 (349,541) 578,760 (1,430,147)

2002 85,969 (212,433) 100,308 (247,867) 113,555 (280,601) 299,833 (740,902)

2003 21,869 (54,038) 127,028 (313,892) 27,597 (68,192) 176,493 (436,123)

2004 20,477 (50,600) 11,344 (28,032) 13,037 (32,216) 44,858 (110,847)

2005 45,130 (111,520) 374,894 (926,382) 22,039 (54,458) 442,063 (1,092,360)

2006 198,762 (491,150) 860,368 (2,126,014) 117,452 (290,230) 1,176,582 (2,907,394)

2007 371,154 (917,140) 1,240,303 (3,064,853) 134,520 (332,406) 1,745,977 (4,314,399)

2008 14,015 (34,632) 109,151 (269,717) 43,949 (108,599) 167,115 (412,949)

2009 43,399 (107,242) 12,250 (30,271) 47,918 (118,408) 103,568 (255,921)

2010 31,597 (78,078) 280,662 (693,531) 21,940 (54,216) 334,200 (825,825)

2011 83,411 (206,114) 283,675 (700,977) 22,909 (56,608) 389,995 (963,699)

2012 203,680 (503,303) 946,514 (2,338,885) 574,308 (1,419,144) 1,724,501 (4,261,331)

2013 45,976 (113,610) 368,434 (910,419) 15,852 (39,170) 430,262 (1,063,199)

Total 1,485,034 (3,669,595) 5,855,920 (14,470,281) 1,385,400 (3,423,396) 8,726,354 (21,563,271)
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Interpretations at Regional and Local Land Management Scales: Northeast Nevada 

Example

The same land covers and data layers used to assess focal areas for sage-grouse 

habitat within MZs in the western portion of the species range can be used to evaluate 

focal areas for management in regional planning areas and land management planning 

units. The emphasis at the scale of the land planning area or management planning unit 

is on maintaining or increasing large contiguous areas of sagebrush habitat with covers 

in the 26-65% and especially >65% category. Resilience to disturbance and resistance 

to invasive annual grasses as indicated by soil temperature and moisture regimes is 

used to determine the most appropriate activities within the different cover categories. 

The sage-grouse habitat matrix in table 2 describes the capacity of areas with differing 

resilience and resistance to recover following disturbance and resist annual invasive 

grasses and provides the management implications for each of the different cover categories. Table 4 provides potential management strategies for the different sagebrush 

cover and resilience and resistance categories (cells) in the sage-grouse habitat matrix 

by agency program areas (fire operations, fuels management, post-fire rehabilitation, 

habitat restoration). Note that the guidelines in table 4 are related to the sage-grouse 

habitat matrix, and do not preclude other factors from consideration when determining 

management priorities for program areas.

Here, we provide an example of how to apply the concepts and tools discussed in 

this report by examining an important region identified in the MZ scale assessment. The 

northeastern corner of Nevada was selected to illustrate the diversity of sage-grouse 

habitat within planning areas and the need for proactive collaboration both within agencies and across jurisdictional boundaries in devising appropriate management strategies 

(figs. 17, 19, 21, 23, 25). This part of Nevada has large areas of invasive annual grasses 

and areas with piñon and juniper expansion, and it has experienced multiple large fires 

in the last decade. It includes a BLM Field Office, Forest Service (FS) land, State land, 

multiple private owners, and borders two States (fig. 29), which results in both complex 

ownership and natural complexity.

In the northeast corner of Nevada, an area 5,403,877 ha (13,353,271 ac) in size, 

numerous large fires have burned in and around PACs (fig. 25). Since 2000, a total of 

1,144,317 ha (2,827,669 ac) have burned with the largest fires occurring in 2000, 2006, 

and 2007. This suggests that the primary management emphasis be on retaining existing areas of sagebrush in the 26-65% and especially >65% categories and promoting 

recovery of former sagebrush areas that have burned. Fire suppression in and around 

large, contiguous areas of sagebrush and also in and around successful habitat restoration or post-fire rehabilitation treatments is a first order priority. Fuels management also 

is a high priority and is focused on strategic placement of fuel breaks to reduce loss of 

large sagebrush stands by wildfire without jeopardizing existing habitat quality. Also, 

in the eastern portion of the area, piñon and juniper land cover comprises 471,645 ha 

(1,165,459 ac) (fig. 23). In this area, management priorities include (1) targeted tree 

removal in early to mid-phase (Phase I and II), post-settlement piñon and juniper expansion areas to maintain shrub/herbaceous cover and reduce fuel loads, and (2) targeted tree 

removal in later phase (Phase III) post-settlement piñon and juniper areas to reduce risk 

of high severity fire. In areas with moderate to high resilience and resistance, post-fire 

rehabilitation focuses on accelerating sagebrush establishment and recovery of perennial native herbaceous species. These areas often are capable of unassisted recovery 

and seeding is likely needed only in areas where perennial native herbaceous species 

have been depleted (Miller et al. 2013). Seeding introduced species can retard recovery 

of native perennial grasses and forbs that are important to sage-grouse and should be 

avoided in these areas (Knutson et al. 2014). Seeding or transplanting of sagebrush may 

be needed to accelerate establishment in focal areas.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 49

Figure 29. Land ownership for the northeast corner of Nevada. Lighter colored polygons delineate Priority Areas for Conservation (USFWS 2013).
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

In areas with lower resilience and resistance and high breeding bird densities, large, 

contiguous areas of sagebrush with intact understories are a high priority for conservation (figs. 17, 19, 27). In these areas, emphasis is on maintaining or increasing habitat 

conditions by minimizing stressors and disturbance. Post-fire rehabilitation and restoration activities focus on areas that increase connectivity among existing large areas 

of sagebrush. Because of low and variable precipitation, more than one intervention 

may be required to achieve restoration or rehabilitation goals. Appropriately managing 

livestock, wild horse and burro use (if applicable), and recreational use in focal areas is 

especially important to promote native perennial grass and forb growth and reproduction and to maintain or enhance resilience and resistance.

Determining the Most Appropriate Management Treatments at the Project Scale

Once focal areas and management priorities have been determined, potential treatment areas can be assessed to determine treatment feasibility and appropriate treatment 

methods. Different treatment options exist (figs. 30, 31) that differ in both suitability 

for a focal area and likely effectiveness. Field guides for sagebrush ecosystems and 

piñon and juniper expansion areas that incorporate resilience and resistance concepts 

are being developed to help guide managers through the process of determining both 

the suitability of an area for treatment and the most appropriate treatment. These guides 

are aligned with the different program areas and emphasize (1) fuel treatments (Miller 

et al. 2014a), (2) post-fire rehabilitation (Miller et al. 2014b), and (3) restoration (Pyke 

et al., in preparation). Additional information on implementing these types of management treatments is synthesized in Monsen et al. (2004) and Pyke (2011); additional 

information on treatment response is synthesized in Miller et al. (2013). In this section, 

we summarize the major steps in the process for determining the suitability of an area 

for treatment and the most appropriate treatment. We then provide an overview of two 

of the primary tools in the assessment process – ecological site descriptions (ESDs) and 

state and transition models (STMs). We conclude with a discussion of the importance 

of monitoring and adaptive management.

