Greater sagegrouse response to sagebrush management in Utah

Greater sage-grouse response to sagebrush management in Utah by David K. Dahlgren Renee Y. Chi Terry A. Messmer Utah State University

Outline 1. Introduction 2. Study Area 3. Methods: Vegetation Treatment, Sage-grouse Use, Data Analysis 4. Results: Vegetation response and Sage-grouse Use 5. Discussion 6. Management Implications

Introduction • MOU – WAFWA 1999 (Connelly et al. 2004 appendix 1) Objective 4: “Conduct management experiments on a sufficient scale to demonstrate that management of habitats can stabilize and enhance sage grouse distribution and abundance” • ~ 30% of sagebrush lands in the Western U. S. are privately owned (Connelly et al. 2004) • 50% of Utah’s remaining sage-grouse populations occur on private land, and all 4 major populations (Box Elder, Rich, Uintah, and Wayne counties) depend on large portions of non-federal land • NRCS- Farm Bill and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)

Study Area: Parker Mountain Vegetation Characteristics Sage-grouse Use (elevations) Livestock Grazing Precipitation Regimes Parker Lake Pasture - Brood-rearing habitat - preliminary conditions

Methods: Treatment -Spike, Dixie harrow, Lawson aerator, and control -16 - 40. 5 ha plots (4 reps) -Plots randomly assigned treatment - 5 random 20 m transects per plot - mosaic treatment pattern - Artemesia tridentata vaseyana only - treated vs. untreated transects -Shrub (all) Canopy – Line Intercept Method (Canfield 1941) with one exception - Grass and Forb cover – variation of the Point Intercept Method (Levy and Madden 1933) and post-treatment Daubenmire Frames - Seed mix in Dixie

Photo by Larry Greenwood http: //www. blm. gov/nstc/resou rcenotes/rn 75. html Dixie Harrow Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher

Lawson Aerator Photo by Lee Rindlisbacher

Methods – Use Pellet Count Transect - 16 total plots (D, L, S, C) -3 random transects per plot -2 samples (August 2003 and 2004) -Distance to Center -Cluster Size Estimated Distance to Edge 40. 5 ha Plot

Parker Mountain Sage Boomer…a. k. a. Parker Methods – Use Birddog Survey -Cover entire plot ~1. 5 dog hours -2 surveys per year July and Aug 2003 and 2004 -Unkown adult, male, hen, chicks -2003 (1 of 2 dogs) and 2004 (Utah Chukar Foundation) Transect 40. 5 ha plot My Little Buddy III…a. k. a. Buddy

Time Line July-pretreatment sampling Spike and control 2000 June and July-post treatment sampling all plots August-pretreatment sampling Mechanicals and control 2001 July-pretreatment sampling grass and forb for mechanicals Fall-Spike application 2002 Fall-Dixie harrow and Lawson aerator application Regular Grazing Regimes 2003 2004 2005 July and August-Birddog Surveys and Pellet counts Parker Lake Pasture rested, except for incidental late fall grazing Regular Grazing Regimes

Methods: Data Analysis -Vegetation Treatment -2 analyses: 1) Spike vs. Control and 2) Mechanical Treatments vs. Control -BACI (Underwood 1994) and proc MIXED (SAS Institute Inc. 2002 -2003) -Change in Before to After Means -Variables -Shrub Cover (all), Grass Cover, Forb Cover -Sage-grouse Use -Pellet Counts: Program DISTANCE with Z test comparing treatments -Variables: Pellet Cluster Density -Distance to edge data: histogram format 10 m increments -Dandelion cover (Daubenmire data): ANOVA with a P <0. 05 comparing treatments -Birddog Surveys: ANOVA with a P <0. 05 comparing treatments -Variables: Total Grouse and Total Broods

Results: Treatment Spike Vs. Control Grass Cover: no difference (F = 1. 03, P = 0. 35) Forb Cover: difference (F = 15. 91, P = 0. 01) Shrub Cover: no difference (F = 1. 00, P =0. 36) Mechanicals Vs. Control Grass Cover: no difference (F = 2. 94, P = 0. 10) Forb Cover: difference (F = 5. 58, P = 0. 03) Dixie to Control (t = -2. 41, P = 0. 02) Dixie to Lawson (t = 3. 26, P < 0. 01) Shrub Cover: difference (F = 5. 42, P = 0. 03) Dixie to Control (t = 2. 28, P = 0. 03) Lawson to Control (t = 3. 20, P < 0. 01) Dandelion Cover (all plots) (F = 2. 60, P = 0. 10) moderate

Results – Use – Pellet Count - Pellets found in ARNO, ARTR, ARCA, Aspen, and Treatment, but only ARNO, ARTR, and Treatment used in analysis Comparisons: P value C-S 0. 01 C-D 0. 43 C-L 0. 59 S-D 0. 11 S-L 0. 03 D-L 0. 69

Results – Use Birddog Survey Total Sage-grouse Comparisons: P value C-S <0. 01 C-D 0. 14 C-L 0. 09 S-D 0. 03 S-L 0. 05 D-L 0. 79

Results – Use Birddog Survey Brood Use Comparisons: P value C-S <0. 01 C-D 0. 30 C-L 0. 19 S-D <0. 01 S-L <0. 01 D-L 0. 77

Results-Distance to Edge Plot type Dixie harrow (treated) Dixie harrow (untreated) Lawson aerator (untreated) Tebuthiuron (untreated) Control Drop off 20 -30 m >80 m 30 -40 m 40 -50 m 20 -30 m

Results: Distance to Edge • examples of histograms

Treatment Discussion - Shrub Canopy decreased to within sage -grouse brood rearing guidelines (10 – 25% ) (Connelly et al. 2000) Treatment

Treatment Discussion - Forb Cover increased with Spike and Dixie compared to control Treatment

Discussion -Lawson aerator problems -Distance to Edge data suggest sage-grouse prefer edge habitat (< 30 m) while using treatment areas, and adjacent intact sagebrush -Sage-grouse in general and broods specifically preferred Spike plots…Why? -Increased forb cover, specifically dandelion cover -Partial kill of sagebrush resulting in a “feathered effect” creating increased edge -Shrub cover 15 -25% and forb response

Management Implications • All treatments can achieve shrub canopy guidelines for brood-rearing habitat if initial conditions are > 25% Shrub canopy • Dixie harrow and Spike can be used to increase forb cover, which is the most important component of brood -rearing habitat

Management Implications >When applying spike a low rate (we used 0. 3 active ingredient) should be used to have a partial sagebrush kill >We recommend when using Dixie harrow or Lawson aerator treatment should be widths not exceeding 60 m, and intact sagebrush should be at least 60 m, and in a mosaic design maximizing edge

Management Implications • Caution should be exercised when conducting these management techniques at different elevations, precipitation regimes, subspecies of big sagebrush, or soil substrates • Additionally, local sage-grouse seasonal habitats should be known and delineated, as these treatments may not be appropriate for winter or nesting habitat

Take Home Message Our results suggest a brood-rearing habitat management strategy that, when shrub canopy limits the understory, creates a mosaic of smallscale treatments that maximized edge, creating resource patches that are particularly attractive to broods

Acknowledgements Terry Messmer PARM UDWR Committee members Paper Published in Susan Durham Russ Norvell Lee Rindlesbacher Ron Daigle The Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4): 975 -985 Terron Pickett Chris Perkins Kevin Labrum Renee Chi Dwayne Elmore Trapping Team Volunteers For copies e-mail me at: DKD@cc. usu. edu