gunnison sage-grouse ecology, san juan county utah sarah g. lupis, sharon ward, and terry a. messmer...
TRANSCRIPT
Gunnison Sage-grouse Ecology, San Juan County Utah
Sarah G. Lupis, Sharon Ward, and Terry A. Messmer
Utah State University Extension, Jack H. Berryman Institute, & Utah’s Community-Based Conservation Program
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Bureau of Land Management
Utah State University
San Juan County Extension Office
Guy Wallace
Dean Mitchell
Tammy Wallace
Doug Christiansen
Don Andrews
Fischer the dog…and others!
• San Juan County Gunnison Sage-grouse Local Working Group (SWOG) identified the need to maintain and/or increase acreage of CRP in SJC
• In 1998, SJC was designated a “priority conservation area” because of Gunnison Sage-grouse
• 21,600 acres currently enrolled• Needed to evaluate the value of CRP• Little known about seasonal habitat
use
Study Area
Study Area
Conservation Reserve ProgramConcentrated Use Zone
Grazed CRP
•What are important seasonal habitats?•Do Gunnison Sage-grouse use CRP? •Does CRP help to achieve desired vegetation conditions?•What is the response of Gunnison Sage-grouse to the emergency grazing of some CRP fields?
Objectives
• In June 2002, a drought emergency was declared for SJC• Precipitation was 40% below normal
•Some CRP was opened to emergency grazing due to drought conditions•Emergency grazing substituted for regular, required maintenance of CRP
•Destruction of sagebrush by bedding livestock•Deterioration of wet meadow habitat•Trampled eggs•Abandoned nests
Grazing Debate…briefly
Beck and Mitchell 2000
•Destruction of sagebrush by bedding livestock•Deterioration of wet meadow habitat•Trampled eggs•Abandoned nests
•Stimulated forb growth
Grazing Debate…briefly
Beck and Mitchell 2000
•Destruction of sagebrush by bedding livestock•Deterioration of wet meadow habitat•Trampled eggs•Abandoned nests
•Simulated forb growth
In general, little empirical evidence about sage-grouse responses to grazing.
Grazing Debate…briefly
Beck and Mitchell 2000
Year Male Female
2001 4 1
2002 3 5
2003 6 6
2004 10 7
• Monitored 41 Gunnison Sage-grouse in 2001-2004 •Located birds 3 times a week•Nests were considered successful if 1 egg hatched; broods were considered successful if 1 chick survived to 50 days post-hatch
Use of CRP
• Defined a “concentrated use zone” that encompassed all bird locations– Considered to be “available” for all radio-collared birds
• 31% CRPManley et al. 2002
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
Bird Use Sites
• Percent cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs using a Daubenmire frame every 2 meters.
Daubenmire 1959
Use of CRP
• 14/19 hens nested (6)• 40% nests in CRP• 4 successful broods• 73% of brood locations
in CRP
Use of CRP
• 74% male locations in CRP• 49% broodless hen
locations in CRP
Moose Peterson
Use of CRP
• Sample size small but, given small population size, still somewhat representative
• Use of CRP high (48.5%, 73.8%, 72.9%)• Use of CRP not significant (χ2, P 0.05) for
nesting, brood-rearing, males, or broodless hens during this study
Bird Use Sites• CRP sites used by Gunnison Sage-grouse
partially met rangewide guidelines.
Gunnison Sage-grouse Use Sites Rangewide Guidelines
Nests Broods Broodless Hens
Males Breeding Late Summer/Fall
% Cover n=1 n=9 n=9 n=45
Grass 6.0 9.4 10.6 24.1 10-30 10-25
Forb 0.5 10.7 2.1 6.4 5-15 5-15
Shrub 27.5 3.0 10.0 3.0 20-40 10-30
Litter - 6.8 27.3 7.9 - -
Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005
Landscape Scale Habitat Use
• CRP likely provides roosting cover and food resources– Alfalfa, dandelions, and
other forbs– Insects
Emergency Grazing
Field AUM Duration Utilization
1 4.3 11 June-late July 75%
2 2.6 15 June- 2 August 75%
3 2.8 2 August-2 September
80%
4 1.8 12 July-mid-September
65%
NRCS 2002
Emergency Grazing
• Evaluated movement patters of radio-collared birds in area open to emergency grazing– 3 males– 2 broodless hens– 1 hen with a brood
Emergency Grazing
• 42.8% (18/42) locations were in CRP prior to grazing
• During grazing, use of CRP decreased– 18.2% of locations
(2/11) in Field 1– 37.5% of locations
(3/8) in Field 4– No locations in Field
2 or 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
% Locations inGrazed CRP
Prior toGrazing
Field 1
Field 2
Field 3
Field 4
Radio-collared Males
Emergency Grazing
• 56.0% (14/25) locations were in CRP prior to grazing
• During grazing, use of CRP decreased– 8.3% of locations
(1/12) in Field 1– 5.3% of locations
(1/19) in Field 2– No locations in Field
3 or 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% Locations inGrazed CRP
Prior toGrazing
Field 1
Field 2
Field 3
Field 4
Radio-collared Broodless Hens
• Hen and brood did not exhibit avoidance
• 50% of locations in CRP before grazing
• 72.7% (8/11) locations in CRP during and after grazing.
Emergency Grazing
During and After Emergency Grazing
Before Emergency Grazing
Emergency Grazing
• Vegetation at brood use sites prior to and during/after emergency grazing.– Less grass cover– Less shrub cover– Greater forb cover– Similar litter cover
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
%Grass
%Forb
%Shrub
%Litter
Prior toGrazing
Durring/AfterGrazing
Emergency Grazing
• Most radio-collared birds showed some avoidance of grazed CRP
• Hen with a brood was most tolerant
• Some indication that brood use shifted from grass to shrub dominated as grasses were reduced
• Returned to grazed fields in subsequent years
Winter Habitat Use
• 29 birds monitored during 2002-2004 winters
• Most locations in black sagebrush and (52%) big sagebrush/CRP (25%)
• Home range less than 4 sq. km
• Flock size 2-30 plus birds
Conclusions• CRP in San Juan County provides
crucial breeding and summer habitat for Gunnison Sage-grouse
• CRP partially meets guidelines for desired breeding/summer conditions
• Most radio-collared Gunnison Sage-grouse exhibited short-term avoidance of livestock grazing
• Black sagebrush and big sagebrush/CRP important winter habitat
Recommendations
• Maintain current enrollment in CRP
• Sagebrush plantings• Wet meadow development• Winter habitat protection
For more information:
Utah’s Community-Based Conservation Program:
www.utahcbcp.org
Questions?