Steps in the process: Logical steps in the process of determining the suitability of 

an area for treatment and the most appropriate treatment(s) include (1) assessing the 

potential treatment area and identifying ecological sites, (2) determining the current 

successional state of the site, (3) selecting the appropriate action(s), and (4) monitoring 

and evaluation to determine post-treatment management. A general approach that uses 

questions to identify the information required in each step was developed (table 6). 

These questions can be modified to include the specific information needed for each 

program area and for treating different ecological sites. This format is used in the field 

guides described above.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 51

Figure 30. Common vegetation treatments for sagebrush dominated ecosystems with relatively 

low resilience and resistance include seeding after wildfire in areas that lack sufficient native 

perennial grasses and forbs for recovery (top) (photo by Chad Boyd), and mowing sagebrush to 

reinvigorate native perennial grasses and forbs in the understory (bottom) (photo by Scott Schaff). 

Success of mowing treatments depends on having adequate perennial grasses and forbs on the 

site to resist invasive annual grasses and to promote recovery.
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure 31. Vegetation treatments for sagebrush 

ecosystems exhibiting piñon and juniper expansion 

include cutting the trees with chainsaws and leaving 

them in place (top) (photo by Jeremy Roberts) and 

shredding them with a “bullhog” (middle) (photo by 

Bruce A. Roundy) on sites with relatively warm soils and 

moderately low resistance to cheatgrass. Prescribed 

fire (bottom) (photo by Jeanne C. Chambers) can be 

a viable treatment on sites with relatively cool and 

moist soils that have higher resilience to disturbance 

and resistance to invasive annual grasses. Treatment success depends on having adequate perennial 

grasses and forbs on the site to resist invasive annual 

grasses and promote recovery and will be highest on 

sites with relatively low densities of trees (Phase I to 

Phase II woodlands).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 53

Table 6. General guidelines for conducting fuels management, fire rehabilitation, and restoration treatments (modified from 

Miller et al. 2007; Tausch et al. 2009; Pyke 2011; Chambers et al. 2013).

Steps in the process Questions and considerations

I. Assess potential treatment 1. Where are priority areas for fuels management, fire rehabilitation or

 area and identify ecological restoration within the focal area? Consider sage-grouse habitat

 sites needs and resilience and resistance.

 2. What are the topographic characteristics and soils of the area? Verify 

soils mapped to the location and determine soil temperature/moisture 

regimes. Collect information on soil texture, depth and basic chemistry 

for restoration projects.

 3. How will topographic characteristics and soils affect vegetation recovery, 

plant establishment and erosion? Evaluate erosion risk based on topography and soil characteristics. 

 4. What are the potential native plant communities for the area? Match soil 

components to their correlated ESDs. This provides a list of potential 

species for the site(s).

II. Determine current state 5. Is the area still within the reference state for the ecological site(s)? 

 of the site

III. Select appropriate action 6. How far do sites deviate from the reference state? How will treatment 

success be measured?

 7. Do sufficient perennial shrubs and perennial grasses and forbs exist to 

facilitate recovery? 

 8. Are invasive species a minor component? 

 9. Do invasive species dominate the sites while native life forms are missing or severely under represented? If so, active restoration is required 

to restore habitat.

 10. Are species from drier or warmer ecological sites present? Restoration 

with species from the drier or warmer sites should be considered. 

 11. Have soils or other aspects of the physical environment been altered? 

Sites may have crossed a threshold and represent a new ecological 

site type requiring new site-specific treatment/restoration approaches.

IV. Determine post-treatment 12. How long should the sites be protected before land uses begin? In

 management general, sites with lower resilience and resistance should be protected 

for longer periods. 

 13. How will monitoring be performed? Treatment effectiveness monitoring 

includes a complete set of measurements, analyses, and a report.

 14. Are adjustments to the approach needed? Adaptive management is 

applied to future projects based on consistent findings from multiple 

locations.
54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Ecological site descriptions: ESDs and their associated STMs provide essential 

information for determining treatment feasibility and type of treatment. ESDs are part 

of a land classification system that describes the potential of a set of climate, topographic, and soil characteristics and natural disturbances to support a dynamic set of 

plant communities (Bestelmeyer et al. 2009; Stringham et al. 2003). NRCS soil survey 

data (http://soils.usda.gov/survey/), including soil temperature/moisture regimes and 

other soil characteristics, are integral to ESD development. ESDs have been developed 

by the NRCS and their partners to assist land management agencies and private land 

owners with making resource decisions, and are widely available for the Sage-grouse 

MZs except where soil surveys have not been completed (for a detailed description of 

ESDs and access to available ESDs see: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/

national/technical/ecoscience/desc/). ESDs assist managers to step-down generalized 

vegetation dynamics, including the concepts of resilience and resistance, to local scales. 

For example, variability in soil characteristics and the local environment (e.g., average 

annual precipitation as indicated by soil moisture regime) can strongly influence both 

plant community resilience to fire as well as the resistance of a plant community to 

invasive annual grasses after fire (table 1). Within a particular ESD, there is a similar 

level of resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annuals and this information 

can be used to determine the most appropriate management actions.

State and transition models: STMs are a central component of ecological site descriptions that are widely used by managers to illustrate changes in plant communities 

and associated soil properties, causes of change, and effects of management interventions 

(Stringham et al. 2003; Briske et al. 2005; USDA NRCS 2007) including in sagebrush 

ecosystems (Forbis et al. 2006; Barbour et al. 2007; Boyd and Svejcar 2009; Holmes 

and Miller 2010; Chambers et al. in press). These models use state (a relatively stable 

set of plant communities that are resilient to disturbance) and transition (the drivers of 

change among alternative states) to describe the range in composition and function of 

plant communities within ESDs (Stringham and others 2003; see Appendix 1 for definitions). The reference state is based on the natural range of conditions associated with 

natural disturbance regimes and often includes several plant communities (phases) that 

differ in dominant plant species relative to type and time since disturbance (Caudle et al. 

2013). Alternative states describe new sets of communities that result from factors such 

as inappropriate livestock use, invasion by annual grasses, or changes in fire regimes. 

Changes or transitions among states often are characterized by thresholds that may 

persist over time without active intervention, potentially causing irreversible changes 

in community composition, structure, and function. Restoration pathways are used to 

identify the environmental conditions and management actions required for return to 

a previous state. Detailed STMs that follow current interagency guidelines (Caudle et 

al. 2013), are aligned with the ecological types (table 1), and are generally applicable 

to MZs III (Southern Great Basin), IV (Snake River Plains), V (Northern Great Basin), 

and VI (Columbia Basin) are provided in Appendix 5.

