Additional funding from the

Colorado Agricultural

Experiment Station

A range perspective on managing vegetation for Greater sage-grouse

Presented by Retta Bruegger

Regional Specialist, Range

Retta.Bruegger@colostate.edu

(970) 988 - 0043

Sage-grouse: Greater and Gunnison

• Gunnison listed as threatened

• Greater not listed• Up for review in 2020

What does this mean for your management today?

“Greater sage-grouse objectives and well-managed livestock operations are compatible because forage availability for livestock and hiding cover for Greater sage-grouse are both dependent on healthy plant communities.”

- Northwest Colorado Greater sage-grouse approved RMR Amendment

Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-grouse

Criteria

Percent grass cover

Percent forb cover

Percent sagebrush cover

Forb and grass height

Sagebrush height

From the Northwest Colorado Greater sage-grouse approved RMR Amendment

1. Decisions outcomes

Livestock Production Wildlife Habitat

Potential is relative to soils, topography, and climate

2. No one-size fits all approach

Potential Vegetation:Alkali Sage

RabbitbrushWestern Wheatgrass

Bluebunch Wheatgrass

Potential Vegetation:Idaho/Arizona FescueBearded wheatgrass

Needle grassSlender wheatgrass

Big Sagebrush

Typical Production:

1500 lbs/acre

Typical Production: 500 lbs/acre

Claypan Mountain Loam

Ecological site concept

Mountain Loam

Mountain Loam

Aspen Woodland

Mountain Loam

Claypan

Landscapes are a patchwork of different ecological sites

Study areas in Moffat County

Loamy

Sandy Land/ Rolling Loam

Moffat County Observed West Moffat (52 plots)

Observed East Moffat (73 plots)

Percent grass cover 12% (2014) - 22% (2015) 62%

Percent perennial forb cover 1% (2014 -2015) 5% (but large range across sites)

Percent sagebrush cover 13% 20%

Sagebrush height 12.6 inches 20 inches

Do brush treatments improve sage-grouse habitat and livestock grazing?

Brush treatments are one option for management• Mow

• Herbicide

• “Drag”

• Improve grass production

• Improve wildlife habitat

Study areas in Moffat County

Sandy Land/ Rolling Loam

Mow – 1996

Drag – 1997 & 98

How do mechanical treatments differ from control plots?

Drag – 1997 & 98Photo: July 2013

Control

Mow – 1996

Drag – 1997 & 98

Two mechanical treatments – Drag and Mow

Drag – 1997 & 98Photo: July 2013

Mow – 1996Photo: July 2013

* *

*

*

Mechanical Treatment Effects (15y later)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Grass Forb Shrub Forb Count Species Count

Ab

solu

te C

ove

r (%

)

Control

Mechanical

Mow

Drag

*

Will brush treatments produce the effect I want?

Livestock Production Wildlife Habitat

Take-homes

• No one-size-fits all! • We see different

responses in the different areas we sampled.

• Learn about the potential of allotments/ lands you manage.

• What is the current baseline for “desired criteria” on lands you manage?

Resources for learning about your area• Colorado Cattleman's

Association and CRMI

• Web soil survey

• NRCS

• Past observations by yourself or others

• NW Colorado Learning from the Land

Questions & Thank you!

• Please visit our website at:

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/learning-from-the-land

• Contact Information:

Retta BrueggerRegional Specialist, RangeCSU Extension

Retta.Bruegger@colostate.edu(970) 988 -0043

• Project staff includes: Maria Fernandez-Gimenez, Cameron Aldridge, James Pritchett, John Ritten, Paul Meiman, Emily Kachergis, Corrie Knapp, Willow Hibbs, Jennifer Timmer, Crystal Tipton, and Christopher Dickey.

THANK YOU to:

• Participating ranchers in Routt, Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties.

• Participating staff from CPW, BLM, Forest Service and NRCS.

Mountain Loam

Study areas in Routt County

Claypan

Disturbance that reduces shrub cover (fire,herbicide) combined with recovery of the herbaceous understory under lower grazing pressure and/or more precipitation

Mt. Big Sagebrush-Diverse Understory

Dense or Eroding Mt. Big Sagebrush-Shrubland

Reduction of the herbaceous understory, caused by heavy grazing and/or drought, combined with lack of disturbance that reduces shrub cover.

