 |
 |
Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Purpose:
Identification of sage grouse habitat use patterns and evaluation of the effects
of previous habitat management actions on sage grouse recruitment, abundance
and dispersion, and range/habitat conditions.
Cooperators:
Parker Mountain Grazing Associations (PMGA), Utah State University (USU) (To
include the Extension Service, Jack H.Berryman Institute, Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife, College of Natural Resources, and Utah Agricultural Experiment
Station), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), U.S. Forest Service
(USFS), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDA Wildlife Services (WS),
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA),
State of Utah School and Institutional Lands Administration (SITLA), Wayne
County Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR).
Effective date:Upon the last signature to the MOU through June 30, 2003.
I.Background
The Parker Mountain Resource Area (PRA) is located in south central Utah in Garfield, Piute, and Wayne counties. The resource area encompasses the Awapa Plateau and a northern portion of the Aquarius Plateau. It is bounded on the south by the Escalante and Boulder Mountains, on the east by Rabbit Valley, on the north by the Fish Lake Mountains, and on the west by the escarpment of Parker Mountains. The PRA encompasses 259,881 acres (105,171 ha), managed by the USFS, BLM, SITAL, and private land owners. The predominant land use in the area is grazing by domestic livestock with some logging occurring in the higher elevations.
Griner (1939) reported sage grouse populations in Wayne County between 5,200-9,200 birds in 1935-1936. By 1969, sage grouse populations in Wayne County were estimated at 2,982 birds with peak cock counts on leks of 497. Population surveys conducted in 1997 by the UDWR estimated that 644 birds remained in the PRA with peak lek counts of cocks at 161. Sage grouse numbers on the area have been monitored since 1967 and although strutting ground counts of displaying cocks have varied greatly over that time, a continual population decline is apparent. The sagebrush habitat of the area has escaped many of the development pressures and continues to be one of the few areas remaining in Utah with relatively large numbers of sage grouse. Still, sage grouse populations continue to decline. Limited information exists concerning current PRA sage grouse microhabitat requirements for use in implementing habitat improvements designed to benefit the population.
Previous
PRA sage grouse habitat management actions
Over time, PARM cooperators have developed over 80 watering areas on the PRA.
These watering areas have improved livestock grazing distributions and benefitted
wildlife. Because most of the watering sites consist of impoundments, their
season of use is largely regulated by precipitation and subsequent runoff.
Some of the watering sites have been fenced to exclude domestic livestock
and wild ungulates. The vegetation within the fences is protected from grazing.
The fencing has protected the water sources from trampling and reduced sedimentation
in the impoundment basins thus improving water quality and permanence. Sage
grouse use of these areas appears to be higher than on other unfenced watering
areas. In effect, the enclosures have resulted in the creation of vegetation
buffer zones which may have enhanced the water holding capacity of these areas
thus making them more attractive to sage grouse broods.
Review of possible factors contributing to PRA sage grouse population declines
The most likely cause for declining sage grouse populations on the PRA may be poor chick survival and increased mortality of adult birds. Poor chick survival is generally attributed to insufficient forb and insect abundance. The brood cover types preferred during a previous study exhibited a higher diversity of forb species and a greater mass of forbs than other areas (Jarvis 1973). Forb and insect abundances are closely correlated to periods of above average precipitation and most importantly the presence of undisturbed wet meadow areas interspersed with sage brush cover.
Precipitation patterns on the PRA are typically characterized as being sporadic in nature with reoccurring periods of drought and abundant moisture. To manage for drought conditions, the PMGA in conjunction with STL, NRCS, USFS, and BLM have developed supplemental livestock watering impoundments. Some of these impoundment sites have been fenced to limit livestock access. These sites having higher moisture retention potentials and appear to support an increased diversity of forbs. Therefore, it is believed that the fenced impoundments may support higher densities of sage grouse broods. If this relationship can be documented, fencing of other impoundments would benefit sage grouse populations.
Limitations of previous biological work for application to contemporary management
Although the Jarvis study conducted in 1970-1972 provided important preliminary data regarding resource area sage grouse populations, population levels, dynamics, and the predator community; these factors seem to have changed substantially. The Jarvis study determined sage grouse macrohabitat preferences under favorable environmental conditions and during periods when grouse and domestic livestock densities were high and eagle populations low. Jarvis (1973) also was unable to define specific microhabitat use preferences because he relied strictly on direct observational data from marked birds that were flushed. Observations of flushed marked birds can be biased because of the amount of vegetation cover present and population densities. Through the use of modern radio telemetry techniques and radio-marked birds we will be able to get brood locations regardless of the cover type being utilized.