A generalized STM to illustrate the use of STMs is shown in figure 32 for the warm 

and dry Wyoming big sagebrush ecological type. This ecological type occurs at relatively 

low elevations in the western part of the range and has low to moderate resilience to 

disturbance and management treatments and low resistance to invasion (table 1). This 

type is abundant in the western portion of the range, but as the STM suggests, it is highly 

susceptible to conversion to invasive annual grass and repeated fire and is difficult to 

restore. Intact sagebrush areas remaining in the reference state within this ecological type 

are a high priority for conservation. Invaded states or locations with intact sagebrush that 

lack adequate native perennial understory are a high priority for restoration where they 

bridge large, contiguous areas of sagebrush. However, practical methods to accomplish 

this are largely experimental and/or costly and further development, including adaptive 

science and management, is needed.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 55

Figure 32. A state and transition model that illustrates vegetation dynamics and restoration pathways for the warm and dry, 

Wyoming big sagebrush ecological type. This ecological type occurs at relatively low elevations in the western part of the range 

and has low to moderate resilience to disturbance and management treatments and low resistance to invasion.
56 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Monitoring and adaptive management: Monitoring programs designed to track 

ecosystem changes in response to both stressors and management actions can be used 

to increase understanding of ecosystem resilience and resistance, realign management 

approaches and treatments, and implement adaptive management (Reever-Morghan et 

al. 2006; Herrick et al. 2012). Information is increasing on likely changes in sagebrush 

ecosystems with additional stress and climate warming, but a large degree of uncertainty 

still exits. Currently, the NRCS National Resource Inventory is being used on private 

lands and is being implemented on public lands managed by BLM to monitor trends 

in vegetation attributes and land health at the landscape scale under the AIM (Assessment Inventory and Monitoring) strategy. Strategic placement of monitoring sites and 

repeated measurements of ecosystem status and trends (e.g., land cover type, ground 

cover, vegetation cover and height of native and invasive species, phase of tree expansion, soil and site stability, oddities) can be used to decrease uncertainty and increase 

effectiveness of management decisions. Ideally, monitoring sites span environmental/

productivity gradients and sagebrush ecological types that characterize sage-grouse 

habitat. Of particular importance are (1) ecotones between ecological types where 

changes in response to climate are expected to be largest (Loehle 2000; Stohlgren et al. 

2000), (2) ecological types with climatic conditions and soils that are exhibiting invasion 

and repeated fires, and (3) ecological types with climatic conditions and soils that are 

exhibiting tree expansion and increased fire risk. Monitoring the response of sagebrush 

ecosystems to management treatments, including both pre- and post-treatment data, is a 

first order priority because it provides information on treatment effectiveness that can 

be used to adjust methodologies.

Monitoring activities are most beneficial when consistent approaches are used among 

and within agencies to collect, analyze, and report monitoring data. Currently, effectiveness monitoring databases that are used by multiple agencies do not exist. However, 

several databases have been developed for tracking fire-related and invasive-species 

management activities. The National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System (NFPORS) is an interdepartmental and interagency database that accounts for hazardous 

fuel reduction, burned area rehabilitation and community assistance activities. To our 

knowledge, NFPORS is not capable of storing and retrieving the type of effectiveness 

monitoring information that is needed for adaptive management. The FEAT FIREMON 

Integrated (FFI; https://www.frames.gov/partner-sites/ffi/ffi-home/) is a monitoring 

software tool designed to assist managers with collection, storage and analysis of ecological information. It was constructed through a complementary integration of the Fire 

Ecology Assessment Tool (FEAT) and FIREMON. This tool allows the user to select 

among multiple techniques for effectiveness monitoring. If effectiveness monitoring 

techniques were agreed on by the agencies, FFI does provide databases with standard 

structures that could be used in inter-agency effectiveness monitoring. Also, the National 

Invasive Species Information Management System (NISIMS) is designed to reduce 

redundant data entry regarding invasive species inventory, management and effectiveness monitoring with the goal of providing information that can be used to determine 

effective treatments for invasive species. However, NISIMS is currently available only 

within the BLM.

Common databases can be used by agency partners to record and share monitoring 

data. The Land Treatment Digital Library (LTDL [USGS 2010]) provides a method of 

archiving and collecting common information for land treatments and might be 

used as a framework for data storage and retrieval. Provided databases are relational (maintain a common field for connecting them), creating single corporate 

databases is not necessary. However, barriers that hinder database access within 

and among agencies and governmental departments may need to be lowered 

while still maintaining adequate data security. The LTDL has demonstrated how 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 57

this can work by accessing a variety of databases to populate useful information 

relating to land treatments.

For effectiveness of treatments to be easily useable for adaptive management, 

the agencies involved will need to agree on monitoring methods and a common 

data storage and retrieval system. Once data can be retrieved, similar treatment 

projects can be evaluated to determine how well they achieve objectives for 

sage-grouse habitat, such as the criteria outlined in documents like the Habitat 

Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2006). Results of monitoring activities on 

treatment effectiveness are most useful when shared across jurisdictional boundaries, and several mechanisms are currently in place to improve information 

sharing (e.g., the Great Basin Fire Science Delivery Project; www.gbfiresci.org).

References _______________________________________________________

Abatzoglou, J. T.; Kolden, C. A. 2011. Climate change in western US deserts: potential for increased wildfire 

and invasive annual grasses. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:471-478.

Aldridge, C. L.; Nielsen, S. E.; Beyer, H. L.; Boyce, M. S.; Connelly, J. W.; Knick, S. T.; Schroeder, M. A. 

2008. Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse persistence. Diversity and Distributions 14:983–994.

Alexander, E. B.; Mallory, J. I.; Colwell, W. L. 1993. Soil-elevation relationships on a volcanic plateau in 

the southern Cascade Range, northern California, USA. Catena 20:113-128.

Allen, C. R.; Gunderson, L.; Johnson, A. R. 2005. The use of discontinuities and functional groups to assess 

relative resilience in complex systems. Ecosystems 8:958-966.

Arredondo, J. T.; Jones, T.A.; Johnson, D. A. 1998. Seedling growth of Intermountain perennial and weedy 

annual grasses. Journal of Range Management 51:584-589.

Atamian, M.T.; Sedinger, J.S.; Heaton, J.S.; Blomberg, E.J. 2010. Landscape-level assessment of brood 

rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse in Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1533–1543.

Balch, J. K.; Bradley, B. A.; D’Antonio, C. M.; Gomez-Dans, J. 2013. Introduced annual grass increases 

regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980–2009). Global Change Biology 19:173-183.

Barbour, R. J.; Hemstrom, M. A.; Hayes, J. L. 2007. The Interior Northwest Landscape Analysis System: 

a step toward understanding integrated landscape analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:333-344.

Baruch-Mordo, S; Evans, J. S.; Severson, J. P.; Naugle; D.E.; Maestas, J. D.; Kiesecker, J. M.; Falkowski, 

M. J.; Christian A. Hagen, C. A.; Reese, K. P. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167:233-241.

Bates, J.D.; Sharp, R.N.; Davies, K.W. 2013. Sagebrush steppe recovery after fire varies by development 

phase of Juniperus occidentalis woodland. International Journal of Wildland Fire 23:117-130.

Beck, J. L.; Mitchell, D.L. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:993-1002.

Beisner B. E.; Haydon, D. T.; Cuddington. K. 2003. Alternative stable states in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology 1:376-382

Bestelmeyer, B. T.; Tugel, A. J.; Peacock, G. L. J.; Robinett, D. G.; Shaver, P. L.; Brown, J. R.; Herrick, 

J. E.; Sanchez, H.; Havstad, K.M. 2009. State-and transition models for heterogeneous landscapes: a 

strategy for development and application. Rangeland Ecology and Management 62:1-15

Blank R. S.; Morgan, T. 2012. Suppression of Bromus tectorum L. by established perennial grasses: 

potential mechanisms – Part One. Applied Environmental Soil Science 2012: Article ID 632172. 9 p. 

doi:10.1155/2012/632172.

Blomberg, E. J.; Sedinger, J. S.; Atamian, M. T.; Nonne, D. V. 2012. Characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations. Ecosphere 3(6):55. Online: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00304.1.