Dense or Eroding Mt. Big SagebrushShrubland-

807 lbs/acreSpecies richness: 38.2

Invasives: 2.2%Erosiveness: 6.6

Sage Grouse habitat: .53Mule Deer habitat: .51

Mt. Big Sagebrush-Diverse Understory

1934 lbs/acreSpecies richness: 41.4

Invasives: 0%Erosiveness: 5.2

Sage Grouse habitat: .67Mule Deer habitat: .61

Mountain Loam – Ecological consequences

Mt. Big Sagebrush-Diverse Understory

Dense or Eroding Mt. Big Sagebrush-Shrubland

Mountain Loam – Economic implications

• Not treating might be detrimental

• Profitable 30% of the time in simulation

• From Ritten et. al. 2011 Do Livestock and Ecosystem Services Compete? A State-and-Transition Approach. Presented at Range Beef Cow Symposium XXII, November 29, 30, and December 1, 2011, Mitchell, Nebraska.

Claypan

500 lbs./acre

7,048 ft (average)

Mountain Loam

1,500 lbs./acre

7,048 ft (average)

Different sites have different outcomes

Sandy Land/ Rolling Loam

536 lbs./acre

6,579 ft (average)

2. No one-size fits all approach

Loamy 7-10’’Moffat County (Western)

Sandy Land and Rolling LoamMoffat County (Eastern)

Mountain Loam(Routt County)

Precipitation Higher, 14 -35’’ annual precipitation

Lower, 7-12’’ annual precipitation

Seasonal habitat desired conditions for Greater sage-grouse

Criteria

Percent grass cover

Percent forb cover

Percent sagebrush cover

Forb and grass height

Sagebrush height

From the Northwest Colorado Greater sage-grouse approved RMR Amendment

Mesic sites criteriaObserved (21 plots)

Desired for Mesic sites

Percent grass cover 34 % > 25% (brood rearing)

Percent forb cover 44 % > 15% (breeding and nesting)

Percent sagebrush cover

24 % 20- 30%

Forb and grass height

9 inches (GrassONLY)

> 6 inches

Sagebrush height 20 inches 13.8 to 31.4 inches

Native Alkali Sagebrush Steppe

Native Grassland

Fire and/or spraying reduces shrub cover

Shrubs re-colonize over time

Native Alkali Sagebrush Steppe1192 lbs/acre

Species richness: 36.6Invasives: 0.7%Erosiveness: 8.5

Sage Grouse habitat: .47Mule Deer habitat: .26

Native Grassland960 lbs/acre

Species richness: 28.3Invasives: 0.5%Erosiveness: 8.0

Sage Grouse habitat:.24Mule Deer habitat: .11

Claypan – Ecological consequences

Native Alkali Sagebrush Steppe

Native Grassland

Claypan – Is it worth it economically?

• Simulation model never economically “worth it” to spray claypan

• From Ritten et. al. 2011 Do Livestock and Ecosystem Services Compete? A State-and-Transition Approach. Presented at Range Beef Cow Symposium XXII, November 29, 30, and December 1, 2011, Mitchell, Nebraska.

Fire and/or spraying

Shru

bs

re-c

olo

niz

e o

ver

tim

e

Data we Collected Data collected in plots, 164 ftby 164 ft5 transects• Site definition

• Metadata (soils & topography)

• Plant Community• Cover (basal and

foliar)• Production• Composition• Species richness

• Functionality• Gap intercept• Pedoderm class

• Wildlife abundance and habitat• Songbird and sage-

grouse surveys• Visual obstruction

• Site use• Utilization • Dung surveys

(horse, cow, elk, deer)

Moffat County Observed WestMoffat (52 plots)

Observed EastMoffat (73 plots)

Desired for Arid Sites

Percent grass cover 12% (2014) - 22%(2015)

62% > 15% (brood-rearing)

Percent perennialforb cover

1% (2014 -2015) But not nesting and breeding habitat

5% (but large range across sites)

> 5% (breeding and nesting)

Percent sagebrush cover

13% 20% 10-25%

Sagebrush height 12.6 inches 20 inches 11.8 to 31.5 inches