Suitable sage grouse habitat for mating, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering appears to be spatially separated on the PRA. This spatial separation requires increased movement of birds to suitable areas and may result in higher rates of predation. By identifying and focusing habitat improvements in these areas, we may be able to reduce migration distances to seasonal ranges hence mortality risks associated with these movements. Previous studies (Eng and Schladweiler 1972, Wallestad and Pyrah 1974), have indicated that lek sites may be a center of activity for sage grouse year round. This may not be the case on PRA.
II. The Parker Mountain Resource Area Adaptive Resource Management Plan (PARM)
PARM is a public and private partnership that has been formed to implement an adaptive resource management approach to address stakeholder resource concerns and work toward achieving the goal of providing multiple benefits for all resource users and wildlife inhabiting the area. The immediate objective of PARM is to restore sage grouse populations. However, it is still unclear what needs to be done to increase sage grouse populations. Therefore, PARM partners propose to implement a 4-year adaptive resource management (Lancia et al. 1996) population and habitat monitoring program to determine the possible reasons for declining sage grouse population on the PRA and evaluate the effects of experimental management actions on sage grouse habitat and populations.
PARM Objectives
1. To identify
contemporary habitat use patterns of sage grouse that inhabit the PRA.
2. To evaluate the effect of previous management efforts on sage grouse habitat
use.
3 To implement and evaluate management actions on the PRA designed to restore
sage grouse distributions and numbers as determined by the carrying capacity
of the habitat.
4. To provide optimal benefits for PRA resource users.
III. PARM Implementation
PARM will initially concentrate on identifying and implementing management actions that result in improving habitat quality for sage grouse and improving range habitat conditions. The factors that affect these conditions include: (1) lack of grasses and forbs, (2) poor winter range conditions, (3) increased soil degradation and erosion, (4) lack of land treatments, (5) degradation of riparian zones, (6) fire suppression, (7) drought, (8) inappropriate livestock and wild ungulate grazing distributions and densities, (9) timing, intensity and duration of livestock grazing, (10) weed invasions, (11) the lack of suitable livestock and wildlife watering areas, and (12) increased physical disturbance (i.e., hunting, poaching, predation, ORV use, disturbance during critical reproductive seasons by conflicting land uses, birdwatching). Increased predation or disturbance by avian predators because one or more of these factors acting in concert can impact sage grouse.
1. Identify PRA sage grouse habitat use patterns and mortality factors.
We will identify areas used most readily for strutting grounds, nest sites, and brood rearing. By careful evaluation of these locations and their associated cover types and vegetation composition (microhabitats) we can determine critical sage grouse habitat requirements on the PRA. With this information we can then implement habitat improvements in the most critical areas.
Major vegetation types on the PRA will be mapped using GIS technology. We will obtain satellite coverage of the PRA for summer vegetation conditions during 1984 and compare those conditions to imagery obtained for 1998. These images will enable us to determine to what degree, if any, habitat conditions have changed over time. The 1998 imagery will be used to spatially map current sage grouse movements and habitat use patterns.
Predation on sage grouse is a naturally occurring dynamic process which has helped to shape both predator and prey communities over time. However, due to changes in predator hierarchy and composition, habitat quantity and quality, and prey abundance, predation may have significant impacts on remnant sage grouse populations occupying fragmented habitats. Such may be the case for the PRA sage grouse. Predation management is recognized by PARM as a necessary measure to protect and increase sage grouse populations.
Nest predation
on PRA sage grouse may be attributed to ravens (Corvus corax), coyotes (Canis
latrans), and badgers (Taxidea taxus). Predation on young and adult sage grouse
may be by domestic sheep dogs (Canis domesticus), coyotes, bobcats (Lynx rufus),
Norther harriers (Circus cyaneus), and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos).
Coyote population densities on the PRA are managed by Wildlife Services. So,
presumably coyotes may be having little impact on the grouse.
Eagle populations have increased on the study area since 1972 (L. Bogedahl,
UDWR pers. comm.). Eagle counts were begun in 1972 with 3 birds being counted.
In 1986, when the counts were discontinued, 30 birds were counted on the same
survey routes. We propose to renew standard eagle survey routes to establish
current numbers of these avian predators on the study area. Although golden
eagles were the primary concern, over the last several years bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) have also increased in abundance. Sparse vegetation or escape
cover around strutting grounds and water areas may be increasing the susceptibility
of both young and adult birds to these avian predators. The impact of high
densities of golden eagles on resident wildlife species may be more pronounced
in areas where the birds winter. When eagles are concentrated on winter ranges
and prey is reduced, larger, slower flying species such as sage grouse are
at increased risk of predation.