Booth, M. S.; Caldwell, M. M.; Stark, J. M. 2003. Overlapping resource use in three Great Basin species: 

implications for community invisibility and vegetation dynamics. Journal of Ecology 91:36-48.

Boyd, C. S.; Svejcar, T. J. 2009. Managing complex problems in rangeland ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology and Management 62:491-499.

Bradford, J. B.; Lauenroth, W. K. 2006. Controls over invasion of Bromus tectorum: the importance of 

climate, soil, disturbance and seed availability. Journal of Vegetation Science 17:693-704.

Bradley B.A. 2009. Regional analysis of the impacts of climate change on cheatgrass invasion shows potential risk and opportunity. Global Change Biology 15:196-208 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01709.x.

Bradley, B. A.; Mustard, J. F. 2005. Identifying land cover variability distinct from land cover change: 

cheatgrass in the Great Basin. Remote Sensing of Environment 94:204-213.
58 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Briske, D. D.; Fuhlendorf, S. D.; Smeins, F. E. 2005. State-and-transition models, thresholds, rangeland 

health: a synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58:1-10.

Brooks M. L.; Chambers, J. C. 2011. Resistance to invasion and resilience to fire in desert shrublands of 

North America. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:431–438.

Brooks, M. L.; D’Antonio, C. M.; Richardson, D. M.; Grace, J. B.; Keeley, J. E.; DiTomaso, J. M.; Hobbs, 

R. J.; Pellant, M.; Pyke, D. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54:677-688.

Brown, J. K.; Smith, J. K. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen.Tech. Rep. 

RMRS- GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 257 p.

Butler, B. B.; Bailey, A. 2013. Disturbance history (Historical Wildland Fires). Updated 8/9/2013. Wildland 

Fire Decision Support System. Online: https://wfdss.usgs.gov/wfdss/WFDSS_Data_Downloads.shtml. 

[Accessed 5 March 2014].

Casazza, M. L.; Coates, P. S.; Overton; C. T. 2011. Linking habitat selection and brood success in Greater 

Sage-Grouse. In: Sandercock, B.K.; Martin, K.; Segelbacher, G., eds. Ecology, conservation, and management of grouse. Studies in Avian Biology 39., Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 151-167.

Caudle, D.; DiBenedetto, J.; Karl, M.; Sanchez, H.; Talbot, C. 2013. Interagency ecological site handbook 

for rangelands. Online: http://jornada.nmsu.edu/sites/jornada.nmsu.edu/files/InteragencyEcolSiteHandbook.pdf [Accessed 17 June 2014].

Chambers, J. C.; Bradley, B.A.; Brown, C.A.; D’Antonio, C.; Germino, M. J.; Hardegree, S. P; Grace, 

J. B.; Miller, R. F.; Pyke, D. A. 2014. Resilience to stress and disturbance, and resistance to Bromus 

tectorum L. invasion in the cold desert shrublands of western North America. Ecosystems 17: 360-375

Chambers, J.C.; Miller, R. F.; Board, D. I.; Grace,J. B.; Pyke, D. A.; Roundy, B. A.; Schupp, E. W.; Tausch, 

R. J. [In press].Resilience and resistance of sagebrush ecosystems: implications for state and transition 

models and management treatments. Rangeland Ecology and Management.

Chambers, J. C.; Pendleton, B. K.; Sada, D. W.; Ostoja, S. M.; Brooks, M. L.. 2013. Maintaining and 

restoring sustainable ecosystems. In: Chambers, J. C.; Brooks, M. L.; Pendleton, B. K.; Raish, C. B., 

eds. The Southern Nevada Agency Partnership Science and Research Synthesis: Science to support land 

management in southern Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-303. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station:125-154.

Chambers, J. C.; Roundy, B. A.; Blank, R. R.; Meyer, S. E.; Whittaker, A. 2007. What makes Great Basin 

sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs 77:117-145.

Condon L.; Weisberg, P. L.; Chambers, J. C. 2011. Abiotic and biotic influences on Bromus tectorum invasion and Artemisia tridentata recovery after fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20:1-8.

Connelly, J. W.; Hagen, C. A.; Schroeder, M. A. 2011a. Characteristics and dynamics of greater sage-grouse 

populations. In: Knick, S.T.; Connelly J.W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, 

CA: 53-68.

Connelly, J. W.; Rinkes, E. T.; Braun, C. E. 2011b. Characteristics of greater sage-grouse habitats: a landscape species at micro and macro scales. In: Knick, S.T.; Connelly, J.W., eds. Greater Sage-Grouse: 

ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. University 

of California Press, Berkeley, CA: 69-84.

D’Antonio C. M.; Thomsen M. 2004. Ecological resistance in theory and practice. Weed Technology 

18:1572-1577.

D’Antonio C. M.; Vitousek, P. M. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and 

global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87.

Dahlgren R. A; Boettinger, J. L.; Huntington, G. L.; Amundson, R. G. 1997. Soil development along an 

elevational transect in the western Sierra Nevada. Geoderma 78:207-236.

Davies, K. W.; Boyd, C. S.; Beck, J. L.; Bates, J. D.; Svejcar, T. J.; Gregg, M. A. 2011. Saving the sagebrush 

sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities. Biological Conservation 

144: 2573–2584.

Davies, K. W.; Svejcar, T. J.; Bates, J. D. 2009. Interaction of historical and nonhistorical disturbances 

maintains native plant communities. Ecological Applications 19(6): 1536–1545.

Davies G. M.; Bakker, J. D.; Dettweiler-Robinson, E.; Dunwiddie, P. W.; Hall, S.A.; Downs, J.; Evans, J. 

2012. Trajectories of change in sagebrush-steppe vegetation communities in relation to multiple wildfires. 

Ecological Applications 22:1562-1577.

Doherty, K. E.; Naugle, D. E.; Walker, B. L.; Graham, J. M. 2008. Greater sage-grouse winter habitat 

selection and energy development. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:187-195.

Doherty, K. E.; Naugle, D. E.; Walker, B. L. 2010a. Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat: The Importance 

of Managing at Multiple Scales. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1544-1553.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 59

Doherty, K. E.; Tack, J. D.; Evans, J. S.; Naugle, D. E 2010b. Mapping breeding densities of greater 

sage-grouse: A tool for range-wide conservation planning. BLM completion report: Agreement # 

L10PG00911. Online: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/fish__wildlife_and/sage-grouse.Par.6386.File.dat/MOU%20on%20Greater%20Sage-Grouse.

pdf [Accessed 17 June 2014].

Eckert, R. E.; Peterson, F. F.; Meurisse, M. S.; Stephens, J. L. 1986. Effects of soil-surface morphology on 

emergence and survival of seedlings in big sagebrush communities. Journal Range Management 39:414-420

Finney, M. A.; McHugh, C. W.; Grenfell, I. 2010. Continental-scale simulation of burn probabilities, flame 

lengths, and fire size distributions for the United States. In: Viegas, D. X., ed. Fourth international 

conference on forest fire research; Coimbra, Portugal; 13-18 November 2010. Associacao para o Desenvolvimento da Aerodinamica Industrial. 12 p.

Folke C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C. S. 2004. Regime 

shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, 

and Systematics 35:557-581.

Forbis, T. A.; Provencher, L.; Frid, L.; Medlyn, G. 2006. Great Basin land management planning using 

ecological modeling. Environmental Management 38:62-83.

