Gunnison Sage-grouse Ecology, San Juan County Utah

1. 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

2. 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!

3. 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

5. Study Area

6. Study Area Concentrated Use Zone Conservation Reserve Program Grazed CRP

7. Objectives • 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?

8. In June 2002, a drought emergency was declared for SJC • Precipitation was 40% below normal

9. Some CRP was opened to emergency grazing due to drought conditions • Emergency grazing substituted for regular, required maintenance of CRP

10. Grazing Debate…briefly • Destruction of sagebrush by bedding livestock • Deterioration of wet meadow habitat • Trampled eggs • Abandoned nests Beck and Mitchell 2000

11. Grazing Debate…briefly • Destruction of sagebrush by bedding livestock • Deterioration of wet meadow habitat • Trampled eggs • Abandoned nests • Stimulated forb growth Beck and Mitchell 2000

12. Grazing Debate…briefly • 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. Beck and Mitchell 2000

13. 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

14. Use of CRP • Defined a “concentrated use zone” that encompassed all bird locations • Considered to be “available” for all radio-collared birds • 31% CRP Manley et al. 2002

15. Bird Use Sites • Percent cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs using a Daubenmire frame every 2 meters. Daubenmire 1959

16. Use of CRP • 14/19 hens nested (6) • 40% nests in CRP • 4 successful broods • 73% of brood locations in CRP

17. Moose Peterson Use of CRP • 74% male locations in CRP • 49% broodless hen locations in CRP

18. 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

19. Bird Use Sites • CRP sites used by Gunnison Sage-grouse partially met rangewide guidelines. Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005

20. Landscape Scale Habitat Use • CRP likely provides roosting cover and food resources • Alfalfa, dandelions, and other forbs • Insects

21. Emergency Grazing NRCS 2002

22. 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

23. Emergency Grazing Radio-collared Males • 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

24. Emergency Grazing Radio-collared Broodless Hens • 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

25. Before Emergency Grazing During and After Emergency Grazing Emergency Grazing • 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.

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

30. 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

31. Recommendations Maintain current enrollment in CRP Sagebrush plantings Wet meadow development Winter habitat protection

32. Questions? For more information: Utah’s Community-Based Conservation Program: www.utahcbcp.org