Any eagle damage
management activities that may be conducted will be consistent with existing
laws, regulations, and permits and under the supervision of the Utah state
director for Wildlife Services. Wildlife Services has the statutory authority
to cooperate with " ...states, local jurisdictions, individuals, and
public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions..." for
the control of wildlife damage. Wildlife Services will cooperate in the protection
of wildlife populations through agreements with private landowners and PARM
cooperators.
2. Evaluate the effect of previous management efforts on sage grouse habitat
use
We propose to evaluate previous habitat improvements implemented on the PRA. We will determine what components are present in these areas that are lacking in untreated sites to focus resources in the right place. To evaluate the effects of the improvements on sage grouse populations and provide a basis for management recommendations we will establish an ongoing population and range habitat monitoring program that can be conducted by PARM cooperators.
This monitoring program will include measurements of seasonal precipitation amounts and patterns, daily ambient temperatures, vegetational structure and composition within exclosure sites, insect abundance, and water level. The same measurements will also be taken at randomly selected reservoirs lacking a buffer zone. These environmental data coupled with new information on sage grouse movements and habitat use will enable PARM to determine the contributions specific PRA management actions made toward enhancing grouse populations and improving range habitat conditions.
3. Implement and evaluate management actions
PARM will focus resources on those areas that show the most promise for having significant benefits to the recovery of sage grouse and enhanced agricultural production. As habitat improvements are implemented, sage grouse population responses will be analyzed and used to guide future improvements. For sage grouse, the initial recommendations for habitat improvement activities and placement will be made after reviewing 1998 habitat use and mortality data. The habitat and management projects recommended will be implemented during the fall and winter of 1998 and early spring 1999. Sage grouse population winter movements, habitat use and mortality will be monitored during 1998-2001. These data will be used to develop recommendations for habitat improvements designed to create or enhance winter cover and management actions to reduce predator impacts if predation proves to be a significant mortality factor. These habitat and management actions will be implemented during the spring and summer of 1999-2001.
Management strategies implemented to benefit Utah prairie dogs have been identified in the Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan. Site-specific habitat improvement recommendations for sage grouse will be coordinated with PARM cooperators and the Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Team to ensure the actions are compatible with prairie dog recovery efforts.
4. PARM administration
Essential to implementation of the PARM process is the collecting, analysis, and dissemination of data regarding PRA sage grouse habitat use patterns. This information will be needed to develop, prioritize, implement, and evaluate management actions. Given the current time and manpower constraints faced by PARM cooperators, a full-time graduate student technician will be hired to implement the initial sage grouse population and habitat monitoring phase of the project. This individual will conduct scientific evaluations and immediately disseminate and interpret the results for PARM to use in making management decisions. This individual would be under the immediate supervision of the USU Fisheries and Wildlife Extension specialist. The initial focus of this individual's work will be to assess PRA sage grouse movements, habitat use, and mortality factors. In addition, we propose to hire a part-time range habitat technician to monitor range condition trends on the PRA. This technician would be supervised by USU through the Wayne County Extension Office.
5. PARM funding for habitat management actions
Once site specific
habitat management actions/experiments are identified, funding to implement
the experiments will be sought from PARM cooperators. Support, both in kind
and direct, may
come from existing and new conservation cost-share programs administered by
NRCS, UDWR, FSA, SITAL, USFS, BLM, USFWS, USU, PMGA, and private conservation
organizations.
IV. Plan maintenance
A. Scope of Work
PARM cooperators agree that habitat improvements implemented to restore sage grouse populations on PRA should also improve range habitat conditions leading to enhanced agricultural production and assist in recovery of the Utah prairie dog. We propose to implement PARM to achieve multiple resource goals. PARM will allow project cooperators to gain more knowledge about how sage grouse use habitats relative to changing environmental conditions. PARM will allow research and management to occur at the same time. Consequently, PARM will reduce the uncertainty regarding the impacts of any management action on sage grouse or other wildlife populations and ultimately result in improved overall management of the PRA.
B. Term of MOU
This MOU is effective as to the date of the last signature and will remain in force and effect until June 30, 2003, at which time the Scope of Work described herein shall be completed unless extended by mutual agreement.
| Share Info | Check out the message board and stay up to date on grazing issues. |