Frost, C. C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States. A first approximation. In: 

Pruden, T. T.; Brennan, L. A., eds. Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression 

to prescription. Proceedings 20th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers 

Research Station: 70-82.

Herrick, J. E.; Duniway, M. C.; Pyke, D. A.; Bestelmeyer, B. T.; Wills, S. A.; Brown, J. R.; Karl, J. W.; 

Havstad, K. M. 2012. A holistic strategy for adaptive land management. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation 67: 105A-113A.

Holling C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability in ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23.

Holmes, A. A.; Miller, R. F. 2010. State-and-transition models for assessing grasshopper sparrow habitat 

use. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1834–1840. doi: 10.2193/2009-417.

Jackson S. T. 2006. Vegetation, environment, and time: The origination and termination of ecosystems. 

Journal of Vegetation Science 17:549-557.

James, J. J.; Drenovsky, R. A.; Monaco, T. A.; Rinella, M. J. 2011. Managing soil nitrogen to restore annual 

grass-infested plant communities: Effective strategy or incomplete framework? Ecological Applications 

21:490-502

Johnson D. D.; Miller, R. F. 2006. Structure and development of expanding western juniper woodlands as 

influenced by two topographic variables. Forest Ecology and Management 229:7-15.

Johnson, D. H.; Holloran, M. J.; Connelly, J. W.; Hanser, S. E.; Amundson, C. L.; Knick, S. T. 2011. Influence of environmental and anthropogenic features on greater sage-grouse populations. In: Knick S. 

T.; Connelly, J. W., eds. Greater sage-grouse – ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its 

habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 407-450.

Kaltenecker, .J. H.; Wicklow-Howard, M., Pellant, M. 1999. Biological soil crusts: natural barriers to Bromus 

tectorum L. establishment in the northern Great Basin, USA. In: Eldridge D.; Freudenberger D., eds. 

Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress; Aitkenvale, Queensland, Australia: 109-111.

Keeley, J. 2009. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: A brief review and suggested usage. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:116–126.

Kirol, C. P.; Beck, J. L.; Dinkins, J. B.; Conover, M. R. 2012. Microhabitat selection for nesting and brood 

rearing by the greater sage-grouse in xeric big sagebrush. The Condor 114(1):75-89.

Knapp, P. A. 1996. Cheatgass (Bromus tectorum) dominance in the Great Basin Desert. Global Environmental Change 6:37-52.

Knick, S. T.; Hanser, S. E.; Preston, K. L. 2013. Modeling ecological minimum requirements for distribution of greater sage-grouse leks: Implications for population connectivity across their western range, 

U.S.A. Ecology and Evolution 3(6):1539–1551.

Knutson, K. C.; Pyke, D. A.; Wirth, T. A.; Arkle, R. S.; Pilliod, D. S.; Brooks, M. L.; Chambers, J. C.; 

Grace, J. B. 2014. Long-term effects of reseeding after wildfire on vegetation composition in the Great 

Basin shrub steppe. Journal of Applied Ecology. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12309.

Littell, J. S.; McKenzie, D.; Peterson, D. L.; Westerling, A. L. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in 

the western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19:1003-1021.

Lockyer, Z. B. 2012. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predators, nest survival, and 

nesting habitat at multiple spatial scales. M.S. thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State 

University, Pocatello, ID.

Loehle, C. 2000. Forest ecotone response to climate change: Sensitivity to temperature response functional 

forms. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 1362-1645.

Mack, R. N.; Pyke, D. A. 1983. Demography of Bromus tectorum: Variation in time and space. Journal of 

Ecology 71: 6993.
60 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Manier, D. J.; Wood, D. J. A.; Bowen, Z. H.; Donovan, R. M.; Holloran, M. J.; Juliusson, L. M.; Mayne, K. 

S.; Oyler-McCance, S. J.; Quamen, F. R.; Saher, D. J.; Titolo, A. J. 2013. Summary of science, activities, 

programs and policies that influence the rangewide conservation of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus). Open-File Report 2013-1098. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 297 p.

Meinke, C. W.; Knick, S. T.; Pyke, D. A. 2009. A spatial model to prioritize sagebrush landscapes in the 

Intermountain West (U.S.A.) for restoration. Restoration Ecology 17:652-659.

Mensing, S.; Livingston, S.; Barker, P. 2006. Long-term fire history in Great Basin sagebrush reconstructed 

from macroscopic charcoal in spring sediments, Newark Valley, Nevada. Western North American 

Naturalist 66:64-77.

Merrill K. R.; Meyer, S. E.; Coleman, C. E. 2012, Population genetic analysis of Bromus tectorum (Poa-

ceae) indicates recent range expansion may be facilitated by specialist geonotypes. American Journal 

of Botany 99:529-537.

Meyer S. E.; Garvin, S. C.; Beckstead, J. 2001. Factors mediating cheatgrass invasion of intact salt desert 

shrubland. In: McArthur, D. E.; Fairbanks, D. J., comps. Shrubland ecosystem genetics and biodiversity: 

proceedings. Proc. RMRS-P-21. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 224-232.

Miller, R. F; Bates, J. D.; Svejcar, T. J.; Pierson, F. B.; Eddleman, L. E. 2005. Biology, ecology, and 

management of western juniper. Tech. Bull. 152. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural 

Experiment Station.

Miller, R.F.; Bates, J.D.; Svejcar, T.J.; Pierson, F.B.; Eddleman, L.E. 2007. Western juniper field guide: 

asking the right questions to select appropriate management actions. Geological Survey Circular 1321. 

Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey,

Miller R. F; Chambers, J. C.; Pellant, M. 2014a. A field guide to selecting the most appropriate treatments 

in sagebrush and pinyon-juniper ecosystems in the Great Basin: Evaluating resilience to disturbance and 

resistance to invasive annual grasses and predicting vegetation response. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-322. 

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

Miller R. F.; Chambers, J. C.; Pellant, M.[In preparation]. A field guide for rapid assessment of postwildfire recovery potential in sagebrush and pinon-juniper ecosystems in the Great Basin: Evaluating 

resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses and predicting vegetation response. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-###. . Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Miller, R. F.; Chambers, J. C.; Pyke, D. A.; Pierson, F. B.; Williams, C. J. 2013. A review of fire effects on 

vegetation and soils in the Great Basin Region: Response and ecological site characteristics. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-308. Fort Collins, CO: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 136 p.

Miller, R. F.; Eddleman, L L. 2001. Spatial and temporal changes of sage grouse habitat in the sagebrush 

biome. Bulletin 151. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station.

Miller, R. F.; Heyerdahl, E. K. 2008. Fine-scale variation of historical fire regimes in sagebrush-steppe and 

juniper woodlands: an example from California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17: 245-254.

Miller R. F.; Knick, S. T.; Pyke, D. A.; Meinke, C. W.; Hanser, S. E.; Wisdom, M. J.; Hild, A. L. 2011. 

Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term conservation. In: Knick S. T.; Con-

nelly, J. W. eds. Greater sage-grouse – ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 145-185.

Miller, R.F.; Svejcar, T.J.; Rose, J.A. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on plant community composition 

and structure. Journal of Range Management 53:574-585.

Miller, R. F.; Tausch, R. J.; McArthur, E. D.; Johnson, D. D.; Sanderson, S. C. 2008. Age structure and 

expansion of piñon-juniper woodlands: A regional perspective in the Intermountain West. Res. Pap. 

RMRS-RP-69. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 15 p.

Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. 2004. Restoring western ranges and 

wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-1, 2, and 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 884 p. + appendices and index.

Murphy, T.; Naugle, D. E.; Eardley, R.; Maestas, J. D.; Griffiths, T.; Pellant, M.; Stiver, S. J. 2013. Trial by 

fire: Improving our ability to reduce wildfire impacts to sage-grouse and sagebrush ecosystems through 

accelerated partner collaboration. Rangelands 32:2–10.

Oregon Department of Forestry. 2013. West wide wildfire risk assessment final report. Salem, OR: Oregon 

Department of Forestry. 105 p. Online: http://www.odf.state.or.us/gis/data/Fire/West_Wide_Assessment/

WWA_FinalReport.pdf [Accessed 17 June 2014].

Peterson, E. B. 2006. A map of invasive annual grasses in Nevada derived from multitemporal Landsat 5 

TM imagery. Carson City, NV: State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 61

Peterson, E. B. 2007. A map of annual grasses in the Owyhee Uplands, Spring 2006, derived from multitemporal Landsat 5 TM imagery. Carson City, NV: State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Nevada Natural Heritage Program.

Pyke, D. A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. In: Knick, S. T.; Connelly, J. W., eds. 

Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 531-548.

Pyke, D. A., M. Pellant, S. T. Knick, J. L. Beck, P. S. Doescher, E. W. Schupp, J. C. Chambers, R. F. Miller, 

B. A. Roundy, M. Brunson, and J. D. McIver. [In preparation]. Field guide for restoration of sagebrushsteppe ecosystems with special emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat- considerations to increase the 

likelihood of success at local to regional levels. U.S. Geological Circular, Reston, VA.

Ramakrishnan A. P.; Meyer, S. E.; Fairbanks, D. J.; Coleman, C. E. 2006. Ecological significance of microsatellite variation in western North American populations of Bromus tectorum. Plant Species Biology 

21:61-73.

Redford, K. H.; Amoto, G.; Baillie, J.; Beldomenico, P.; Bennett, E. L.; Clum, N.; Cook, R.; Fonseca, 

G.; Hedges, S.; Launay, F.; Lieberman, S.; Mace, G. M.; Murayama, A.; Putnam, A.; Robinson, J. G.; 

Rosenbaum, H.; Sanderson, E. W.; Stuart, S. N.; Thomas, P.; Thorbjarnarson, J. 2011. What does it mean 

to successfully conserve a (vertebrate) species? Bioscience 61:39-48.

Reever-Morghan, K. J.; Sheley, R. L.; Svejcar, T. J. 2006. Successful adaptive management: The integration 

of research and management. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59:216-219.

Reisner, M. D.; Grace, J. B.; Pyke, D. A.; Doescher, P. S. 2013. Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum

dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:1039-1049.

Roundy, B. A.; Young, K.; Cline, N.; Hulet, A.; Miller, R. F.; Tausch, R. J.; Chambers, J. C.; Rau, B. [In 

press]. Piñon-juniper reduction effects on soil temperature and water availability of the resource growth 

pool. Rangeland Ecology and Management.

Rowland, M. M.; Leu, M.; Finn, S. P.; Hanser, S.; Suring, L. H.; Boys, J. M.; Meinke, C. W.; Knick, S. T.; 

Wisdom, M. J. 2006. Assessment of threats to sagebrush habitats and associated species of concern in 

the Wyoming Basins. Version 1, March 2005. Unpublished report on file at: USGS Biological Resources 

Discipline, Snake River Field Station, Boise, ID.

Sala, O. E.; Lauenroth,W. K.; Gollucio, R. A. 1997. Plant functional types in temperate semi-arid regions. 

In: Smith, T. M.; Shugart, H. H.; Woodward, F. I., eds. Plant functional types. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 217-233.

Seastedt T. R.; Hobbs, R. J.; Suding, K. N. 2008. Management of novel ecosystems: Are novel approaches 

required? Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6:547-553.

Smith, S. D.; Nowak, R. S.; 1990. Ecophysiology of plants in the Intermountain lowlands. In: Osmond, 

C. B.; Pitelka, L. F.; Hidy, G. M., eds. Plant Biology of the Basin and Range. Springer-Verlag: 179-242.

Soil Survey Staff. 2014a. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Online: http://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

[Accessed 3 March 2014].

Soil Survey Staff. 2014b. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2) Database. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Online: http://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

[Accessed 3 March 2014].

Stiver, S. J.; Apa, A. D.; Bohne, J. R.; Bunnell, S. D.; Deibert, P. A.; Gardner, S. C.; Hilliard, M. A.; McCarthy, 

C. W.; Schroeder, M. A. 2006. Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Unpublished 

report on file at: Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY.

Stohlgren, T. J.; Owen, A. J.; Lee, M. 2000. Monitoring shifts in plant diversity in response to climate 

change: a method for landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:165-186.

Stringham, T. K.; Krueger, W. C.; Shaver, P. L. 2003. State and transition modeling: An ecological process 

approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106–113.

Tausch, R. J.; Miller, R. R.; Roundy, B. A.; Chambers, J. C. 2009. Piñon and juniper field guide: asking 

the right questions to select appropriate management actions. Circular 1335. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 94 p. Online: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1335/. [Accessed 

17 June 2014].

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA-NRCS]. 2007. National soil survey handbook, Title 

430-VI. Online: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 

/. [Accessed 17 June 2014].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month 

findings for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or 

endangered; proposed rule. Fed. Register 75, 13910–14014. Online: http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2010/2010-5132.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) conservation objectives: Final Report. Denver, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 91 p.
62 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. Land Treatment Digital Database. Online: http://ltdl.wr.usgs.gov/. 

[Accessed 17 June 2014].

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013: LANDFIRE 1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. Updated 3/13/2013. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Online: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/

viewer/. [Accessed 17 June 2014].

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Gap Analysis Program. 2004. Provisional digital land cover map for 

the southwestern United States. Version 1.0. Logan: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, 

RS/GIS Laboratory. Online: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/landcover.html. [Accessed 9 June 2014].

Walters, S. P.; Schneider, N. J.; Guthrie, J. D. 2011. Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination (GeoMAC) 

wildland fire perimeters, 2008. Data Series 612: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 6 p.

West, N.E. 1983a. Intermountain salt-desert shrubland. In: West, N.E., ed. Temperate deserts and semideserts. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Publishing Company: 375-378.

West, N. E. 1983b. Great Basin-Colorado Plateau sagebrush semi-desert. In: West, N. E., ed. Temperate 

deserts and semi-deserts. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Publishing Company: 331-350

West, N. E.; Young, J. A. 2000. Intermountain valleys and lower mountain slopes. In: Barbour, M. B.; Billings, 

W. D., eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 256-284

Westerling A. L.; Hidalgo, H. G.; Cayan, D. R.; Swetnam, T. W. 2006. Warming and early spring increase 

U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313: 940-943.

Wisdom, M. J.; Chambers, J. C. 2009. A landscape approach for ecologically-based management of Great 

Basin shrublands. Restoration Ecology 17:740-749.

Wisdom, M. J.; Meinke, C. W.; Knick, S. T.; Schroeder, M. A. 2011. Factors associated with extirpation of 

sage-grouse. In: Knick, S. T.; Connelly, J. W., eds. Greater sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press: 451-474.

Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H. eds. 2005. Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: 

Methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group, Allen Press. 301 p.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 63

Appendix 1. Definitions of Terms Used in This Document________________

At-Risk Community Phase — A community phase that can be designated within the 

reference state and also in alternative states. This community phase is the most 

vulnerable to transition to an alternative state (Caudle et al. 2013). 

Community Phase — A unique assemblage of plants and associated soil properties 

that can occur within a state (Caudle et al. 2013).

Ecological Site (ES) — An Ecological Site (ES)is a conceptual division of the landscape 

that is defined as a distinctive kind of land based on recurring soil, landform, geological, and climate characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability 

to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its ability to respond 

similarly to management actions and natural disturbances (Caudle et al. 2013).

Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) — The documentation of the characteristics of an 

ecological site. The documentation includes the data used to define the distinctive 

properties and characteristics of the ecological site; the biotic and abiotic characteristics that differentiate the site (i.e., climate, topography, soil characteristics, plant 

communities); and the ecological dynamics of the site that describes how changes 

in disturbance processes and management can affect the site. An ESD also provides 

interpretations about the land uses and ecosystem services that a particular ecological site can support and management alternatives for achieving land management 

(Caudle et al. 2013).

Ecological Type — A category of land with a distinctive (i.e., mappable) combination 

of landscape elements. The elements making up an ecological type are climate, geology, geomorphology, soils, and potential natural vegetation. Ecological types differ 

from each other in their ability to produce vegetation and respond to management 

and natural disturbances (Caudle et al. 2013). 

Historical Range of Variability — Range of variability in disturbances, stressors, and 

ecosystem attributes that allows for maintenance of ecosystem resilience and resistance 

and that can be used to provide management targets (modified from Jackson 2006). 

Resilience — Ability of a species and/or its habitat to recover from stresses and disturbances. Resilient ecosystems regain their fundamental structure, processes, and 

functioning when altered by stresses like increased CO2 , nitrogen deposition, and 

drought and to disturbances like land development and fire (Allen et al. 2005; Holling 1973). 

Resistance — Capacity of an ecosystem to retain its fundamental structure, processes 

and functioning (or remain largely unchanged) despite stresses, disturbances, or 

invasive species (Folke et al. 2004).

Resistance to Invasion — Abiotic and biotic attributes and ecological processes of an 

ecosystem that limit the population growth of an invading species (D’Antonio and 

Thomsen 2004).

Restoration Pathways — Restoration pathways describe the environmental conditions 

and practices that are required for a state to recover that has undergone a transition 

(Caudle et al. 2013).

State — A state is a suite of community phases and their inherent soil properties that 

interact with the abiotic and biotic environment to produce persistent functional and 

structural attributes associated with a characteristic range of variability (adapted 

from Briske et al. 2008). 
64 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

State-and-Transition Model — A method to organize and communicate complex 

information about the relationships between vegetation, soil, animals, hydrology, 

disturbances (fire, lack of fire, grazing and browsing, drought, unusually wet periods, insects and disease), and management actions on an ecological site (Caudle et 

al. 2013). 

Thresholds — Conditions sufficient to modify ecosystem structure and function beyond 

the limits of ecological resilience, resulting in the formation of alternative states 

(Briske et al. 2008). 

Transition — Transitions describe the biotic or abiotic variables or events, acting 

independently or in combination, that contributes directly to loss of state resilience 

and result in shifts between states. Transitions are often triggered by disturbances, 

including natural events (climatic events or fire) and/or management actions (grazing, burning, fire suppression). They can occur quickly as in the case of catastrophic 

events like fire or flood, or over a long period of time as in the case of a gradual 

shift in climate patterns or repeated stresses like frequent fires (Caudle et al. 2013).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 65

Appendix 2. An Explanation of the Use of Landscape Measures to Describe 

Sagebrush Habitat_________________________________________________

Understanding landscape concepts of plant cover relative to typical management unit 

concepts of plant cover is important for prioritizing lands for management of sage-grouse. 

Ground cover measurements of sagebrush made at a management unit (for example, 

line-intercept measurements) should not be confused for landscape cover and may not 

relate well to landscape cover since the areas of examination differ vastly (square meters 

for management units and square kilometers for landscapes).

A landscape is defined rather arbitrarily as a large area in total spatial extent, somewhere 

in size between sites (acres or square miles) and regions (100,000s of square miles). The 

basic unit of a landscape is a patch, which is defined as a bounded area characterized 

by a similar set of conditions. A habitat patch, for example, may be the polygonal area 

on a map representing a single land cover type. Landscapes are composed of a mosaic 

of patches. The arrangement of these patches (the landscape configuration or pattern) 

has a large influence on the way a landscape functions and for landscape species, such 

as sage-grouse, sagebrush habitat patches are extremely important for predicting if this 

bird will be present within the area (Connelly et al. 2011).

Remotely sensed data of land cover is typically used to represent landscapes. These 

data may combine several sources of data and may include ancillary data, such as elevation, to improve the interpretation of data. These data are organized into pixels that 

contain a size or grain of land area. For example, LandSat Thematic Mapper spectral 

data used in determining vegetation cover generally have pixels that represent ground 

areas of 900 m2 (30- x 30-m). Each pixel’s spectral signature can be interpreted to determine what type of vegetation dominates that pixel. Groups of adjacent pixels with 

the same dominant vegetation are clustered together into polygons that form patches. 

Landscape cover of sagebrush is determined initially by using this vegetation cover 

map, but a ‘rolling window’ of a predetermined size (e.g., 5 km2 or 5,556 pixels that are 

30- by 30-m in size) is moved across the region one pixel at a time. The central pixel of 

the ‘window’ is reassigned a value for the proportion of pixels where sagebrush is the 

dominant vegetation. The process is repeated until pixels within the region are completely reassigned to represent the landscape cover of sagebrush within for the region 

drawn from a 5 km2 window. 
66 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Appendix 3. An Explanation of Soil Temperature and Moisture Regimes Used 

to Describe Sagebrush Ecosystems __________________________________

Soil climate regimes (temperature and moisture) are used in Soil Taxonomy to classify 

soils; they are important to consider in land management decisions, in part, because of 

the significant influence on the amounts and kinds of vegetation that soils support. Soil 

temperature and moisture regimes are assigned to soil map unit components as part of 

the National Cooperative Soil Survey program. Soil survey spatial and tabular data for 

the Sage-grouse Management Zones (Stiver et al. 2006) were obtained for each State 

within the zones at the Geospatial Data Gateway (http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/). 

Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) file geodatabases were used to display 

a 10-meter raster dataset. Multiple soil components made up a soil map unit, and soil 

moisture and temperature regimes were linked to individual soil map components. Soil 

components with the same soil moisture and temperature class regime were aggregated, 

and the dominant soil moisture and temperature regime within each soil map unit was 

used to characterize the temperature and moisture regime. Only temperature and moisture 

regimes applicable to sagebrush ecosystems were displayed.

Abbreviated definitions of each soil temperature and moisture regime class are listed 

below. Complete descriptions can be found in Keys to Soil Taxonsomy, 11th edition, 

available at ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Soil_Taxonomy/keys/2010_Keys_to_

Soil_Taxonomy.pdf.

Soil temperature regimes

Cryic (Cold) Soils that have a mean annual soil temperature of <8 °C, and do not have permafrost, at a 

depth of 50 cm below the surface or at a restrictive feature, whichever is shallower.

Frigid (Cool)

Soils that have a mean annual soil temperature of <8 °C and the difference between 

mean summer and mean winter soil temperatures is >6 °C at a depth of 50 cm below the 

surface or at a restrictive feature, whichever is shallower.

Mesic (Warm)

Soils that have a mean annual soil temperature of 8-15 °C and the difference between 

mean summer and mean winter soil temperatures is >6 °C at a depth of 50 cm below the 

surface or at a restrictive feature, whichever is shallower.

Soil moisture regimes

Ustic (summer precipitation)

Generally there is some plant-available moisture during the growing season, although 

significant periods of drought may occur. Summer precipitation allows presence of warm 

season plant species.

Xeric (Moist; generally 

mapped at >12 inches mean 

annual precipitation)

Characteristic of arid regions. The soil is dry for at least half the growing season and 

moist for less than 90 consecutive days.

Aridic (Dry; generally 

mapped at <12 inches mean 

annual precipitation)

Characteristic of arid regions. The soil is dry for at least half the growing season and 

moist for less than 90 consecutive days. 

Note: Soil moisture regimes are further divided into moisture subclasses, which are often used to indicate soils that are 

transitional to another moisture regime. For example, a soil with an Aridic moisture regime and a Xeric moisture subclass 

may be described as “Aridic bordering on Xeric.” Understanding these gradients becomes increasingly important when making interpretations and decisions at the site scale where aspect, slope, and soils affect the actual moisture regime on that site. 

More information on taxonomic moisture subclasses is available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/

ref/?cid=nrcs142p2_053576.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 67

Appendix 4. Data Sources for the Maps in This Report __________________

Dataset Citation Link

Geomac fire perimeters Walters, S.P.; Schneider, N.J.; Guthrie, 

J.D. 2011. Geospatial Multi-Agency 

Coordination (GeoMAC) wildland 

fire perimeters, 2008. Data Series 612. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.6 p.

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ds612

WFDSS fire perimeters Butler, B. B.; Bailey, A. 2013. Disturbance history 

(Historical wildland fires). Updated 8/9/2013. 

Wildland Fire Decision Support System. Online: 

https://wfdss.usgs.gov/wfdss/WFDSS_Home.

shtml [Accessed 5 March 2014]. 

https://wfdss.usgs.gov/wfdss/WFDSS_

Home.shtml

or 

https://wfdss.usgs.gov/wfdss/

WFDSSData_Downloads.shtml

Piñon and juniper land 

cover

U.S. Geological Survery (USGS) National Gap 

Analysis Program. 2004. Provisional digital 

land cover map for the southwestern United 

States. Version 1.0. Logan, UT: Utah State 

University, College of Natural Resources, RS/

GIS Laboratory.

http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/landcover.

html

Piñon and juniper land 

cover

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013: LANDFIRE 

1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. Updated 

3/13/2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Geological Survey. Online: http://

landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/. [Accessed 13 March 

2014].

http://www.landfire.gov/National

ProductDescriptions21.php

Nevada invasive annual 

grass index

Peterson, E. B. 2006. A map of invasive annual 

grasses in Nevada derived from multitemporal 

Landsat 5 TM imagery. Carson City, NV: State of 

Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Nevada Natural Heritage Program.

http://heritage.nv.gov/node/167

Owhyee upland annual 

grass index

Peterson, E. B. 2007. A map of annual grasses in the 

Owyhee Uplands, Spring 2006, derived from 

multitemporal Landsat 5 TM imagery. Carson 

City, NV: State of Nevada, Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Nevada 

Natural Heritage Program.

http://heritage.nv.gov/sites/default/

files/library/anngrowy_text_print.pdf

Soil data (SSURGO) Soil Survey Staff. 2014a. Soil Survey Geographic 

(SSURGO) Database. United States Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. Online: http://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.

gov/. [Accessed 3 March 2014a]. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/

portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?

cid=nrcs142p2_053627

Soil data (STATSGO) Soil Survey Staff. 2014b. U.S. General Soil 

Map (STATSGO2) Database. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. Online: http://

sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/. [Accessed 3 

March 2014b]. 
68 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Soil temperature and 

moisture regime data

Campbell, S. B. 2014. Soil temperature and moisture 

regime data for the range of greater sage-grouse. Data 

product. Portland, OR: USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. Online: https://www.

sciencebase.gov/catalog/folder/537f8be5e4b021317a

872f1b?community=LC+MAP+-+Landscape+Conser

vation+Management+and+Analysis+Portal [Accessed 

17 June 2014]. 

https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/folde

r/537f8be5e4b021317a872f1b?community

=LC+MAP+-+Landscape+Conservation+

Management+and+Analysis+Portal

Sage-grouse 

management zones

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

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

McCarthy, C. W.; Schroeder, M. A. 2006. Greater 

Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation 

Strategy. Unpublished report on file at: Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

Cheyenne, WY.

Breeding bird densities Doherty, K. E.; Tack, J. D.; Evans, J. S.; Naugle, 

D. E. 2010. Mapping breeding densities of 

greater sage-grouse: A tool for range-wide 

conservation planning. BLM completion report: 

Agreement # L10PG00911. 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=d

oherty+2010+breeding+bird&hl=en&

as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&

ei=JqQbU7HUAqfD2QW8xYFY&ved=0

CCUQgQMwAA

Sagebrush land cover U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013: LANDFIRE 

1.2.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. Updated 

3/13/2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Geological Survey. Online: http://

landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/. [Accessed 13 March 

2014].

http://www.landfire.gov/National

ProductDescriptions21.php
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 69

Appendix 5. State-and-transition models (STMs) for five generalized 

ecological types for big sagebrush (from Chambers et al. in press; Miller 

et al. 2014 a, b)____________________________________________________

These STMs represent groupings of ecological sites that are characterized by 

Wyoming or mountain big sagebrush, span a range of soil moisture/temperature 

regimes (warm/dry to cold/moist), and characterize a large portion of Management Zones III (Southern Great Basin), IV (Snake River Plains), V (Northern 

Great Basin), and VI (Columbia Basin). Large boxes illustrate states that are 

comprised of community phases (smaller boxes). Transitions among states are 

shown with arrows starting with T; restoration pathways are shown with arrows 

starting with R. The “at risk” community phase is most vulnerable to transition 

to an alternative state. Precipitation Zone is designated as PZ.

Figure A.5A. STM for a cryic/xeric mountain big sagebrush/mountain brush ecological type characterized by moderately high 

resilience and high resistance.
70 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure A.5B. STM for a cool frigid/xeric mountain big sagebrush ecological type that has piñon pine and/or juniper potential and 

is characterized by moderately high resilience and resistance.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 71

Figure A.5C. STM for a cool mesic to cool frigid/xeric mountain big sagebrush ecological type that is characterized by moderate 

resilience and resistance.
72 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014

Figure A.5D. STM for a cool mesic to warm frigid/xeric mountain big sagebrush ecological type type that has piñon pine and/

or juniper potential and is characterized by moderate resilience and moderately low resistance.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. 2014 73

Figure A.5E. STM for a mesic/aridic Wyoming big sagebrush ecological type with low to moderate resilience and low resistance.




The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex (including gender identity and expression), marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, reprisal, 

or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to: USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 

9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 

(English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

To learn more about RMRS publications or search our online titles:

www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper